The URL can be used to link to this page

18-742 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 423 (Environmental Assessment/Initial Study) for SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 Lead Agency: City of Menifee 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Contact: Ryan Fowler CEQA Consultant: T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 505-6360, ext. 101 Contact: Jerrica Harding, Senior Associate Public Hearing Draft: October 2018 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Name and Number Page 1.1 History of Specific Plan No. 301 ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Summary ........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................ 1-3 1.4 California Environmental Quality Act Requirements ................................................. 1-4 1.5 Type of CEQA Compliance Document and Level of Analysis ..................................... 1-5 1.6 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum ............................................................... 1-6 1.7 Preparation and Processing of this EIR Addendum ................................................... 1-7 1.8 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................. 1-7 1.9 Existing Documents to be Incorporated By Reference .............................................. 1-8 1.10 Points of Contact ........................................................................................................ 1-9 2.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Project Setting and Surrounding Uses ....................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4.2 Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 (SPA 2016-140) ...... 2-7 2.4.3 Change of Zone (CZ 2017-140) ...................................................................... 2-9 2.4.4 Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 (TR 2016-139) ........................................ 2-9 2.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis ............................................................................. 2-12 2.5.1 Construction Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-12 A. Proposed Physical Disturbance ....................................................... 2-12 B. Anticipated Construction Schedule ................................................ 2-12 C. Major Construction Equipment ...................................................... 2-12 2.5.2 Proposed Operational Characteristics ......................................................... 2-12 A. Future Population ........................................................................... 2-12 B. Future Traffic ................................................................................... 2-13 2.6 City Review Process ................................................................................................. 2-13 2.7 Related Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements............................ 2-14 1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 3-9 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) Section Name and Number Page T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE ii 2. Agriculture Resources .............................................................................................. 3-15 3. Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 3-19 4. Biological Resources................................................................................................. 3-35 5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 3-41 6. Geology And Soils ..................................................................................................... 3-45 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 3-56 8. Hazards And Hazardous Materials ........................................................................... 3-66 9. Hydrology And Water Quality .................................................................................. 3-73 10. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 3-85 11. Noise ........................................................................................................................ 3-86 12. Population And Housing ........................................................................................3-103 13. Land Use And Planning ..........................................................................................3-105 14. Public Services ........................................................................................................3-109 15. Recreation ..............................................................................................................3-115 16. Transportation/Traffic ...........................................................................................3-117 17. Utilities And Service Systems .................................................................................3-127 18. Mandatory Findings Of Significance ......................................................................3-136 5.1 Project-Specific Mitigation Measures for Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 .......... 5-1 5.2 EIR No. 423 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Compliance Table ..... 5-24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Name and Number Page City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE iii LIST OF TABLES Table Name and Number Page Summary of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2016-140 Changes .......................... 2-8 Anticipated Construction Equipment ................................................................ 2-13 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits ................................................................. 2-15 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds ........................................................................... 3-23 Emissions Summary of Overall Construction ..................................................... 3-24 Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage ................................................................... 3-26 Localized Significance Summary Construction .................................................. 3-27 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary ............................................. 3-28 Summary of Operational Emissions: Approved SP 301A2 vs. Proposed Project ................................................................................................................ 3-29 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB ........................................ 3-32 Global Warming Potential and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs .............. 3-58 Total Project GHG Emissions (Annual) ............................................................... 3-61 Comparison of Approved SPA 2 Land Use and Proposed Project GHG Emissions ............................................................................................................ 3-62 Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies .... 3-65 Post-Development Peak Flows Existing Conditions vs. Proposed SPA3 ............ 3-81 Noise Significance Criteria Summary ................................................................. 3-89 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Levels Summary ......................... 3-91 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements .................................................. 3-91 On-Site Roadway Parameters ............................................................................ 3-92 Distribution of Traffic Flow by Vehicle Type (Vehicle Mix) ................................ 3-93 Future On-Site Exterior Noise Levels ................................................................. 3-93 First Floor Interior Noise Impacts (CNEL) ........................................................... 3-95 Second Floor Interior Noise Impacts (CNEL) ...................................................... 3-95 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................... 3-100 Project Trip Generation Summary ................................................................... 3-120 Currently Approved Land Use Trip Generation Summary ............................... 3-121 Comparison of Water Demand ........................................................................ 3-131 Comparison of Wastewater Demand .............................................................. 3-132 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE iv LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendix Document/Reference Title Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis Appendix B: MSHCP Pre-Construction 30 Day Western Burrowing Owl Survey Appendix C1: Archaeological Monitoring Report Appendix C2: Paleontological Monitoring Report Appendix D1: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Appendix D2: Geotechnical Update Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix F1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix F2: Preliminary Hydrology Study Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis Appendix H1: Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix H2: McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE v LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition § Section AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB 32 California Assembly Bill 32, Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ADT Average Daily Trips AFY Acre Feet per Year AIA Airport Influence Area ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amsl Above Mean Sea Level AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACM Best Available Control Measure BAU Business as Usual BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code CAP Climate Action Plan CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CDC California Department of Conservation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEPA California Environmental Protection Agency cfs cubic feet per second CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CH4 Methane CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents CORPS Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act CY Cubic Yards CZ Change of Zone City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE vi LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONT’D) Acronym Definition dBA Decibel DIF Development Impact Fee du dwelling unit du/ac dwelling units per acre EIR Environmental Impact Report EMFAC EMission FACtor EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GIS Geographic Information Systems gpd Gallons per Day HPLV High Pressure Low Volume I-15 Interstate 15 I-215 Interstate 215 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LCA Life-Cycle Analysis LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance Threshold MARB/IP March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port MGD Million Gallons per Day MHDR Medium-High Density Residential MM Mitigation Measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3 MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MT Metric Tons MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent N/A Not Applicable N2O Nitrogen Oxide City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE vii LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONT’D) Acronym Definition NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission No. Number NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System O3 Ozone ppb parts per billion PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) PM10 Particulate Matter (between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter) RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROW Right of Way RSS Riversidean sage scrub RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board RWRF Regional Water Reclamation Facility SB Senate Bill SB 375 California Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 SB 1078 California Senate Bill 1078 SB 1368 California Senate Bill 1368 SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies SF/s.f. Square Foot or Square Feet SOx Oxides of Sulfur SP Specific Plan SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TR Tentative Tract Map TSF Thousand Square Feet TSWA Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 TABLE OF CONTENTS T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE viii LIST OF ACRONYMS (CONT’D) Acronym Definition USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRF Water Reclamation Facility WRP Waste Recycling Plan City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Menifee (hereafter “City”) received an application from CalAtlantic Homes (hereafter “Project Applicant”) requesting approval of applications for the third amendment to the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan (SPA 2016-140), a Change of Zone (CZ2017-140), and a Tentative Tract Map (TR 2016-139, also referred to as Tentative Tract Map 37136) affecting an approximately 19.32-acre site located at the northwest corner of Briggs Road and McCall Boulevard. Approval of these discretionary actions would allow for the development of up to 80 single-family homes in proposed Planning Area 41A and a private recreation center in proposed Planning Area 41B of the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, in lieu of the commercial land uses allowed on-site by the adopted Specific Plan. The proposed Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15367, the City is the Lead Agency with principal responsibility for considering the proposed Project for approval. The introduction is given to provide a synopsis of the information regarding: (1) the history of Specific Plan No. 301; (2) the purpose of an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (Addendum); (3) standards for adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (4) a description of the format and content of this Addendum; and (5) the processing requirements for the proposed project. 1.1 HISTORY OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 301 On April 29, 1997, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the original Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan No. 301 (SP 301) and certified its Environmental Impact Report No. 393 (EIR No. 393). The original Specific Plan included a mix of residential and non-residential land uses on the 153-acre site. Subsequent to the original approval, the Specific Plan was amended by the County twice, most recently on April 25, 2006. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved SP 301 Amendment No. 1 (SP 301A1) and certified EIR No. 423 on November 5, 2002. This amendment added 1,395.3 acres of property to the 153-acre site, including 4,063 single family dwelling units on approximately 937.7 acres. (Riverside County, 2002) However, the project that was approved was slightly different from what was considered in the Draft EIR and Traffic Study that was circulated for public review. In the Public Review Draft EIR No. 423 and associated traffic study, the land use plan included three separate commercial sites totaling 32.8 acres (Planning Areas 3, 4, and 41). The Public Review Draft EIR No. 423 land use plan identified 116,000 s.f. of commercial uses in Planning Area 41 (11.6 acres), although Planning Area 41 was evaluated in a slightly northerly location compared to the ultimately-approved location for this planning area at the corner of McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road. However, the shifting of Planning Area 41 south to its current location did not materially affect the analysis contained in the traffic study prepared for EIR No. 423, because both locations for Planning Area 41 would utilize the same access routes (i.e., McCall Boulevard and Heritage Lake Drive). Therefore, no revised traffic report was needed. Subsequent to public City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-2 review and prior to certification of EIR No. 423, Riverside County directed several changes to the Land Use Plan. As part of the certification of EIR No. 423, the County made the determination that the Land Use Plan changes did not warrant recirculation of EIR No. 423 for public review, and that an updated traffic study was not required. Additionally, and as noted above, as part of the County’s approval of SP 301A1, a total of 4.8 acres was added to Planning Area 41, increasing the size of Planning Area 41 from 11.6 acres to 16.4 acres. Amendment No. 2 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 25, 2006. This amendment redesigned the land uses in Planning Area 11 (Gold Course and Clubhouse) to “Open Space/Meadows.” This amendment also modified the allowed uses for Planning Area 12 (“Medium-High Density Residential”) to include clubhouses and senior residential uses with detached and attached homes. Planning Area 3 was re-designated from “Community Commercial” to “Very High Density Residential” allowing for the development of 292 attached condo units. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 to SP 301 was found to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA because no new impacts would occur beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in EIR No. 423 and no technical studies, including traffic, were required. (Riverside County, 2006) Adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on April 30, 2008, Amendment #2, Substantial Conformance No. 1 adjusted planning area boundaries, acreages, unit counts and densities within Planning Areas 14, 18 through 20, 22A, 22C, 24, 25, 27C, 32, 39B, and 41 to accommodate development as proposed by Tentative Tract Map No. 34406. The County of Riverside made the determination that No Further Environmental Documentation Is Required. (Riverside County, 2008) 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The Project proposes to change the existing approved land use designation for Planning Area 41 of the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan to allow for the development of up to 80 single-family residences, a private recreation center, open space, and public roadways on approximately 19.32 acres. Discretionary approvals required to implement the proposed Project include Amendment No. 3 to the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan (SPA 2016-140), a tentative tract map (TR 2016-139), and a Change of Zone (CZ 2017-140), and are described below. • Amendment No. 3 to the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan (SPA 2016-140). Under existing conditions, the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan designates the subject property for 15.4 acres of commercial land uses, with the remaining 3.9 acres allocated to public roadways. SPA 2016-140 proposes to divide Planning Area 41 into two separate planning areas (Planning Areas 41A and 41B), which would allow for the future development of up to 80 single-family homes on 13.9 acres within proposed Planning Area 41A, and a private recreation center on the remaining 1.1 acres within Planning Area 41B. SPA 2016-140 also would amend the Planning Area boundaries, acreages, and/or maximum dwelling units for several planning areas within the adopted Specific Plan. Although SPA 2016-140 proposes to City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-3 increase the number of units allowed within Planning Area 41A by 80 dwelling units, the total dwelling units for SPA 2016-140 only would be increased by 48 homes due to approved Tract Maps and unit changes to the following Planning Areas: 15, 16, 17, 21, 22A, 22B, 23, 27A, 27B, 27D, 27E, 27F, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42A, 42B, 42C, and 42E. Additionally, Planning Area 42D would be eliminated and the remaining acreage would be allocated to Planning Areas 29 and 30. • Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 (TR 2016-139). TR 2016-139 is a Schedule “A” map that proposes to subdivide the approximately 19.3-acre site to implement the uses proposed as part of SPA 2016-140. TR 2016-139 proposes to create 80 single-family residential lots in Planning Area 41A on approximately 9.30 acres; a private recreation center in Planning Area 41B on approximately 1.10 acres; open space (entry monuments and limited development zone) on 0.28 acre; and public roadways on approximately 8.64 acres. TR 2016-139 also identifies preliminary grading and utility plans, areas of public right-of-way easements, utility and drainage easements, and typical sections and details. Proposed grading to implement TR 2016-139 would require approximately 13,203 cubic yards of cut material and 58,686 cubic yards of fill material, requiring the import of approximately 45,483 cubic yards of earthwork material. • Change of Zone No. 2017-140 (CZ 2017-140). CZ 2017-140 proposes to amended the development standards for the Project site, modify the permitted uses, and formalize the revised boundaries for Planning Areas 41A and 41B. Additionally, CZ 2017-140 also would amend the planning area boundaries for the following Planning Areas in order to reflect recorded tract maps within the existing Specific Plan: 15, 16, 17, 21, 22A, 22B, 23, 27A, 27B, 27D, 27E, 27F, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42A, 42B, 42C, and 42E. Additionally, CZ 2017-140 would account for the elimination of Planning Area 42D. 1.3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA, a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177, applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment. To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies inform themselves of the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the general public an opportunity to comment on the information. If significant adverse impacts cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an EIR and balance the project’s environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of overriding considerations. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-4 1.4 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS The CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and use of an existing, previously-certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for projects that have changed or are different from the previous project or conditions analyzed. Depending on the nature of changes made to the project, there may be new significant environmental effects that were not identified in the previous environmental analyses, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified effect, or the environmental impacts may be less than what was previously identified. In the latter case, where minor technical project changes occur with no significant environmental impacts, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared. The following describes the requirements of an Addendum, as defined in § 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines: A. The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in § 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. B. An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in § 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. C. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. D. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. E. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15162 should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, § 15164 (a) allows for the preparation of an Addendum if none of the conditions described in § 15162 have occurred. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 describes the conditions under which a Subsequent EIR must be prepared, as follows: A. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; B. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or C. New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows that the project will have one or more significant City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-5 effects not discussed in the previous EIR; significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR, an Addendum may be prepared. See CEQA Guidelines § 15164. As described in detail herein in Section 3.0, none of the above circumstances that warrant the preparation of a Subsequent EIR are present. 1.5 TYPE OF CEQA COMPLIANCE DOCUMENT AND LEVEL OF ANALYSIS This document is an Addendum to the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 423 for approved Specific Plan No. 301. As such, this Addendum analyzes the potential differences between the impacts that would occur with implementation of the commercial land uses described in EIR No. 423 and those that would be associated with the proposed Project described in Section 2.0 Project Description. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.0, the Project evaluated herein involves revisions to the approved Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. These revisions involve an amendment to the Specific Plan, a Change of Zone, and the approval of TR 2016-139, to change the land use designations in Planning Area 41 from “Commercial” to “Medium-High Density Residential” and “Open Space-Recreation” allowing for the development of 80 single-family residences and a private recreation center. Planning Area 41 would be split into two new Planning Areas, Planning Area 41A (80 single-family residences) and Planning Area 41B (private recreation center). This EIR Addendum provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make an informed decision about the proposed Project, which consists of the actions summarized above in Section 1.2 and more fully described in Section 2.0. The City determined that an EIR Addendum should be prepared, rather than a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR, based on the following facts: A. The proposed Project would not require “major revisions” to the previous EIR because the Project would not involve any new environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified significant impacts (as demonstrated by the responses and analysis in the Environmental Checklist Form provided in Section 3.0). B. Subsequent to the certification of EIR No. 423 and approval of SP 301A1, and as demonstrated in the accompanying CEQA Environmental Checklist Form (Section 3.0), no new information City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-6 of substantial importance has become available which was not known at the time the previous EIR was prepared. C. The proposed Project would not involve any land uses that were not included in the analysis contained in EIR No. 423, and as demonstrated in the accompanying CEQA Checklist Form (Section 3.0), the Project would not result in any new significant effects that were not previously identified. D. Updated technical reports were prepared for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic subject areas. These technical reports did not identify any new impacts or substantial increased in impacts to the environment beyond that which was disclosed in Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 423. Specifically, these technical reports concluded as follows: 1. Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis 2. Appendix B: MSHCP Pre-Construction 30 Day Western Burrowing Owl Survey 3. Appendix C1: Archaeological Monitoring Report 4. Appendix C2: Paleontological Monitoring Report 5. Appendix D1: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 6. Appendix D2: Geotechnical Update 7. Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Analysis 8. Appendix F1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 9. Appendix F2: Preliminary Hydrology Study 10. Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis 11. Appendix H1: Traffic Impact Analysis 12. Appendix H2: McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Based on these facts, the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) determined than an Addendum to the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report No. 423 would be prepared for the proposed Project. Its focus is to evaluate the proposed Project in relation to the approved Specific Plan and EIR. 1.6 FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THIS EIR ADDENDUM The following components comprise the EIR Addendum in its totality: a. This Introduction (Section 1.0) and the Project Description (Section 2.0). b. The completed Environmental Checklist Form and its associated analyses (Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist), which concludes that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of environmental impacts beyond the levels disclosed in EIR No.423. c. Ten technical reports and other documentation that evaluates the proposed Project, which are attached as EIR Addendum Technical Appendices A-H. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-7 1. Appendix A: Air Quality Impact Analysis 2. Appendix B: MSHCP Pre-Construction 30 Day Western Burrowing Owl Survey 3. Appendix C1: Archaeological Monitoring Report 4. Appendix C2: Paleontological Monitoring Report 5. Appendix D1: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 6. Appendix D2: Geotechnical Update 7. Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Analysis 8. Appendix F1: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan 9. Appendix F2: Preliminary Hydrology Study 10. Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis 11. Appendix H1: Traffic Impact Analysis 12. Appendix H2: McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis d. Final EIR No. 423, accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Technical Appendices to EIR No. 423, and the findings made by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors that buildout of SP 301 would have a significant effect on the environment, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15150 and available for review at the City of Menifee Community Development Department; 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, California, CA 92586. 1.7 PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF THIS EIR ADDENDUM The City of Menifee Community Development Department directed and supervised the preparation of this EIR Addendum. Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm, T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this EIR Addendum reflect the sole independent judgment of the City. This EIR Addendum will be forwarded, along with the previously-certified EIR No. 423, to the City of Menifee Community Development Department for review of the proposed Project. A public hearing will be held before the City of Menifee Planning Commission, which will provide a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Project. Following conclusion of the hearing(s) before the City of Menifee Planning Commission, an additional public hearing(s) will be held before the City of Menifee City Council to consider the proposed action and the adequacy of this Addendum, at which time public comments will be heard. At the conclusion of the public hearing process, the City Council will take action to outright approve, conditionally approval, or deny approval of the proposed Project. If approved, the City Council will also adopt findings relative to the Project’s environmental effects following the implementation of mitigation measures. 1.8 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The City of Menifee prepared the proposed Project’s Initial Study Checklist as suggested by CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063(d)(3) and 15168(c)(4). The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether the conditions set forth in § 15162, which would require a subsequent or City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-8 supplemental EIR, are met and whether there would be new significant impacts resulting from the project not examined in the adopted Final EIR No. 423. The completed checklist is found in the Initial Study Section of this document (Section 3.0) and includes an explanation and discussion of each answer on the form. There are four possible responses to each of the environmental issues included on the checklist: 1. New Significant Impact. This response is used to indicate when the Project has changed to such an extent that major revisions to EIR No. 423 are required due to the presence of new significant environmental effects. 2. More Severe Impact. This response is used to indicate when the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken have changed to such an extent that major revisions to EIR No. 423 are required due to the fact that the severity of previously identified significant effects would substantially increase. 3. New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact. This response is used to indicate when new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, indicates that there are new mitigation measures or alternatives available to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts of the Project, but the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure(s) or alternative. 4. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. This response is used to indicate when the proposed Project would not create a new impact or substantially increase the severity of any previously identified environmental impact as disclosed by Final EIR No. 423. The Initial Study Checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses (see Section 3.0) provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the current Project in the context of environmental impacts addressed in the previously adopted EIR No. 423. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the current Project. 1.9 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE State CEQA Guidelines §§ 15150 and 15168(c)(3) and (d)(2) permit and encourage that an environmental document to incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The documents listed in Section 4.0, References, are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized as needed within this EIR Addendum. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at the City of Menifee Community Development Department, 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, and/or on-line at the website addresses identified in Section 4.0. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 1.0 INTRODUCTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 1-9 1.10 POINTS OF CONTACT The Lead Agency for this environmental document is the City of Menifee. Any questions about the preparation of this EIR Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to: Ryan Fowler, Senior Planner City of Menifee Community Development Department 29714 Haun Rd. Menifee, CA 92586 The point of contact for the project Applicant is: Brian Jacobson CalAtlantic Homes 355 E. Rincon Street, Suite 300 Corona, CA 92879 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Under existing conditions, the Project site comprises approximately 19.32 acres of land designated by the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan for commercial land uses and public roadways. Discretionary approvals associated with the proposed Project include a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 2016-140), a Change of Zone (CZ 2017-140), and a Tentative Tract Map (TR 2016-139). Approval of SPA 2016-140, CZ 2017-140, and TR 2016-139 would allow for the future development of up to 80 single-family dwelling units within Planning Area 41A and a private recreation center within Planning Area 41B. Provided below is a detailed description of the proposed Project and its associated construction and operational characteristics. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site consists of +/- 19.32 acres in the northeastern portion of the City of Menifee in Riverside County, California (see Figure 2-1, Regional Map). From a regional perspective, the Project site is located to the north of the City of Murrieta, southeast of the City of Perris, west of the unincorporated Riverside County, and east of the City of Lake Elsinore. State Route 74 (SR- 74) is located approximately 1.6 miles north of the site, while Interstate 215 (I-215) is located approximately 2.9 miles west of the site. Specifically, the Project site is located west of Briggs Road, north of McCall Road, east of Menifee Road, and south of Case Road, as illustrated on Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 2-3, USGS Topographical Map. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the proposed Project is to make minor revisions to the previously approved Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan to allow for the development of 80 single-family residential homes and a private recreation center on the +/- 19.32-acre site. The following objectives are sought by the proposed Project: • To identify a property that is designated by the City of Menifee General Plan for commercial uses but where it has been determined that commercial uses would not be viable and change the site’s approved commercial land use designation to allow for Medium- to Medium-High Density Residential uses, thereby making productive use of lands in the City of Menifee. • To allow for the development of between 50 and 100 single-family residential homes that are marketable within the economically diverse profile of the City of Menifee in order to complement and expand the type of housing available within the City of Menifee. • To allow for the development of recreational uses that would serve the proposed community’s recreational needs. • To allow for the development of a residential community on a property served by available infrastructure and that is compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity of the site. T&B Planning, Inc. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 P�� 2-2 2.0 P�� D�� REGIONAL MAP Figure 2-1nts T&B Planning, Inc. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 P�� 2-3 2.0 P�� D�� VICINITY MAP Figure 2-2nts MA L A G A R O A D SP 260MENIFEENORTH SP 260MENIFEENORTH SP 158MENIFEEVILLAGE SP 2 9 3 WI N C H E S T E R HI L L S BN S F R R SP 301MENIFEEVALLEYRANCH PINACATE RD.HWY. 74 ES C O N D I D O F W Y ME N I F E E R D . LI N D E N B E R G E R R D . RD . McCALL SUN CITY ROMOLAND BLV D . BR I G G S 215 215 PROJECT SITE SIMPSON RD. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-5 2.3 PROJECT SETTING AND SURROUNDING USES As shown on Figure 2-4, Aerial Photograph, under existing conditions the Project site has been fully disturbed by past grading activities associated with approved Tentative Tract Map No. 34406 (TR 34406), with earthwork stockpiles located in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Project site. Temporary construction roads occur on-site within the stockpile area, with the access road occurring in the west-central portion of the Project site and along the southwestern Project boundary. Along the Project’s frontage, McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road have been fully improved with meandering sidewalks within landscaped parkways. Along most of McCall Boulevard the Project site has been delineated with construction fencing, while the remaining frontage on McCall Boulevard and the entire frontage with Briggs Road consist of hydro-seeded berms and slopes. An enhanced entry monument has been constructed at the southeastern corner of the Project site. Areas in the west and north of the Project site that are not being actively disturbed also have been hydro-seeded, with the northern portion of the Project site containing a manufactured slope that slopes upwards towards previously-graded areas north of and adjacent to the Project site. The highest elevation on the property is approximately 1,485 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and occurs in the northeastern corner of the site. The lowest elevation is approximately 1,467 feet amsl and occurs in the southwestern portion of the site. (Google Earth, 2016) Areas to the north, south, and west of the Project site are also located within the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. Areas immediately to the north and west of the Project site have previously been graded and hydro-seeded in support of future residential development. To the south of the Project site is McCall Boulevard and a single-family residential neighborhood that is currently under construction. To the southwest is a graded site improved with roadways in support of future housing construction, beyond which is Heritage Lake. Areas immediately to the east of the Project site are located within the Winchester Hills Specific Plan in the City of Menifee, which currently comprise active agricultural lands but are planned for commercial and light manufacturing land uses. (Google Earth, 2016) 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT The Project evaluated by this EIR Addendum is located within the City of Menifee, in Riverside County, California. The proposed Project consists of applications for the third amendment to the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan (SPA 2016-140), an application for a Change of Zone (CZ 2017- 140), and a Tentative Tract Map (TR 2016-139). Copies of the entitlement applications for the proposed Project are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Section 15150 and are available for review at the City of Menifee Community Development Department located at 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, California 92586. Administrative actions that would be necessary to implement the proposed Project are listed in Table 2-3, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, at the end of this section. T&B Planning, Inc. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 P�� 2-6 2.0 P�� D�� AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Figure 2-4ntsSource(s): Google Earth Aerial (02-2016) MENIFEE VALLEY RANCH # PROJECT SITE ·|}þ74 BRIGGS RD MENIFEE RD CASE RD SIMPSON RD MCLAUGHLIN RD PALOMAR RD MALAGA RD LEON RD GRAND AVE EMPEROR RD OLIVE AVE ROUSE RD MCCALLBLVD SAN JACINTO RD RUSSELL RD VARELA LN HERITAGE LAKE DR MALONE AVE JUNIPERO RD MCKINLEY RD CALLE DE CABALLOS LA VENTANA RD LINDENBERGER RD N O R MAJEANRD MOUNTAINGATE ST HERITAGE LAKE DR DATE: 04.XX.2016 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet MENIFEE VALLEY RANCH SP 301, A-3 Source(s): ESRI, Google Earth Aerial (02-2016), RCTLMA (2016) www.tbplanning.com 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780p. 714.505.6360 f. 714.505.6361 T&B PLANNING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-7 2.4.2 Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 (SPA 2016-140) The 15.4-acre Project site comprises Planning Area 41 of the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, which occurs in the eastern portion of the Specific Plan and is designated for “Commercial” land uses. The Project proposes to change the “Commercial,” land use designation to “Medium-High Density Residential” (MHDR) and “Open Space-Recreation,” which would allow for the development of residential uses at a density between 5 and 8 du/ac and a private recreation center. Specifically, and as summarized in Table 2-1, Summary of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2016-140 Changes, SPA 2016-140 proposes to divide Planning Area 41 into two separate planning areas (Planning Areas 41A and 41B), which would allow for the future development of up to 80 single-family homes on 13.9 acres within proposed Planning Area 41A, and a private recreation center on the remaining 1.1 acres within proposed Planning Area 41B. SPA 2016-140 also would amend the Planning Area boundaries, acreages, and/or maximum dwelling units for Planning Areas 15, 16, 17, 21, 22A, 22B, 23, 27A, 27B, 27D, 27E, 27F, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42A, 42B, 42C, and 42E. Planning Area 42D would be eliminated and the remaining acreage would be allocated to Planning Areas 29 and 30. The acreage devoted to public roadways throughout SPA 2016-140 would be increased by 1.0 acre, from 92.2 to 93.2 acres. The total acres for the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan would remain unchanged at 1,548.3 acres (692.6 acres within the area affected by SPA 2016-140). The total number of dwelling units within the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan would be increased by 48 homes, from 4,359 to 4,407, and the number of units within the area affected by SPA 2016-140 also would increase by 48 homes, from 1,824 homes to 1,872 homes. Although SPA 2016-140 proposes to increase the number of units allowed within Planning Area 41A by 80 dwelling units, the total number of dwelling units allocated to SPA 2016-140 would only be increased by 48 dwelling units due to approved Tract Maps containing fewer units than what was allocated and unit changes to the Planning Areas referenced above. For purposes of analysis within this EIR Addendum, impacts due to acreage changes or unit allocation reductions are not considered a part of the proposed Project evaluated herein, as these changes are proposed to reflect previously-approved Tract Maps. Rather, the impact analysis herein focuses on the physical changes to the environment that would result from implementation of the proposed Project, which are limited to development within proposed Planning Areas 41A and 41B and associated physical improvements needed to implement those two planning areas. For purposes of evaluating the impacts of the proposed changes to Planning Areas 41A and 41B, it is assumed that the Project would result in a reduction of 15.4 acres of commercial uses, and the construction and operation of up to 80 single-family homes and a private recreation center. Of the 80 dwelling units proposed by the Project, only 48 dwelling units would represent an increase over what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423 (as discussed above). Thus, and in comparison to what was evaluated in EIR 423, the Project as evaluated herein represents a reduction of 15.4 acres of commercial uses, a net increase in the number of single-family dwelling units by 48 dwelling units, and construction and operation of a private recreation center on 1.1 acres. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-8 Summary of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2016-140 Changes Menifee Valley Ranch S.P. 301, Amendment 2, Substantial Conformance No. 1 Menifee Valley Ranch SPA 2016-140 P.A. LAND USE ACRES D.U.’S P.A. LAND USE ACRES D.U.’S 15 Medium High 27.1 152 15 Medium High 27.9 150 16 Medium 25.6 114 16 Medium 26.2 112 17 Medium 25.6 104 17 Medium 28.6 102 21 Community Park 22.2 -- 21 Community Park 20.1 -- 22A School (K-8) 19.0 -- 22A School (K-8) 15.1 -- 22B Park 4.0 -- 22B Park 4.8 -- 23 Medium 35.2 131 23 Medium 36.0 129 27A Greenbelt/Lake 45.8 -- 27A Greenbelt/Lake 41.8 -- 27B Swim Club/Lake Parking 2.1 -- 27B Swim Club/Lake Parking 3.5 -- 27D Greenbelt 1.2 -- 27D Greenbelt 1.3 -- 27E Greenbelt 1.8 -- 27E Greenbelt 1.7 -- 27F Greenbelt 1.2 -- 27F Greenbelt 1.6 -- 28 Medium 45.6 178 28 Medium 46.1 173 29 Medium High 23.5 131 29 Medium High 25.3 135 30 Medium 31.6 151 30 Medium 32.6 141 31 Medium 28.2 114 31 Medium 28.8 110 32 Medium 34.7 120 32 Medium 32.9 120 33 School (K-8) 20.0 -- 33 School (K-8) 21.5 -- 34A Medium 28.0 116 34A Medium 25.1 114 34B Medium 14.4 70 34B Medium 14.8 66 35 Medium 18.5 75 35 Medium 19.6 73 36 Medium 45.4 179 36 Medium 44.9 183 37 Park/Detention Area 10.4 -- 37 Park/Detention Area 11.5 -- 38 Open Space 5.5 -- 38 Open Space 4.9 -- 40 Medium 63.0 189 40 Medium 62.2 184 41 Commercial 15.4 -- 41A Medium High 13.9 80 -- -- -- -- 41B Private Recreation Center 1.1 -- 42A Greenbelt 1.6 -- 42A Greenbelt 1.1 -- 42B Greenbelt 0.7 -- 42B Greenbelt 1.3 -- 42C Greenbelt 0.9 -- 42C Greenbelt 1.3 -- 42D Greenbelt 0.7 -- 42D Greenbelt -- -- 42E Greenbelt 1.5 -- 42E Greenbelt 1.9 -- -- Major Roadways 92.2 -- -- Major Roadways 93.2 -- TOTAL 692.6 1,824 TOTAL 692.6 1,872 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-9 Figure 2-5, Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations, depicts the existing and proposed Specific Plan land use designations for the proposed Project site. 2.4.3 Change of Zone (CZ 2017-140) CZ 2017-140 proposes to amend the development standards for the Project site, modify the permitted uses, and formalize the revised boundaries for Planning Areas 41A and 41B. Additionally, CZ 2017-140 would amend the planning area boundaries for the following Planning Areas in order to reflect approved and/or recorded tract maps within the existing Specific Plan: 15, 16, 17, 21, 22A, 22B, 23, 27A, 27B, 27D, 27E, 27F, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42A, 42B, 42C, and 42E. Additionally, CZ 2017-140 would account for the elimination of Planning Area 42D. 2.4.4 Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 (TR 2016-139) Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 (TR 2016-139) is a Schedule “A” subdivision that proposes to subdivide an approximately 19.32-acre site (including 15.0 acres within proposed Planning Areas 41A and 41B, and 4.32 acres associated with McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road). Proposed TR 2016-139 would implement the land uses proposed for Planning Areas 41A and 41B by SPA 2016- 140. TR 2016-139 would create 80 residential lots on 9.28 acres; a private recreation center on approximately 1.10 acres; open space (entry monuments and Landscaped Development Zone [LDZ]) on 0.30 acre; and public roadways on approximately 8.64 acres. It should be noted that the acreages shown on TR 2016-139 differ slightly from those shown in SPA 2016-140 because SPA 2016-140 does not show acreage for minor roadways onsite, whereas TR 2016-139 accounts for acreage associated with internal public roadways (+/- 4.32 acres). TR 2016-139 also includes 0.30 acre of minor open space areas, which are included within the acreage for Planning Area 41A as part of SPA 2016-140. Thus, the 9.28 acres of residential, 0.30 acre of open space, and 4.32 acres of onsite minor roadway dedications (13.9 acres total) as shown on TR 2016-139 are consistent with the 13.9 acres shown on SPA 2016-140 for Planning Area 41A. TR 2016-139 also identifies cross-sections for major public roadways as well as internal roadways, and identifies the improvements that would be constructed as part of the Project. These circulation improvements include the construction of a ten-foot wide LDZ along the frontage with McCall Boulevard (off site) and on-site collector and local roadways. TR 2016-139 also would allow the installation of on-site infrastructure improvements, such as water, sewer, and storm drain lines. Proposed grading to implement TR 2016-139 would require approximately 13,203 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut material and 58,686 c.y. of fill material, requiring the import of approximately 45,483 c.y. of earthwork material. Figure 2-6, Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139, depicts the Tentative Tract Map for the proposed Project site. T&B Planning, Inc. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 P�� 2-10 2.0 P�� D�� EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Figure 2-5nts P.A. 27A GREENBELT/LAKE P.A. 20 MEDIUM HIGH(5,000 S.F. MIN.)35.8 AC187 D.U.s P.A.22C GREENBELT MCCALL BLVD. P.A. 34BMEDIUM(6,000 S.F. MIN.)P.A. 27C GREENBELT1.9 AC P.A. 13 SPACE12.0 AC P.A. 41B P.A. 41A PROPOSED P.A. 14 P.A. 19 P.A. 24 P.A. 25 BRIGGS ROAD P.A. 18 HER I T A G E L A K E D R . P.A. 41B P.A. 41A MC C A L L B L V D . LEGEND City of Menifee General Plan Land Use Designations Commercial Retail (CR)P.A. 27A GREENBELT/LAKE P.A. 20 MEDIUM HIGH(5,000 S.F. MIN.)35.8 AC187 D.U.s P.A.22C GREENBELT MCCALL BLVD. P.A. 34BMEDIUM(6,000 S.F. MIN.)P.A. 27C GREENBELT1.9 AC P.A. 13 SPACE12.0 AC P.A. 41B P.A. 41A EXISTING P.A. 14 P.A. 19 P.A. 24 P.A. 25 BRIGGS ROAD P.A. 18 HER I T A G E L A K E D R . MC C A L L B L V D . P.A. 41B P.A. 41A LEGEND City of Menifee General Plan Land Use Designations Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Open Space-Recreation (OS-R) 1 7A 7B 7B 5A 4A 14 21 41B 17 19 22A 22B 23 24 25 29 29 27A 28 33 31 32 34A 35 36 40 37 26 20 15 39B 22C 30 27B 38 MCCALL BLVD. ME N I F E E R O A D BRI G G S R O A D SIMPSON ROAD MENIFEE LOOP NORTH LINDENBERGER RD. GRAND AVE. EAST MEN I F E E L O O P E A S T MENIFEE LOOP W EST 38 MENIFEE LOOP WEST MENIFEE LOOP NORTH 39A 34B 27C 40 42B 32 34A 28 18 41A STREET B 42E 42A 42C 27D 27F 27E 8 3 10 12A 16 12A MAL A G A R O A D MCLAUGHLIN ROAD STATE ROUTE 74 5B 5A 9 4A 4A 4A 4A 11 12A 11 11 11 11 13 12A 4B 7B 2 7B 6 7A 1 12B 12A 12A KEY MAP City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-12 2.5 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2.5.1 Construction Characteristics A. Proposed Physical Disturbance Implementation of the proposed Project would result in physical disturbance to the entire 15.4- acres Project site. The Project would not require any off-site improvements, with the exception of minor off-site impacts to improved roadways as needed to provide for utility connections. B. Anticipated Construction Schedule Implementation of the proposed Project would include the following phases of construction; the phases and their estimated durations are provided below: • Site Preparation (20 days); • Grading (45 days); • Building Construction (85 days); • Paving (15 days); and • Architectural Coating (15 days). As indicated above, construction activities would occur over a total duration of approximately 9 months. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 23 and Table 3-2) C. Major Construction Equipment Table 2-2, Anticipated Construction Equipment, indicates the major construction equipment that the Project Applicant anticipates construction contractor(s) would use during each phase of construction. 2.5.2 Proposed Operational Characteristics The proposed Project would be operated as a residential community. As such, typical operational characteristics include residents and visitors traveling to and from the site, leisure and maintenance activities occurring on individual residential lots and in the on-site private recreation center, and general maintenance of common areas. Low levels of noise and a moderate level of artificial exterior lighting typical of a residential community is expected. A. Future Population Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the construction of 80 single-family homes. According to the City of Menifee General Plan Housing Element, single-family uses generate approximately 3.164 persons per dwelling unit. The Project proposes to develop the 19.32-acre site with 80 residential dwelling units and a recreation center. Accordingly, the proposed Project would result in an estimated future population of approximately 253 residents. However, and as explained in Addendum Subsection 2.4.2, the total number of dwelling units City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-13 Anticipated Construction Equipment (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 3-3) allocated to SPA 2016-140 would only be increased by 48 dwelling units as compared to what was evaluated in EIR No. 423 due to approved Tract Maps containing fewer units than what was allocated by SP 301. Thus, the Project would result in a net increase of 152 residents as compared to what was evaluated in EIR No. 423. B. Future Traffic The development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 4,191 fewer trip-ends per day with 52 fewer AM peak hour trip and 350 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the land uses and intensities previously evaluated by EIR No. 423 (Urban Crossroads, 2016d, p. 1). 2.6 CITY REVIEW PROCESS The City of Menifee Community Development Department directed and supervised the preparation of this Addendum. It will be forwarded, along with Final EIR No. 423, to the City of City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-14 Menifee Community Development Department for review of the proposed Project. A public hearing will be held before the City of Menifee Planning Commission which will provide a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Project. Following conclusion of hearing(s) before the City of Menifee Planning Commission, an additional public hearing(s) will be held before the City of Menifee City Council to consider the proposed action and the adequacy of this Addendum, at which time public comments will be heard. At the conclusion of the public hearing process, the City Council will take action to outright approve, conditionally approve, or deny approval of the proposed Project. If approved, the City Council will also adopt findings relative to the Project’s environmental effects following the implementation of mitigation measures. 2.7 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS Subsequent to approval of the SPA 2016-140 301A3, CZ No. 2017-140, and TR 2016-139, additional ministerial actions may be necessary to implement the proposed Project. These include, but are not limited to, grading permits; encroachment permits/road improvements; drainage infrastructure improvements; water and sewer infrastructure improvements; stormwater permit(s) (NPDES); and state and federal resource agency permits. Table 2-3, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, provides a summary of the agencies responsible for subsequent discretionary approvals associated with the Project. This EIR Addendum covers all federal, state, and local government approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether explicitly noted in Table 2-3 or not. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 2-15 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits Public Agency Approvals and Decisions City of Menifee Proposed Project – City of Menifee Discretionary Approvals City of Menifee Planning Commission • Provide recommendations to the City of Menifee City Council regarding adoption of this Addendum to the Specific Plan’s EIR No.423. • Provide recommendations to the City of Menifee City Council whether to approve or adopt SPA 2016-140, CZ 2017-140, and TR 2016-139. City of Menifee City Council • Reject or adopt this Addendum to EIR No. 423 along with appropriate CEQA Findings. • Approve/adopt, conditionally approve/adopt, or deny SPA 2016-140, CZ2017-140, and TR 2016-139. Subsequent City of Menifee Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of Menifee Subsequent Implementing Approvals • Approve, conditional approve, or deny Minor Plot Plans. • Issue Grading Permits. • Issue Haul Permits. • Issue Building Permits. • Issue Release of Occupancy. • Approve Road Improvement Plans, if required. • Issue Encroachment Permits. • Accept public right-of-way dedications, if required. Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) • Approvals for the construction of on- and off-site water and sewer infrastructure. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CITY OF MENIFEE CEQA Environmental Checklist Form I. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project title: Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. Planning Case Nos. SPA 2016-140 (Specific Plan Amendment), CZ 2017-140 (Change of Zone), TR 2016-139 (Tentative Tract Map) and accompanying Environmental Assessment/Addendum to EIR No. 423. 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Menifee, Community Development Department, 29714 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. 3. Contact person and phone number: Ryan Fowler, 951-723-3740. 4. Project location: Northerly of Simpson Road, westerly of Briggs Road, southerly of Case Road, and easterly of Menifee Road. Figure 2-2 (previously presented) depicts the location of the proposed Project site. A. Total Project Area: Physical Impact Area - 19.32 acres; Areas Affected by SPA 2016-140 Administrative Changes – 692.6 acres. Residential Acres: 9.30 Lots: 85 Units: 80 Projected No. of Residents: 253 (net increase of 152 residents in comparison to EIR No. 423) Commercial Acres: Lots: Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: Est. No. of Employees: Industrial Acres: Lots: Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: Est. No. of Employees: Other: 8.64 acres of roadways; 0.20 acres of Open Space (LDZ); 0.08 acres of Open Space (Entry Monument) Parks: Private Recreation Center (1.10 acres) Schools: B. Assessor’s Parcel No: 333-180-028 C. Map: Thomas Brothers Riverside County Street Guide 2008 Page 838, Grids H4 and J4. D. Section 24, Township 5S & Range 3W of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-2 E. Longitude: 117° 08’ 19.31” W Latitude: 33° 43’ 08.10” N 5. Project Applicant/Owners: CalAtlantic Homes (c/o Brian Jacobson), 355 E. Rincon Street, Suite 300, Corona, CA 92879 Representative: T&B Planning, Inc. (c/o Joel Morse), 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780, (714) 505-6360 (ext. 105). 6. General Plan Designation: Specific Plan (SP) 301 (Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan). 7. 8. Existing Zoning: Specific Plan (SP) No. 301, Planning Area 41 (Commercial). Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan (SP) No. 301, Planning Area 41A (Medium High Density Residential – 4,500 SF minimum) and Planning Area 41B (Recreation Center). 9. Description of Project: Refer to Section 2.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2016-140, Change of Zone No. 2017-140, and Tentative Tract Map No. 2016- 139. Infrastructure, Utilities, and Public Services The following public services are available to the Project: • Fire Protection Services (City of Menifee through contract with the Riverside County Fire Department); • Police Protection Services (City of Menifee through contract with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department); • Public Schools (Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District) • Library Services (Riverside County Library System); and • City Administrative Services (City of Menifee). The following utilities/infrastructure systems and services are available to the Project: • Water/Sewer (Eastern Municipal Water District); • Electricity (Southern California Gas Company); • Telephone/Communications (Verizon); • Cable TV (Media One); • Flood Control (Riverside County Flood Control District, County of Riverside) 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-3 Areas to the north, south, and west of the Project site are also located within the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. Areas immediately to the north and west of the Project site have previously been graded and hydro-seeded in support of future residential development. To the south of the Project site is McCall Boulevard and a single-family residential neighborhood that is currently under construction. To the southwest is a graded site improved with roadways in support of future housing construction, beyond which is Heritage Lake. Areas immediately to the east of the Project site are located within the Winchester Hills Specific Plan in unincorporated Riverside County, which currently comprise active agricultural lands but are planned for commercial and light manufacturing land uses. (Google Earth, 2016) The adjacent General Plan Designation(s), Zoning District(s), and Existing Land Uses(s), if any: DIRECTION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE NORTH Specific Plan (SP) Specific Plan No. 301 (Medium Density Residential) Disturbed/Undeveloped SOUTH Specific Plan (SP) Specific Plan No. 301 (Medium Density Residential) Medium Density Residential EAST Specific Plan (SP) Specific Plan No. 293 (Commercial-Retail) Agriculture WEST Specific Plan (SP) Specific Plan No. 301 (Medium and Medium High Density Residential) Medium Density Residential The adjacent Zoning classifications are as follows: ZONING CLASSIFICATION NORTH SP Zone (Menifee Valley Ranch) SOUTH SP Zone (Menifee Valley Ranch) EAST SP Zone (Winchester Hills) WEST SP Zone (Menifee Valley Ranch) 11. General Plan Elements/Policies: Land Use: The proposed Project would change the land use designation of Planning Area 41 from “Commercial” to “Medium-High Density Residential” and “Open Space-Recreation.” Circulation: Adequate circulation facilities are proposed to serve the proposed Project. Primary access into the site is provided via McCall Boulevard (Urban Arterial), Menifee Road (Urban Arterial), Briggs Road (Major), and State Route 74 (Expressway). The proposed Project meets all applicable circulation policies of the General Plan. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-4 Multipurpose Open Space: Areas required for open space have been accommodated within the Specific Plan, and include 151.0 acres of Open Space/Recreation, 75.2 acres of Parks, 70.1 acres of Open Space/Greenbelts, and 41.8 acres of Greenbelt/Lake. The Project also proposes to add 1.1 acres of recreation area on-site. The proposed Project has been conditioned to pay the appropriate Open Space mitigation fees and would fully comply with the requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The proposed Project meets all other applicable Multipurpose Open Space element policies. Safety: The Project site is not susceptible to subsidence, inundation, overflow, or flood hazard. The Project has been conditioned to adhere to California Building Code parameters. The Project has been conditioned for sufficient provision of emergency response services for future users through the project design and payment of development impact fees. The proposed Project meets with all other applicable Safety Element policies. Noise: Sound-attenuation is proposed along State Road 74, Menifee Road, Briggs Road, Simpson Road, and all other streets within the project where necessary, pursuant to the mitigation requirements of EIR No. 423. The proposed Project meets all other applicable Noise Element policies. Housing: The proposed Project would expand the supply of housing by 80 dwelling units, in conformance with the Housing Element. The proposed project meets all other applicable Housing Element policies. Air Quality: The proposed Project has been conditioned to control both construction and operation emissions, pursuant to the mitigation measures specified in EIR No. 423. The proposed project meets all other applicable Air Quality Element policies of the General Plan and Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Eastern Municipal Water District. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-5 II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below (x) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “New Significant Impact” or “More Severe Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED because (a) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, (b) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (c) the proposed project will not result in any new significant environmental effects not identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (d) the proposed project will not substantially increase the severity of the environmental effects identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (e) no considerably different mitigation measures have been identified and (f) no mitigation measures found infeasible have become feasible. ☒ I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously-certified EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be considered by the approving body or bodies. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-6 ☐ I find that at least one of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist, but I further find that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation; therefore, a SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required that need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. ☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or, (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Signature Date Ryan Fowler, Senior Planner Printed Name For Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-7 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-8 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-9 Issues: 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?     c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal C-6: Scenic highway corridors that are preserved and protected from change which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to the designated routes. Policy C-6.1: Design developments within designated scenic highway corridors to balance the objectives of maintaining scenic resources with accommodating compatible land uses. Policy C-6.4: Incorporate riding, hiking, and bicycle trails and other compatible public recreational facilities within scenic corridors. Policy C-6.5: Ensure that the design and appearance of new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs, or grading within eligible county scenic highway corridors are compatible with the surrounding scenic setting or environment. CD-1: A unified and attractive community identity that complements the character of the City's distinctive communities. CD-1.1: Enhance the city's identity through the use of distinct city graphics, such as the city seal, in the design of gateways, street signs, city signage, public facilities and public gathering spaces, and other areas where appropriate. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-10 CD-1.2: Support the development and preservation of unique communities and rural and suburban neighborhoods in which each community exhibits a special sense of place and quality of design. CD-1.3: Strengthen the identity of individual neighborhoods/communities with entry monuments, flags, street signs, and/or special tree streets, landscaping, and lighting. CD-1.4: Provide special landscaping and decorative monument signage in order to highlight arrival and departure from the city. CD-1.5: Encourage new residential development in Sun City to specifically address the needs of seniors, including projects that have smaller yards, low-maintenance landscaping, limited mobility fixtures, and appropriately-sized parking spaces. Goal CD-3: Projects, developments, and public spaces that visually enhance the character of the community and are appropriately buffered from dissimilar land uses so that differences in type and intensity do not conflict. Policy CD-3.1: Preserve positive characteristics and unique features of a site during the design and development of a new project; the relationship to scale and character of adjacent uses should be considered. Policy CD-3.2: Maintain and incorporate the City's natural amenities, including its hillsides, indigenous vegetation, and rock outcroppings, within proposed projects. Policy CD-3.3: Minimize visual impacts of public and private facilities and support structures through sensitive site design and construction. This includes, but is not limited to: appropriate placement of facilities; undergrounding, where possible; and aesthetic design (e.g., cell tower stealthing). Policy CD-3.5: Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually integrated and connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street scene. Policy CD-3.6: Locate site entries and storage bays to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy CD-3.7: Consider including public art at key gateways, major projects, and public gathering places. Policy CD-3.8: Design retention/detention basins to be visually attractive and well integrated with any associated project and with adjacent land uses. Policy CD-3.9: Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-11 Policy CD-3.10: Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence. Policy CD-3.11 Provide special building-form elements, such as towers and archways, and other building massing elements to help distinguish activity nodes and establish landmarks within the community. Policy CD-3.12: Utilize differing but complementary forms of architectural styles and designs that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area. Policy CD-3.13: Utilize architectural design features (e.g., windows, columns, offset roof planes, etc.) to vertically and horizontally articulate elevations in the front and rear of residential buildings. Policy CD-3.14: Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences. Policy CD-3.15: Require property owners to maintain structures and landscaping to high standards of design, health, and safety. Policy CD-3.16: Avoid use of long, blank walls in industrial developments by breaking them up with vertical and horizontal facade articulation achieved through stamping, colors, materials, modulation, and landscaping. Policy CD-3.17: Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses. Policy CD-3.18: Require setbacks and other design elements to buffer residential units to the extent possible from the impacts of abutting roadway, commercial, agricultural, and industrial uses. Policy CD-3.19: Design walls and fences that are well integrated in style with adjacent structures and terrain and utilize landscaping and vegetation materials to soften their appearance. Policy CD-3.20: Avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls. Policy CD-3.21: Use open space, greenways, recreational lands, and water courses as community separators. Policy CD-3.22: Incorporate visual buffers, including landscaping, equipment and storage area screening, and roof treatments, on properties abutting either Interstate 215 or residentially designated property. Goal CD-4: Recognize, preserve, and enhance the aesthetic value of the City's enhanced landscape corridors and scenic corridors. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-12 Policy CD-4.1: Create unifying streetscape elements for enhanced landscape streets, including coordinated streetlights, landscaping, public signage, street furniture, and hardscaping. Policy CD-4.2: Design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture. Policy CD-4.3: Apply special paving at major intersections and crosswalks along enhanced corridors to create a visual focal point and slow traffic speeds. Policy CD-4.4: Frame views along streets through the use of wide parkways and median landscaping. Policy CD-4.5: Orient new streets to maximize the view of open space, parks, mountains, and built landmarks where possible. Policy CD-4.6: Prohibit outdoor advertising devices (billboards, but not on-site signs identifying a business on the same property as the sign) within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way line of all scenic corridors as depicted on Circulation Element Exhibit C-8 and the entire length of I-215; City Community Information Signs or other City-sponsored signs are not subject to this requirement. Policy CD-4.7: Design new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs, or grading within the scenic corridors for compatibility with the surrounding scenic setting or environment. Policy CD-4.8: Preserve and enhance view corridors by undergrounding and/or screening new or relocated electric or communication distribution lines, which would be visible from the City's scenic highway corridors. Policy CD-4.9: Require specialized design review for development along scenic corridors, including but not limited to, building height restrictions, setback requirements, and site-orientation guidelines. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: I.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 found that buildout of SP 301 would result in less-than-significant impacts to scenic vistas. This conclusion was based on the following design features included in SP 301: major scenic resources located on the SP 301 site would remain undeveloped; landscaping treatments along perimeter roadways would serve to alleviate potential visual impacts; appropriate architectural design guidelines are incorporated for future development; and SP 301 was found to be in conformance with the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Because impacts were disclosed as less than significant, mitigation was not required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site does not comprise a scenic vista, nor does the Project site afford public views of off-site visual resources. The proposed residences would be City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-13 constructed at a height of forty (40’) feet, as compared to the maximum height allowed for commercial uses of fifty (50’) feet pursuant to the adopted SP 301. The construction of residential uses at a lower height would reduce potential obstructions of views of off-site vistas (e.g., mountains, open space, etc.) as compared to what was previously disclosed by EIR No. 423. Further, the proposed modified Development Standards and Design Guidelines (Architecture and Landscaping) set forth in SPA 2016-140 would apply to the proposed Project and would ensure that the Project site is developed in a manner that is visually attractive and would not adversely affect scenic vistas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. I.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts to scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway, as EIR No. 423 disclosed that all major scenic resources would remain undeveloped. Because no impacts were identified, no mitigation was imposed. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located approximately 2.8 miles east of Interstate 215 (I-215) and 1.6 miles south of State Route 74, which are both identified as “State Eligible Scenic Highways.” However, due to intervening vegetation, topography, and existing development within and surrounding the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, areas proposed for disturbance or future development would not be prominently visible from I-215 or State Route 74. Moreover, I-215 and State Route 74 are not officially designated as scenic highways (City of Menifee, 2013a). Further, the proposed modified Development Standards and Design Guidelines (Architecture and Landscaping) set forth in SPA 2016-140 301A3 would apply to the proposed Project and would ensure that the Project site is developed in a manner that is visually attractive and would ensure that adverse effects to scenic resources are minimized, thereby reducing potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. I.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 included an extensive analysis of potential visual character and quality and described potential visual effects associated with buildout of each planning area within SP 301, and concluded that impacts to visual quality and character would be less than significant based on the following considerations: major scenic resources located on the site would remain undeveloped; landscaping treatments along perimeter roadways would serve to alleviate potential visual impacts; appropriate architectural design guidelines are incorporated for future development; and SP 301 was found to be in conformance with the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Because impacts were disclosed as less than significant, mitigation was not required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-14 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Although the Project site would construct residential uses in lieu of commercial, the residential uses would be subject to the Specific Plan Design Guidelines which would preclude the creation of impacts to visual character and quality. In addition, the proposed residential uses would be similar in character to the existing residential uses located to the south and southwest of the Project site, as well as planned residential development to the north and northwest. The Project would appear as a continuation of existing residential development patterns and would be consistent with the character and quality of existing and planned residential to the north, west, and south. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The project will implement the landscaping and architectural design requirements of the Specific Plan Amendment, which are directed at providing an aesthetically pleasing development. The project also will be incompliance with the Land Use Policies of the City of Menifee General Plan and with City Ordinance No. 655, such that impacts to Mt. Palomar Observatory will be minimized. Because significant visual impacts are not anticipated, no mitigation is required. Monitoring: Impacts would be less than significant, requiring no monitoring. Notwithstanding, the City of Menifee Community Development Department and Building and Safety Department would review implementing applications for compliance with the Specific Plan landscaping and architectural design requirements, which would serve to ensure that the Project’s aesthetic effects remain below a level of significance. I.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 found that residential uses on the SP 301 site would increase the amount of artificial nighttime light and incrementally contribute to a reduction of nighttime views in the area. The project is consistent with the approved land use designations for the property as shown in the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan No. 301; thus, the introduction of new lighting sources created by implementation of the tentative map would not create lighting impacts beyond those previously disclosed in EIR No. 423. Additionally, the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan No. 301 contains requirements for the minimization of glare, the use of low intensity, energy conserving night lighting, and the shielding of lighting to minimize spill light into the night sky or onto adjacent properties. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Although the proposed Project would introduce new sources of artificial light on the Project site from residential uses, the lighting would be less intense than what would have occurred if the Project site were developed with commercial uses pursuant to the adopted SP 301. Furthermore, residential lighting standards are included in proposed SPA 2016-140 that require residential lighting elements to be focused downward and shielded as feasible to minimize light pollution (i.e., light spill). These standards would ensure that the residential lighting installed on the Project site is compatible with lighting the surrounding area, would prevent substantial light or glare from falling on public streets or property adjoining the Project site, and would prevent “spillover” effects from the Project site that could interfere with day or nighttime views in the area. In addition, all development on the Project site would be regulated by the City’s Mt. Palomar Observatory Lighting Ordinance City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-15 (Ordinance No. 655), which identifies requirements for outdoor lighting that minimize potential adverse effects on observations at the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation would be required. All future implementing permits would be required to comply with the standards for outdoor lighting contained in Section IV of the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan No. 301 and the Mt. Palomar Observatory Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance No. 655). Monitoring: City of Menifee’s building permit process and improvement plan approval process will monitor compliance with conditions related to aesthetics, visual quality, and lighting. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?     b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?     c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?     d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-16 Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-6: High value agricultural lands available for long-term agricultural production in limited areas of the City. Policy OSC-6.1: Protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural acres transition to more developed land uses. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: II.a): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 found that SP 301 was designated by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) as containing areas mapped as “Prime Farmland,” “Statewide Important Farmland,” and “Local Important Farmland.” EIR No. 423 determined that buildout of SP 301 would convert these areas to non-agricultural use, precluding any further agricultural production. The EIR concluded that the SP 301 site was not designated for long-term agricultural use by Riverside County’s General Plan, and was designated by the then-adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan No. 301 for development of residential, commercial, recreational, and public uses. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with agriculture were determined not to be significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: According to the CDC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) map for western Riverside County, the Project site does not include land designated as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” The Project site is, however, classified by the CDC as “Farmland of Local Importance.” (CDC, 2016a) Although the proposed Project would construct residential in lieu of commercial, both commercial and residential development of the site would result in the loss of “Farmland of Local Importance.” The buildout of SPA 2016-140 would continue to convert these areas to non-agricultural use, precluding any further agricultural production. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses would be less than significant. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. II.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the southwest corner of the SP 301 site is within an agricultural preserve (Map No. 360, Winchester Agricultural Preserve No. 22). However, the EIR disclosed that a prior land owner filed for a Notice of Nonrenewal on December 3, 1982, and the property became available for diminishment/disestablishment in 1993. The EIR concluded that once applications have been filed for diminishment/disestablishment and are approved by the Board of Supervisors the site will no longer be an agricultural preserve; thus, SP 301 was found not to be in conflict with an agricultural preserves. Furthermore, the EIR noted that the SP 301 site was not designated for long-term agricultural use by Riverside County’s General Plan, and was designated by the then-adopted SP 301 for development City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-17 of residential, recreational, and public uses. EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with conflicts with a Williamson Act contract and conflicts with existing zoning for agriculture use were determined less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under active agricultural production. These circumstances have not changed since EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002. The nearest off-site agricultural preserve (Map No. 82, Winchester Agricultural Preserve No. 10) is approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the Project site and would not be impacted by the proposed Project. (CDC, 2016b) Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts due to a conflict with existing agricultural zoning, agricultural use or with land subject to a Williamson Act contract would not occur on- site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. II.c): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 found that with the implementation of open space buffers as planned by SP 301, and with mandatory compliance with the County’s “Right to Farm” ordinance (Ordinance No. 625), impacts due to land use conflicts with existing agricultural uses surrounding SP 301 would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through compliance with the mitigation identified in EIR No. 423 (included herein as Mitigation Measure MM AG-1). No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project would not involve any other changes that would convert “Farmland” to non-agricultural uses. Accordingly, no impacts to Farmland would occur as a result of other changes from the proposed Project. Consistent with the conclusions of EIR No. 423, the Project would be subject to City Ordinance No. 625, which requires notification to future residents at the time homes on-site are purchased that agricultural operations are on-going in the area and that such uses may not be the subject of nuisance complaints. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure implements EIR No. 423 Mitigation Measure B.2-4: MM AG-1 The City of Menifee has a “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625). The ordinance is intended to provide for a means of giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm that has been in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have entered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc. Monitoring: The City shall review future grading and building permits to ensure notes are included implementing the requirements of Mitigation Measure MM AG-1. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-18 II.d): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts associated with forest land. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in changes to the existing environment which could result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. II.e): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 identified no impacts due to other changes in the environment that could result in the conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. EIR No. 423 also did not identify any impacts associated with forest land. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project would not include any other changes that would convert “Farmland” to non-agricultural uses. Consistent with the conclusions of EIR No. 423, the Project would be subject to City’s “Right to Farm” ordinance (Ordinance No. 625), which would preclude indirect impacts to agricultural lands located east of the Project site. The Project site does not contain any forest land, is not zoned for forest resources, nor is it identified as containing forest resources by the City of Menifee General Plan. There are no other components of either approved SP 301 of the proposed Project that could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, conversion of forest resources to non-forest use, either directly or indirectly. Additionally, there are no forest lands within the Project vicinity, and no impacts to forest land would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required beyond mandatory compliance with the City’s “Right to Farm” ordinance (Ordinance No. 625). Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-19 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?     d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter. Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Policy OSC-9.2: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses. Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source. Policy OSC-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-20 Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: III.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to a conflict with or obstruction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). However, the analysis and information provided in EIR No. 423 demonstrated that construction and operation of SP 301 would result in significant direct and cumulatively considerable impacts due to emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) during both construction and operation, while operation of the Project also were found to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROGs), and PM10. Although EIR No. 423 did not explicitly evaluate the consistency of SP 301, the data and information provided within the EIR demonstrates that the project evaluated in the 2002 EIR likely would have conflicted with the AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant direct and cumulatively-considerable impact for which additional mitigation was not available. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control and has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to reduce air emissions in the Basin. Most recently, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the Final 2012 AQMP for the SCAB, on December 7, 2012. The 2012 SCAQMD AQMP is based on motor vehicle projections provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in their EMFAC 2011 model and demographics information provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 33-34) Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2, and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). These indicators are discussed below: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were exceeded. As evaluated as part of the Project LST analysis under Thresholds 3.b) and 3.c), the Project’s localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs assuming mandatory compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 1113. Additionally, The Project regional analysis demonstrates that Project operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds, and would therefore not result in or cause violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 34) • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of Project build-out phase. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-21 The 2012 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the City of Menifee General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 35) Peak daily emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of a majority of the site occurring during construction activities. Thus, construction activities would be consistent with the AQMP assumptions. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 35) The Project site is located within the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan No. 301 Amendment No. 2 (SP 301A2) of the City General Plan. SP 301A2 designates the Project site as a commercial land use. As previously noted, the currently adopted land use for the Project site is 116,000 square feet of commercial retail use. The Project is proposing to construct 80 single-family detached dwelling units. Additionally, and as discussed under the analysis of Threshold 3.b, the Project would result in fewer operational-source emissions than if the currently adopted land use were constructed. Therefore, the Project would not increase the development intensities identified in the City General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed development would not exceed regional or local thresholds and would therefore be considered to have a less than significant impact. As such, the development proposed by the Project is generally consistent with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 35) As indicated in the above analysis, the Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The Project also would not increase the development intensities reflected in the adopted General Plan in terms of air quality emissions. Furthermore, the Project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. As such, the Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP. As the modified project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2012 AQMP, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 35) Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. III.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) was considered “non-attainment” for ozone (O3) and ozone precursors (e.g., ROGs, CO, and NOx); carbon City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-22 monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and particulate matter (PM10). EIR No. 423 disclosed that buildout of SP 301 would result in significant direct and cumulatively considerable impacts due to emissions of NOX during both construction and operation, while operation of the Project also were found to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for carbon monoxide CO, reactive organic compounds (ROGs), and PM10. EIR No. 423 disclosed that almost all impacts to air quality caused by SP 301 would derive from mobile source emissions, which were determined to be beyond the control of the project applicant with only a limited potential for reducing air quality emissions associated with buildout and long-term operation of SP 301. Although EIR No. 423 imposed mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions to the maximum practical extent, EIR No. 423 nonetheless concluded that emission of these non-attainment pollutants would represent significant direct and cumulatively considerable unavoidable impacts during both construction and long-term operation for which additional mitigation is not available. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Since certification of EIR No. 423, the SCAQMD has identified updated Regional thresholds of significance for air quality pollutants, which are included in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Table 3-1, SCAQMD Regional Thresholds, summarizes the SCAQMD’s regional and localized thresholds. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2015) indicate that any project in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 21). Provided below is an analysis of whether the Project’s construction and/or operational air quality emissions would exceed the SCAQMD Regional and/or Localized Thresholds. Construction Emissions – Regional Thresholds Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Oxides Sulfur (SOX), Particulate Matter ≤ 10 microns (PM10), and Particulate Matter ≤ 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities: (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 22) • Site Preparation • Grading • Building Construction • Paving • Architectural Coating • Construction Workers Commuting For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that construction would commence in June 2019 and would last through September 2019. If construction activities occur at a later date, impacts would be less than disclosed herein due to fleet turnover and greater efficiencies and lower pollutants associated with modern vehicles. Construction duration by phase is shown on Table 3-2 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix A). These phases include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst- case” analysis scenario, because if construction were to occur any time after the assumed dates, emissions would be lower than estimated because emission factors for construction activities decrease as the analysis year increases. Additionally, if construction activities were to take longer, then the daily emissions City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-23 would be less than reported in the Air Quality Impact Analysis because the same amount of construction activity would be spread over a longer period of time. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. The site-specific construction fleet may vary due to specific needs at the time of construction. The duration of construction activity and associated construction equipment was based on consultation with the Project Applicant. A detailed summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided in Subsection 2.5.1.C. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 23) SCAQMD Regional Thresholds Note: lbs/day-pounds per day. Localized thresholds for construction and operational emissions are based on SCAQMD look-up tables for a 5-acre disturbance with the nearest sensitive receptors 29 meters away. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 35) Dust is typically a major concern during rough grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions.” Fugitive dust emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). The CalEEMod model was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. The Project would require approximately 45,483 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil import, which would be taken from the nearby Planning SOx City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-24 Areas 21 and 39B and lot spoils generated on-site. The Project site is currently vacant; therefore, no demolition is required. The Project shall comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations regarding handling and disturbances of toxics, such as asbestos and lead-based paint, that may be encountered during Project construction. Inspections for these hazardous materials shall be performed prior to any demolition activities and compliance with the applicable rules and regulations, such as Rule 1403 for asbestos removal, will be required. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 23) Construction emissions for construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, as well as vendor trips (construction materials delivered to the Project site) were estimated based on information from CalEEMod model defaults. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 23) SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings; Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel); Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); and Rule 1186 / 1186.1 (Street Sweepers). As such, credit for Rule 1113, Rule 403, and Rule 1186/1186.1 has been taken. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 23) The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table 3-2, Emissions Summary of Overall Construction. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.1 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix A). Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction would not exceed numerical thresholds established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 24) Emissions Summary of Overall Construction (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 3-4) Construction Emissions – Localized Significance Thresholds As previously discussed, the SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the NAAQS/CAAQS. Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 27) The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology). (SCAQMD, 2003) The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of a project are above or below State standards. In the case of CO and NO2, if ambient levels are below the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-25 standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a state or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to PM10 and PM2.5, both of which are non-attainment pollutants. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 27) The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. LSTs were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 27-28) LSTs apply to CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD’s Methodology clearly states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 28) For the proposed Project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST is the Temecula Valley monitoring station (SRA 26). LSTs apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter ≤ 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SCAQMD has produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. In order to determine the appropriate methodology for determining localized impacts that could occur as a result of Project-related construction, the following process is undertaken: (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 28) • The CalEEMod model is utilized to determine the maximum daily on-site emissions that will occur during construction activity. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 28) • The SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds (21) is used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in CalEEMod. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 28) • If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to five acres per day, then the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized to determine if a Project has the potential to result in a significant impact (the SCAQMD recommends that Projects exceeding the screening look-up tables undergo dispersion modeling to determine actual impacts). The look-up tables establish a maximum daily emissions threshold in pounds per day that can be compared to CalEEMod outputs. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 28) • For projects that exceed 5 acres, the 5-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a 5-acre area and would over predict potential City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-26 localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If the project exceeds the LST look-up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project specific air quality modeling be performed. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 28) Table 3-3, Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed-acreage for purposes of modeling localized emissions. As shown, the proposed Project could actively disturb approximately 3.5 acres per day during the site preparation phase and 4 acres per day for the grading phase of construction. It should be noted that since the look-up tables identifies thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized, consistent with SCAQMD guidance, in order to interpolate the threshold values for the other disturbed acreage not identified. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 28-29) Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 3-6) Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, people with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as “sensitive receptors.” The nearest sensitive receptor is the residential community located approximately 45 meters south of the Project site. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 45 meters were utilized in the Project’s AQIA (Addendum Appendix A). (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 29) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-27 Since the total acreage disturbed is less than five acres per day for both the site preparation phase and the grading phase, the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining impacts. As previously noted, a 45-meter receptor distance is utilized to determine the LSTs for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Table 3-4, Localized Significance Summary Construction, identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. As shown, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur and implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an increase in construction-related emissions as compared to the existing approved project that was evaluated as part of EIR No. 423. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 29-30) Localized Significance Summary Construction (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 3-7) Operational Emissions – Regional Thresholds Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 25) : • Area Source Emissions • Energy Source Emissions • Mobile Source Emissions Please refer to Section 3.5 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix A) for a description of the various inputs assumed in the study for each of the above-listed sources. The Project-related operations emissions burdens, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, are shown on Table 3-5, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary. As City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-28 shown in Table 3-5, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not exceed any of the criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Accordingly, long-term operation of residential uses on the Project site would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality and no mitigation is required. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 26-27) Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Summary (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 3-5) Operational Emissions – Localized Significance Thresholds The proposed project involves the construction and operation of 80 single family residential dwelling units. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed Project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 30) Comparative Operational Emissions Analysis As previously noted, the Project site is Planning Area 41 of SP 301, Amendment No. 2. EIR No. 423 assumed that Planning Area 41 would be developed with up to 116,000 square feet of commercial retail use. The Project is proposing to develop 80 single-family detached residential dwelling units and a 1.1 recreation City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-29 center that includes a pool to be utilized by residents of Heritage Lake within Planning Area 41. Table 3-6, Summary of Operational Emissions: Approved SP 301A2 vs. Proposed Project, shows a comparison of the proposed Project’s regional operational-source emissions to what was assumed for the site by EIR No. 423. As shown, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate significantly fewer emissions per day for emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 as compared to commercial land uses assumed by EIR No. 423. As such, the overall operational impacts of the proposed Project would be less than what was disclosed in EIR No. 423, no new significant impacts would occur, and the Project would not exacerbate any previously-identified impacts. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 30-31) As the modified Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and because air quality emissions associated with the proposed Project would be less than or equal to the emission levels described in EIR No. 423, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Summary of Operational Emissions: Approved SP 301A2 vs. Proposed Project (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 3-8) Mitigation: Although construction- and operational-related impacts due to the violation of an air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant, the following measures implement the Mitigation Measures from Final EIR No. 423 and shall apply to the proposed Project: City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-30 MM AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to the City of Menifee Community Development Department. This involves developing a dust control program to supplement the routine watering that constitutes the best available control measures (BACMSs) in excess of any minimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BACMs shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while awaiting construction; b. Adding chemical binders or surfactants (according to manufacturer’s specifications) to all inactive construction areas or previously graded areas that remain inactive for four or more days; c. Early paving or chip sealing of roads; d. Enforcing reduced travel speeds (15 mph) in unpaved areas; e. Installation of sand fences and perimeter sandbags; f. Watering for dust control during clearing, grading and construction; and g. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult. MM AQ-2 Develop a program concurrent with construction activities to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. The program shall be reviewed and monitored by the City of Menifee Community Development Department. Measures recommended for inclusion in the program are: a. Schedule receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. b. Route construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. c. Limit lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. d. Provide ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. MM AQ-3 Vehicles entering public roadways from dirt off-road project areas shall be washed, and project access to public roadways washed and swept on a consistent and regular schedule. MM AQ-4 Emissions control will be required from on-site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. MM AQ-5 Limit grading/soil disturbance to no more than 15 acres at any one time. MM AQ-6 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 113, Table of Standards, by requiring that all architectural coatings must consist of low VOCs (i.e., VOCs of less than 100 grams per liter [g/L]) unless otherwise specified in the SCAQMD Table of Standards. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-31 Monitoring: As required by the Mitigation Measures included in Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project- Specific MMRP included herein in Section 5.1). III.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) was considered “non-attainment” for ozone (O3) and ozone precursors (e.g., ROGs, CO, and NOX); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and particulate matter (PM10). EIR No. 423 disclosed that buildout of SP 301 would result in significant direct and cumulatively considerable impacts due to emissions of NOX during both construction and operation. Operation of SP 301 also was found to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for carbon monoxide CO, reactive organic compounds (ROGs), and PM10. EIR No. 423 disclosed that almost all impacts to air quality caused by SP 301 would derive from mobile source emissions, which were determined to be beyond the control of the project applicant with only a limited potential for reducing air quality emissions associated with buildout and long-term operation of SP 301. Although EIR No. 423 imposed mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions to the maximum practical extent, EIR No. 423 nonetheless concluded that emission of these non-attainment pollutants would represent significant direct and cumulatively considerable unavoidable impacts during both construction and long- term operation for which additional mitigation is not available. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Table 3-7, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB, summarizes the attainment status for criteria pollutants within the SCAB. As shown, in 2015 the federal and state standards (NAAQS and CAAQs) were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations. No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or state standards for NO2, SO2, CO, sulfates, or leads. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 12) As indicated under the discussion of Threshold III.b), above, and as shown in Table 3-2, construction emissions associated with residential development of the property would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for any criteria pollutant, including ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5. Additionally, and as shown in Table 3-5, operational emissions also would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for any criteria pollutant, including ozone precursors, PM10, and PM2.5. Accordingly, the air emissions generated during construction and long-term operation of residential use of the property as proposed by the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. Moreover, and as shown in Table 3-6, development of the site with 80 residential dwelling units in lieu of the commercial uses as per the approved SP 301A2 would result in a net reduction in emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5; thus, emissions under long-term operations would be reduced as compared to the level of emissions disclosed in EIR No. 423. As such, it is concluded that emissions associated with the Project would be less than what was disclosed by EIR No. 423, which identified significant unavoidable impacts due to emissions of VOCs (also referred to as ROGs), CO, and PM10. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment, and such impacts would be reduced as compared to what was disclosed by EIR No. 423. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-32 impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB Source: State/Federal designations were taken from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm Note: See Appendix 3.1 of Addendum Appendix A for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the South Coast Air Basin (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, Table 2-2) Mitigation: Although construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial emissions of criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS, the Mitigation Measures from Final EIR No. 423 (refer to Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6 in the Project-specific MMRP in Section 5.1) would continue to apply to the proposed Project. Monitoring: As required by the Mitigation Measures identified by Final EIR No. 423 (refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 in the Project-Specific MMRP included herein in Section 5.1). III.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptor is the residential community located approximately 45 meters south of the Project site. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 45 meters were utilized in the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix A). Construction and Operational LST Analysis Since the total acreage disturbed is less than five acres per day for both the site preparation phase and the grading phase, the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining impacts. As previously noted, a 45-meter receptor distance is utilized to determine the LSTs for emissions of CO, NO2, PM10, and City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-33 PM2.5. As indicated above under the discussion and analysis of Thresholds 3.b) and 3.c), and as indicated in Table 3-4, near-term construction localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for any criteria pollutant. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD LSTs for any criteria pollutant. Accordingly, impacts to nearby sensitive receptors that could occur during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 39) CO “Hot Spot” Analysis It has long been recognized that CO exceedances (“hot spots”) are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 31) A CO “hotspot” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. At the time of the SCAQMD’s 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. As identified within SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This hot spot analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 31) It can therefore be reasonably concluded that projects (such as the proposed Project) that are not subject to the extremes in vehicle volumes and vehicle congestion that was evidenced in the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot analysis would similarly not create or result in CO hot spots. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study, or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations (see Table 3-10 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis, Addendum Appendix A). Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed Project. Localized air quality impacts related to CO “hot spots” would therefore be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, pp. 31-32) As indicated in the above analysis, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with an exceedance of the SCAQMD LSTs and would not City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-34 result in or contribute to any CO “Hot Spots.” The Project’s less-than-significant impacts due to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations also are consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. III.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts associated with objectionable odors. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include: agricultural uses (livestock and farming); wastewater treatment plants; food processing plants; chemical plants; composting operations; refineries; landfills; dairies; and fiberglass molding facilities. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 36) The Project does not propose any land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operational uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction; as such, impacts during construction would be less than significant. Additionally, Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project’s construction and long-term operation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Urban Crossroads, 2016a, p. 36) As the modified project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, no new significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-35 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?     e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?     f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-8: Protected biological resources, especially sensitive and special status wildlife species and their natural habitats. Policy OSC-8.1: Work to implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority. Policy OSC-8.2: Support local and regional efforts to evaluate, acquire, and protect natural habitats for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species occurring in and around the City. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-36 Policy OSC-8.4: Identify and inventory existing natural resources in the City of Menifee. Policy OSC-8.5: Recognize the impacts new development will have on the City's natural resources and identify ways to reduce these impacts. Policy OSC-8.8: Implement and follow MSHCP goals and policies when making discretionary actions pursuant to Section 13 of the Implementing Agreement. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: IV.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 indicated that focused surveys to determine the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site were not warranted due to on-going agricultural activities that were occurring at the time, and concluded implementation of SP 301 would result in no impacts to sensitive plant species. With respect to sensitive wildlife, EIR No. 423 found that the Riversidean sage scrub that is located within the SP 301 site is host to three sensitive wildlife species: the federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB), the federally threatened California gnatcatcher, and the federally endangered Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. Focused surveys determined that there was no suitable habitat for the QCB on-site, and EIR No. 423 therefore concluded that no impacts to QCB would occur with implementation of SP 301. Additionally, EIR No. 423 concluded that the two small areas of Riverside sage scrub found on-site were “marginal, and retain[ed] an extremely low potential for the California gnatcatcher to occur.” With respect to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR), EIR No. 423 noted that future implementing developments within SP 301 would be subject to payment of the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) fee to ensure the long-term regional preservation of this species. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 concluded that, with payment of the SKR HCP fee, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Development of the property with residential uses as proposed by the Project in lieu of commercial uses as approved by SP 301A2 would result in the same level of biological impact as analyzed in EIR No. 423, which assumed full disturbance to the Project site. Under existing (2017) conditions, the Project site has been fully disturbed resulting from grading activities that occurred on site in 2013. As such, the Project site’s vegetation does not provide any quality habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species that may be regulated by the CDFW or USFWS. Consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, and with implementation of applicable Mitigation Measures from EIR No. 423, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, and with mandatory compliance to Mitigation Measures from EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to special-status plant or wildlife species. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The following Mitigation Measure from Final EIR No. 423 shall apply. Due to the site-specific nature of mitigation for biological resources, Final EIR No. 423 mitigation measures that do not apply to the Project site are not listed below (refer to the EIR No. 423 MMRP Compliance Table in Section 5.2). City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-37 MM BIO-1 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat: The proposed project lies within the coverage area of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan; however, it is not a part of a designated preserve. Approval of this project will include payment of the appropriate SKR mitigation fee in accordance with the SKRHCP. Monitoring: As required by Final EIR No. 423 for Mitigation Measure B.3-2 (refer to Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 in the Project-specific MMRP attached under Section 5.1). IV.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 indicated that there were only three potential jurisdictional features on-site, including detention basins, an agricultural irrigation pond, and a small drainage. However, EIR No. 423 concluded that these areas do not fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and contained no riparian habitat. With respect to sensitive natural communities, EIR No. 423 noted that the majority of the SP 301 site had been disturbed for decades by dry farming. However, EIR No. 423 also indicated that there were two parcels with poor quality Riversidean sage scrub habitat, which was considered a sensitive habitat community by the CDFW. One area of Riversidean sage scrub was identified in PA 13 on the eastern border of the site and the second area was identified in the southwestern corner of the SP 301 site in PA 38. As noted by EIR No. 423, these patches support a mix of native and non-native plant species, and are generally of low biological value. Although these areas were described as potential habitat for a variety of bird, reptile, and mammal species associated with Riversidean sage scrub habitats, EIR No. 423 concluded that based on the small size of these Riversidean sage scrub areas, historical disturbances, and low habitat value, these habitat patches were not expected to support substantial numbers of sensitive species. Moreover, EIR No. 423 also noted that the 11.2 acres of the sage scrub in PA 13 and the 11.6 acres of the sage scrub in PA 38 were designated as preserved open space. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that implementation of SP 301 would have no impact to the Riversidean sage habitat community or any other sensitive natural community. EIR No. 423 concluded that the impacts to the Riversidean sage scrub habitat community in PAs 13 and 38 would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing (2017) conditions, the Project site has been fully disturbed due to prior grading activities on site. Thus, there is no riparian habitat on site, and the only vegetation communities present on site are those that resulted from hydroseeding slopes as part of the prior grading activities; no portion of the Project site contains Riversidean sage scrub or any other sensitive natural vegetation community. Moreover, the northeast portion of the Project site is covered with dirt stockpiles and dirt roadways, and the entire Project site is subject to routine disturbance associated with on-going construction activities in the surround areas and/or due to fire hazard abatement activities. Because all disturbance on the Project site has already occurred, and because no new disturbance to riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural vegetation communities (e.g., Riversidean sage scrub habitat) would occur as a result of the proposed Project, impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-38 Monitoring: No monitoring is required. IV.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that there were only three potential jurisdictional features within the SP 301 site, including detention basins, an agricultural irrigation pond, and a small drainage. However, EIR No. 423 concluded that these areas do not fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Accordingly, EIR No. 423 concluded implementation of SP 301 would not impact any federally- or state-protected wetlands would not be impacted. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing (2017) conditions, the Project site has been fully graded, with stockpiles occurring in the northeast portions of the site. No portion of the Project site contains wetlands or other jurisdictional features. Additionally, it is expected that the Project site will continue to be disturbed as part of on-going construction operations to the north and west of the Project site, as excess spoils from grading operations on these adjacent areas would be hauled to the Project site and stored on site in anticipation of future fine grading activities. These future grading activities would occur regardless as to whether the Project were approved, as the Project site could be developed with commercial land uses under existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would have no impact to federally-protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. IV.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 found that the SP 301 area does not contain any wildlife corridors, and did not identify any native wildlife nursery sites within the SP 301 area. Accordingly, no impacts were identified to wildlife movement corridors or native nursery sites. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project site is currently surrounded by existing/developing residential uses to the west, existing commercial residential uses to the south, and Briggs Road and agricultural land to the east. Thus, under existing conditions, and consistent with the conditions that existed at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, the Project site does not provide for opportunities for wildlife movement corridors. Furthermore, the proposed Project site occurs within a portion of Riverside County that is subject to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP was developed to provide for the long-term conservation of covered species and accommodates wildlife movement corridors throughout the plan area to provide for the long-term survival of covered species. The wildlife movement corridors identified in the MSHCP occur wholly within conservation criteria cells, and the Project site is not located within any criteria cells of the MSHCP. The Project site is not part of any of the MSHCP Linkages or Constrained Linkages, indicating that the Project site is not targeted for conservation by the MSHCP as necessary to establish critical wildlife movement corridors within western Riverside County. Therefore, because wildlife movement corridors City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-39 are accommodated by the MSHCP reserve system, and because the Project site is not targeted for conservation by the MSHCP, the Project would result in no impacts to wildlife movement corridors, consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423. (Riverside County, 2003) As the modified project would not impact any wildlife movement corridors or wildlife nursery sites, no new, significant environmental effects result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. IV.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: Except for the mandatory payment of fees per the SKR HCP fee program (as was required by Riverside County Ordinance No. 663), EIR No. 423 did not identify any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Because SP 301 was required to contribute fees per County Ordinance 663, EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to a conflict with policies/ordinances. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is not targeted for conservation by the MSHCP or the SKR HCP. The Project would be subject to fees pursuant to City Ordinance 663 (per the SKR HCP) and Ordinance 810 (per the MSHCP). Aside from these fee programs, Chapter 9.86 of the City’s Municipal Code provides for tree preservation; however, there are no trees on the Project site and thus the Project would not be subject to the tree preservation portions of Chapter 9.86 (the landscaping requirements of Chapter 9.86 would apply to the Project, although these provisions are unrelated to the protection of existing biological resources). Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required beyond payment of fees pursuant to City Ordinances 663 and 810. Monitoring: Payment of fees would be required as part of future building permits for the site. IV.f) EIR No. 423 Finding: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the only adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan was the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). EIR No. 423 noted that the SP 301 site occurred within the Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Fee area for the SKR, and concluded that all future implementing development within the SP 301 site would be subject to payment of fees. EIR No. 423 concluded that, with the mandatory payment of fees per the SKR HCP, SP 301’s impacts due to a conflict with the SKR HCP would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Since the certification of EIR No. 423 in 2002, Riverside County has adopted the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-40 The MSHCP is the applicable habitat conservation/planning program for Western Riverside County. The Project site and surrounding off-site areas occur within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan portion of the MSHCP but are not within a Criteria Cell, a designated Cell Group, or a subunit within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan that requires conservation of land for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project site also is not within any cores or linkages (i.e., Special Linkage Areas). (Riverside County, 2003) As such, the Project would only be required to contribute MSHCP Mitigation Fees pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance No. 810, as adopted by the City of Menifee, to assist in the establishment of the MSHCP Reserve System. Furthermore, prior to mass grading of the Project site in 2013, a MSHCP 30-day Pre-Construction Survey for the burrowing owl was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA), the results of which are documented in a report dated January 7, 2013 (Addendum Appendix B. As part of that pre- construction survey, BFSA identified one burrow near Case Road (0.3 mile north of the Project site), and a 100-meter radius was established around the burrow in which grading was disallowed until such time as any fledglings left the nest and the adults could be relocated. Subsequently, the entire TR 33406 area has been completely graded, with only minor grading needed on the Project site to achieve conformance to existing surrounding grades. Because all native vegetation has been removed, additional burrowing owl surveys are not warranted; however, in the event that the site is left undisturbed for a period of more than 30 days, pre-construction surveys would be required pursuant to the MSHCP. Impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat would be mitigated through payment of fees in accordance with City Ordinance 663. With the mandatory payment of fees, the Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans, natural conservation plans, and other approved local, regional, and state conservation plans. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required beyond payment of fees pursuant to City Ordinances 663 and 810. However, in the event that the Project site has been left undisturbed for more than 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, the following measure shall apply in order to ensure Project compliance with the MSHCP. MM BIO-2 In the event that prior to the issuance of grading permits the Project site has been left undisturbed for more than 30 days, then a pre-construction survey shall be implemented by the Project Applicant. The pre-construction 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 Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) and Wildlife Agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service). Additionally, if the site is not precise graded within one month of rough grading, or if construction and/or disturbance is suspended for a period of one month or more, an additional pre-construction survey shall be required. A copy of the results of the pre-construction survey (or surveys) shall be provided to the City of Menifee City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-41 Community Development Department prior to any vegetation clearing and ground- disturbance activities (or reinitiation of vegetation clearing/ground-disturbing activities). Monitoring: Payment of fees would be required as part of future building permits for the site, and the results of the required pre-construction survey for the burrowing owl, if required, would occur prior to the commencement of vegetation clearing or ground-disturbance activities as a condition of grading permit issuance (refer also to Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 in the Project-specific MMRP attached under Section 5.1). 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?     c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-5: Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources that are protected and integrated into the City's built environment. Policy OSC-5.1: Preserve and protect significant archeological, historic, and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, and other features, such as Ringing Rock and Grandmother Oak, consistent with state law. Policy OSC-5.3: Preserve sacred sites identified by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, such as tribal burial grounds, by avoiding activities that would negatively impact the sites. Policy OSC-5.5: Establish clear and responsible practices to identify, evaluate, and protect previously unknown archeological, historic, and cultural sites, following CEQA and NEPA procedure. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-42 Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: V.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: The historic sites identified by EIR No. 423 included a homestead site dating from the late 19th or early 20th century (P-33-9722); an early 20th century trash scatter and later buildings, possibly associated with the Menifee railroad station (P-33-9725); a mid-20th century trash scatter (RIV- 6482H); a mid-20th century cattle trough and other associated foundations (P-33- 9724); and a mid-20th century cattle loading/unloading site possibly associated with the railroad (P-33-9726). Complete abandonment along with continuous plowing was found to have significantly impacted these historic sites. None of the historic resources were determined to have any architectural significance and none were determined to be related to prominent people or events associated with California history. The trash scatter at RIV-6482H was described as extensively disturbed by plowing, and the potential for additional buried deposits not identified during the site investigation conducted as part of EIR No. 423 was determined to be very low, and no features or foundations were determined to be present. Although impacts to historical resources were determined to be less than significant, the EIR noted that the potential exists for additional foundations and/or buried artifact deposits to be present at Sites P-3-9722, P-33-9724 and P-33-9725, and identified this as a potentially significant impact. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 included mitigation requiring that grading activities at Sites P-3-9722, P-33-9724, and P-33-9725 be monitored by a qualified archaeologist in order to determine whether additional foundations and/or buried cultural deposits exist underground. With archaeological monitoring during construction, EIR No. 423 determined impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Phase 4 of Tentative Tract Map No. 34406 (TR 34406). Grading of the Project site occurred between February 2013 and December 2013. In accordance with the mitigation imposed by EIR No. 423, archaeological monitoring was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA) during grading. BFSA monitors closely inspected all cuts and spreads for evidence of buried cultural deposits; however, no indications were observed of historic or prehistoric artifacts or features. Based on the field monitoring, no historical resources are regarded as being lost or otherwise adversely affected by grading activities associated with site development. The site monitoring conducted by BFSA fulfilled the mitigation requirements of EIR No. 423. Although the site would be subject to future fine grading activities, fine grading of the site is not anticipated to exceed the depths of disturbance that already occurred as part of mass grading activities for TR 34406, as fine grading primarily would involve earthwork materials imported from adjacent off-site locations. Therefore, the Project would have no potential for resulting in impacts to archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. (BFSA, 2014a) Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. V.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 indicated that the only prehistoric site occurring within the SP 301 site, Site RIV-3429, was determined to be a non-significant site due to the complete lack of prehistoric City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-43 artifacts and ecofacts, the poor quality of the bedrock milling surfaces, and the lack of research potential beyond the recordation of the location and attributes of the site that was completed as part of the original cultural resources investigation cited by EIR No. 423. Subsurface investigations conducted for EIR No. 423 determined that the potential for buried cultural deposits at the site are unlikely. As such, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts to archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 would not occur and no mitigation was required. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Phase 4 of TR 34406. Grading of the Project site occurred between February 2013 and December 2013. In accordance with the mitigation imposed by EIR No. 423, archaeological monitoring was conducted by BFSA during grading. BFSA monitors closely inspected all cuts and spreads for evidence of buried cultural deposits; however, no indications were observed of historic or prehistoric artifacts or features. Based on the field monitoring, no archaeological resources were determined to be lost or otherwise adversely affected by grading activities associated with the prior grading activities. The site monitoring conducted by BFSA fulfilled the mitigation requirements of EIR No. 423. Although the site would be subject to future fine grading activities, fine grading of the site is not anticipated to exceed the depths of disturbance that already occurred as part of mass grading activities for TR 34406, as fine grading primarily would involve earthwork materials imported from adjacent off-site locations. Therefore, the Project would have no potential for resulting in impacts to historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. (BFSA, 2014a) Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. V.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that no paleontological resources occur on the SP 301 site. However, the EIR disclosed that the site may have a slight (low) potential for the discovery of paleontological resources during development, especially at depth in the older alluvial materials that underlie the upper few feet of topsoil in the SP 301 area. A considerable number of late Pleistocene large mammal skeletons and skeletal materials have been recovered from the Hemet Reservoir site during excavation for that structure. Because of this, it was concluded that similar materials might be found at depth in the older alluvial materials that underlie the upper few feet of topsoil in the SP 301 area. EIR No. 423 concluded that due to the low sensitivity, EIR No. 423 indicated that there was no need to have a grading monitor present on the property during grading. However, EIR No. 423 determined that if paleontological resources are found on-site during the development phase, impacts to suspected paleontological resources would be considered potentially significant. As such, EIR No. 423 imposed Mitigation Measure B.4-1, which requires consultation with a qualified paleontologist in the event potential paleontological resources are uncovered during grading/ground-disturbing activities. With implementation of the required mitigation, EIR No. 423 disclosed that impacts would be reduced to less- than-significant levels. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-44 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Phase 4 of TR 34406. Grading of the Project site occurred between February 2013 and December 2013. Although not required by the mitigation imposed on the site by EIR No. 423, paleontological monitoring was conducted by BFSA during these prior grading activities. In their paleontological monitoring report (Addendum Appendix C), BFSA noted that the Project site is mapped as being underlain by middle and upper Pleistocene older alluvial fan materials, and disclosed that older alluvial and alluvial fan deposits throughout the Inland Empire of Riverside and San Bernardino counties have yielded an extensive, well-documented late Pleistocene terrestrial vertebrate fauna that dates to the last major ice age. The Project site is within an area that is assigned a High Paleontological Sensitivity (High B), i.e., a sensitivity equivalent to High A (where exposed "geologic formations or mappable rock units ... contain fossilized body elements, and trace fossils ... on or below the surface"), but "based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface." "The category High B indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at or below four feet of depth, and may be impacted during excavation by construction activities." (BFSA, 2014b, pp. 1-2) Despite the possibility of finding terrestrial vertebrate fossils in the older alluvial and alluvial fan deposits, no fossils of any sort were observed during active monitoring of earthmover and bulldozer grading activities, nor in any of the areas ripped prior to their redistribution by earthmovers, or in any of the sloping to vertical cuts made during grading and trenching activities. Based on the investigation and monitoring conducted by BFSA, no significant paleontological resources are regarded as having been lost or otherwise adversely affected by mass grading activities concomitant with the prior grading and site preparation that occurred pursuant to TR 34406. Although the site would be subject to future fine grading activities, fine grading of the site is not anticipated to exceed the depths of disturbance that already occurred as part of mass grading activities for TR 34406. Therefore, the Project would have no potential for resulting in impacts to unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. (BFSA, 2014b, pp. 1-2) Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. V.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any human remains on site. However, EIR No. 423 identified a remote possibility that human remains buried below the site surface could be disturbed or impacted by the implementation of SP 301. As such, Mitigation Measure B.4.1 was imposed to require the appropriate treatment of the human remains in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, § 7050.5. Mandatory compliance with the identified mitigation was determined by EIR No. 423 to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Phase 4 of TR 34406. Grading of the Project site occurred between February 2013 and December 2013. During grading activities, no human remains were encountered on-site or anywhere within TR 34406 (BFSA, 2014a). Although the site would be subject to future fine grading activities, fine grading of the site is not anticipated to exceed the depths of disturbance that already occurred as part of mass grading activities for TR 34406 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-45 as most grading activities would involve fill material imported from adjacent development sites. Accordingly, there is no potential for uncovering human remains, and no impact would occur. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. V.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: Threshold V.e) was added to the CEQA Guidelines in 2015 pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), long after EIR No. 423 was certified. EIR No. 423 did not identify any significant impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The provisions of AB 52 apply “…only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.” In the case of the proposed Project, the City of Menifee, as Lead Agency under CEQA, determined that an Addendum to EIR No. 423 was the appropriate form of CEQA compliance, which does not involve a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration; as such, the Project is not subject to the provisions of AB 52. Nonetheless, no tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 were identified during grading monitoring conducted by BFSA. Although the site would be subject to future fine grading activities, fine grading of the site is not anticipated to exceed the depths of disturbance that already occurred as part of mass grading activities for TR 34406. Accordingly, there is no potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-46 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides?     b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?     d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?     e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?     f) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off site?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-1: A community that is minimally impacted by seismic shaking and earthquake-induced or other geologic hazards. Policy S-1.1: Require all new habitable buildings and structures to be designed and built to be seismically resistant in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City. Goal S-2: A community that has used engineering solutions to reduce or eliminate the potential for injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by geologic hazards such as slope instability; compressible, collapsible, expansive or corrosive soils; and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. Policy S-2.1: Require all new developments to mitigate the geologic hazards that have the potential to impact habitable structures and other improvements. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-47 VI.a.i): EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the SP 301 area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the closest known fault to the site is the San Jacinto Fault Zone, which lies approximately ten miles to the east. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that implementation of SP 301 would have no potential to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects resulting from the rupture of a known fault hazard zone. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As indicated in EIR No. 423, there are no earthquake faults crossing the Project site. Although there are two active faults within the City of Menifee, they are not defined as Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones and do not present a significant hazard to development from ground rupture. (City of Menifee, 2014) No faults are identified on geologic maps within the immediate vicinity of the Project site, and the nearest active or potentially active faults that are identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone are the San Jacinto Fault, which lies approximately ten miles to the east, and the Elsinore Fault, located approximately ten miles southwest of the site. (GeoSoils, Inc., 2007) Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of the EIR No. 423, impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault included on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VI.a.ii): EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the Southern California region is seismically active and development within the Specific Plan area likely would be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking over the life of the Specific Plan. Additionally, some areas of the SP 301 site are underlain by thin deposits of unconsolidated alluvium, colluvium, and fill, which tend to amplify earthquake-produced ground motion. However, EIR No. 423 determined that these materials would be removed from the site in areas where structures are proposed. EIR No. 423 determined that SP 301 would be required to comply with the recommendations within the geotechnical report prepared for SP 301, the Uniform Building Code, and applicable County Ordinances, which were found to reduce potential ground-shaking impacts to less-than- significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, State-designated seismic hazard zone, or zone designated by the City of Menifee or County of Riverside for seismic hazards (Riverside County, 2014a). However, the site is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes (as are all lands in the Southern California region) (City of Menifee, 2014, Exhibit S-1). Ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along nearby fault zones and other active regional faults do exist. However, Section 1613 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) identifies design features required to be implemented to resist the effects of seismic ground motions. With mandatory compliance to the 2016 California Building Code requirements, or applicable building code at the time of Project construction, future Project residents and structures would not be exposed to substantial adverse ground-shaking effects associated with Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones or County Fault Hazard Zones. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-48 associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required, beyond mandatory compliance with site-specific geotechnical reports for implementing grading permits and mandatory compliance with all applicable California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) requirements. Monitoring: Monitoring is not required. VI.a.iii): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 evaluated the potential of seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, on the SP 301 site, and concluded that the likelihood of such ground failure on the site is low due to the geologic characteristics of underlying bedrock and soils. EIR No. 423 determined that the SP 301 site was not located within an area mapped by the state of California Division of Mines and Geology as having susceptibility for liquefaction and would not pose a significant risk to development. Accordingly, impacts due to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, were found to be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Riverside County GIS Liquefaction Map identifies the Project site as having “moderate” liquefaction potential (Riverside County, 2014b). Based on a site-specific geotechnical analysis prepared for TR 34406 (Addendum Appendix D), which encompasses the Project site, regional groundwater within TR 34406 ranges from ±60 feet to ±109 feet below the ground surface. Sediments underlying the site do not consist of medium- to fine-grained cohesion-less sands, but rather silty to clayey sand. Earth materials underlying the site are generally medium dense to dense/very stiff where encountered. Such materials are not generally prone to liquefaction. (GeoSoils, Inc., 2007) During mass grading of the Project site as part of the grading permit issued pursuant to TR 34406, the recommendations of the geological study were adhered to, including recommendations related to soil stability. Moreover, due to the minimum depth to groundwater (±60 feet), the likelihood for liquefaction hazards on site is very low. As such, and consistent with the conclusion of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project’s liquefaction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VI.a.iv): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 indicated that landslides are not present within the steeper slope areas of the site and seismically induced landsliding is not expected. However, EIR No. 423 noted that future cut slopes may have the potential for landsliding. EIR No. 423 determined that the County’s standard conditions of approval, which require adherence to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical study and the incorporation of measures to ensure proposed cut slopes on-site remain stable. EIR No. 423 concluded that compliance with the County’s standard conditions of approval, the Specific City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-49 Plan area would not contain unstable geologic units or soils and also would not be subject to landslides. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As shown on the Exhibit S-3, “Liquefaction and Landslides,” of the Menifee General Plan, the Project site is not located within an area with the potential for seismically induced landsliding (City of Menifee, 2014). Moreover, the Project site and surrounding areas contain no prominent slopes that could be subject to landslides under existing (2016) conditions and all proposed slopes on-site would be constructed at a maximum slope angle of 2:1. As such, and consistent with the conclusion of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project’s seismically induced landsliding impacts would be less than significant with mandatory compliance of City standards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VI.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that erosion susceptibility of soils onsite was considered to be slight to moderate and therefore identified a need to control erosion during grading operations. SP 301 requires that all grading procedures comply with Riverside County Grading Standards. Mitigation measures were imposed to require grading and erosion control in accordance with the County of Riverside standards. Mandatory compliance with the identified mitigation was determined by EIR No. 423 to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Similar to the project evaluated in EIR No. 423, proposed grading activities associated with the Project would temporarily expose underlying soils to water and air, which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. Erosion by water would be greatest during the first rainy season after grading and before the Project’s structure foundations are established and paving and landscaping occur. Erosion by wind would be highest during periods of high wind speeds when soils are exposed. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Additionally, during grading and other construction activities involving soil exposure or the transport of earth materials, Chapter 8.04 (Building Code) of the City of Menifee Municipal Code. As part of the requirements of Chapter 8.04, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that would address construction fencing, sand bags, and other erosion-control features that would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce the site’s potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Requirements for the reduction of particulate matter in the air also would apply, pursuant to SCAQMD City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-50 Rule 403. Mandatory compliance with the Project’s NPDES permit and these regulatory requirements would ensure that water and wind erosion impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423. Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces. Only nominal areas of exposed soil, if any, would occur in the site’s landscaped areas. The only potential for erosion effects to occur during Project operation would be indirect effects from storm water discharged from the property. However, the rate of runoff from the site would not substantially increase with Project implementation, thereby demonstrating that the Project would not substantially increase erosion hazards as compared to the existing condition (MDS Consulting, 2017b). Since the drainage associated with the Project would be fully controlled via the on-site drainage plan and/or would be similar to existing conditions, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would not increase substantially as compared to existing conditions. In addition, the Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for approval of a Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and to the City for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The SWPPP and WQMP must identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., Best Management Practices) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from storm water and non- storm water discharges. Adherence to the requirements noted in the Project’s required WQMP and site- specific SWPPP would further ensure that potential erosion and sedimentation effects would be less than significant. Although impacts would be less than significant, mitigation measures identified for impacts due to soils as part of EIR No. 423 would continue to apply to the proposed Project, and would be enforced by the City of Menifee as part of the Project’s conditions of approval. Additionally, and pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1, a site-specific geotechnical study would be required prior to issuance of fine grading permits for the site, and the Project Applicant would be required to implement any recommendations contained therein. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in any impacts associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil under near- or long-term conditions that were not previously identified, disclosed, and mitigated to a level below significant as part of EIR No. 423. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures implement EIR No. 423 Mitigation Measures B.1-1 through B.1-11, B.2-1 and B.2-2. MM SLOPES-1 Prior to development within any planning area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the planning area in process shall be submitted for Planning Division approval. The Grading Plan for each planning area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual stages of development within that planning area and shall include: 1) techniques employed to prevent erosion and City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-51 sedimentation during and after the grading process; 2) approximate time frames for grading; 3) identification of areas which may be graded during high probability rain months (January through March); and 4) preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Grading on the project site shall conform to County regulations first, then to the Conceptual Grading Plan. MM SLOPES-2 All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Menifee Grading Standards including erosion control requirements during rainy months. MM SLOPES-3 Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study will be performed to further analyze on-site soil conditions and slope stability and will include the appropriate measures to control erosion and dust as mentioned in the first mitigation standard. MM SLOPES-4 Where cut and fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees. MM SLOPES-5 All streets shall have a gradient not to exceed 15 percent. MM SLOPES-6 Slopes steeper than 2:1 or higher than ten feet are allowed, provided that they are recommended to be safe in the slope stability report prepared by the soils engineer or engineering geologist. All slopes shall be landscaped per City requirements. The slope stability report also shall contain recommendations for landscaping and erosion control. The Uniform Building Code, Chapter 8.04 of the City’s Municipal Code, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee shall be observed. MM SLOPES-7 Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. MM SLOPES-8 Grading work on the entire project site shall be balanced on-site whenever possible. MM SLOPES-9 Graded, but undeveloped, land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. MM SLOPES-10 Planting of developed land shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices Construction Handbook Section 6.2. MM SLOPES-11 All grading shall be done in conformance with recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report included as Appendix B to EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-52 MM SOILS-1 Required Soils Report and Geotechnical Study. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be prepared to further analyze slope stability and soil conditions on the project site. The study shall include analysis of: 1) soils engineering qualities of underlying soils and rock conditions (e.g., soil bearing, consolidation, expansion, etc.); 2) seismic refraction traverses to determine ability characteristics of crystalline rock units; 3) percolation testing of site earth materials for feasibility of on-site sewage disposal systems; and 4) site seismic parameters for building construction. MM SOILS-2 Erosion Control Measures. To minimize the potential for the occurrence of erosion and sedimentation on-site and downstream of the site, the following measures shall be implemented: a. All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring. Detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Planning Division prior to Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of groundcovers, shrubs, and trees. b. The Uniform Building Code, City Ordinance No. 457, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee shall be observed. c. Graded, but undeveloped land, shall be maintained and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading activities, unless building permits are obtained from the City. d. In order to minimize erosion and sedimentation concerns on the property and downstream, potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Monitoring: The City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments shall review implementing fine grading permits for compliance with Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES-1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 (refer also to Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES-1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 in the EIR No. 423 MMRP, attached in Subsection 5.1). VI.c): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the SP 301 area lies on predominantly flat terrain, with few topographic constraints for development. No landslides were documented within or adjacent to the SP 301 site. No inherent stability problems were anticipated on-site. Natural slopes on-site were determined to be generally stable. The potential for ground subsidence was disclosed as being low due to the presence of bedrock under all the alluvium soils at depth. Although the site previously utilized groundwater wells, the potential for subsidence due to ground water withdrawal was determined to be substantially reduced when the existing wells were abandoned. The SP 301 site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology having a high susceptibility for liquefaction. Liquefaction was considered unlikely to occur due to on-site granitic bedrock, older alluvium, alluvial fan deposits, alluvium, colluvium, and fill. EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with unstable soil, landslides, liquefaction, or subsidence would be less than significant. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-53 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Refer to the discussion and analysis of potential seismically-induced liquefaction and landslide hazards provided above under the discussion of Thresholds VI.a.iii) and VI.a.iv). As concluded in those discussions, impacts associated with liquefaction hazards and landslides would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of EIR No. 423. Subsidence hazards in the Project vicinity primarily could be caused by seismic activity or groundwater located near the surface. The potential for this condition exists between the bedrock knobs and the Pleistocene fan deposits. However, for the majority of the site, based on the available data, bedrock generally underlies the old fan deposits at the site at depth, and the site is not known to be situated at, or near the boundaries of, an actively subsiding basin. Therefore, the potential for subsidence to affect the site is considered low for the majority of the site. Local ground subsidence may occur over the site because of equipment working (vibrations). Such subsidence depends upon the equipment used and on the dynamic effects of the equipment. Given that the site is underlain by the dense fan deposits, the amount of such subsidence would be minimal. (GeoSoils, Inc., 2007) Although seismic activity could cause subsidence to occur on-site, mandatory compliance with the recommendations of the updated geotechnical evaluation and/or future site-specific geotechnical soils reports required in conjunction with future grading permits (as required by mitigation contained in EIR 453; refer to Mitigation Measure B.2-1, referred to as MM SOILS-1 herein) would ensure that measures would be undertaken to ensure soil stability as part of the Project’s construction. Accordingly, impacts associated with ground subsidence would not occur. Mandatory compliance with the future geotechnical and soil reports also would ensure that soil conditions on the site do not present any hazards associated with landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Additionally, impacts due to unstable soil conditions would be similar whether the site is developed with commercial or residential land uses, thereby indicating that implementation of the Project would not increase environmental impacts beyond what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: EIR No. 423 Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES-1 through MM SLOPES-11 and MM SOILS-1 and MM SOILS-2, as included herein, shall apply. Monitoring: The City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments shall review implementing fine grading permits for compliance with Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES-1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 (refer also to Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES 1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 in the EIR No. 423 MMRP, attached in Subsection 5.1). VI.d): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that Older Alluvium (Qalo), Alluvium (Qal1 and Qal2), and Colluvium (Qcol) are present on-site and are considered expansive soils. Older Alluvium has a very low to low potential to expand; however, the silty sand and sandy clays of these materials are moderately expansive. Alluvium materials usually have a low expansion potential; however, the upper two to five feet are considered compressible and are not suitable for structural support. Colluvium materials typically have a low expansion potential; however, the EIR determined that some moderately expansive soils could be City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-54 present which would render these soils unsuitable for structure placement. To address these conditions, mitigation measures were imposed requiring that grading be implemented in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the geotechnical reports. Mandatory compliance with the site- specific geotechnical recommendations and the mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 423 were determined to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As discussed in the geotechnical evaluation prepared for TR 34406 (which encompasses the Project site), soil materials within the TR 34406 area are considered to have a “very low” to “low” expansion potential. The geotechnical evaluation and geotechnical update include recommendations to address the expansion potential of on-site soils, and compliance with the geotechnical evaluation and geotechnical update recommendations would be assured by Mitigation Measures MM SOILS-1 and SOILS-2. (GeoSoils, Inc., 2007) However, compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation would ensure that impacts associated with expansive soils remain below a level of significance. Moreover, impacts associated with expansive soils would be the same whether the site is ultimately developed with commercial or residential land uses, thereby indicating that impacts would not increase as a result of the Project as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed in EIR No. 423. Based on these considerations, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES-1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 shall apply. Monitoring: The City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments shall review implementing fine grading permits for compliance with Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES-1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 (refer also to Mitigation Measures MM SLOPES 1 through MM SLOPES-11, MM SOILS-1, and MM SOILS-2 in the EIR No. 423 MMRP, attached in Subsection 5.1). VI.e): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any potential impacts associated with septic systems. Under the site conditions that existed at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, there were no known septic tanks or leach lines on-site. Nonetheless, EIR No. 423 imposed Mitigation Measure B.5-18 which requires the removal and proper disposal of any unknown septic systems or leach lines that may be present beneath the soil surface. SP 301 includes provisions for the installation of a sanitary sewer system, which obviates the need for septic systems on site. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to the installation of septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of any new septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Development of the site with residential land uses would require new connections to EMWD’s wastewater collection system located in adjoining roadways, thereby demonstrating that future uses that would result as a consequence of the Project would not result in increased impacts as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-55 result in no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems on soils incapable of supporting such systems. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VI.f): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts associated with on-site or off-site wind erosion and blowsand. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Proposed grading activities would expose underlying soils at the Project site, which would increase erosion susceptibility during grading and construction activities. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to wind. Erosion by wind would be highest during periods of high wind speeds. The Project site is considered to have a “moderate” susceptibility to wind erosion (Riverside County, 2014b, Figure 4.12-6). During grading and other construction activities involving soil exposure or the transport of earth materials, significant short-term impacts associated with wind erosion would be precluded with mandatory compliance to the Project’s SWPPP and WQMP and Riverside County Ordinance No. 484.2 (as adopted by the City of Menifee), which establishes requirements for the control of blowing sand. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which addresses the reduction of airborne particulate matter with mandatory compliance to these regulatory requirements. Wind erosion impacts would be less than significant during construction and mitigation is not required. Following construction, wind erosion on the Project site would be negligible, as the disturbed areas would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not significantly increase the risk of long-term wind erosion on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any impacts associated with wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off-site. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would result in no impacts associated with wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off-site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-56 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design. Policy OSC-4.2: Evaluate public and private efforts to develop and operate alternative systems of energy production, including solar, wind, and fuel cell. Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. Policy OSC-10.1: Align the City's local GHG reduction targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG reduction target of AB 32. Policy OSC-10.2: Align the City's long-term GHG reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. Policy OSC-10.4: Consider impacts to climate change as a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases Global Climate Change (GCC) refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), CH4 (Methane), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (refer to Subsection 2.4 of City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-57 the Project’s GHG Analysis in Addendum Appendix D for a detailed description of these GHGs). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the Earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the climate change since the industrial revolution differs from previous climate changes in both rate and magnitude (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, pp. 8-9) Although California’s rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions is slowing, the state is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. In 2004, California is estimated to have produced 492 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas emissions. Despite a population increase of 16 percent between 1990 and 2004, California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 9) Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (GWP) values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected greenhouse gases are summarized in Table 3-8, Global Warming Potential and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. As shown in the table below, GWP for the SAR range from 1 for carbon dioxide to 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride and GWP for the AR4 range from 1 for carbon dioxide to 22,800 for sulfur hexafluoride. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 9) Subsection 2.6 of the Project’s GHG Analysis (Addendum Appendix D), provides a detailed discussion of potential human health effects associated with each of the major GHGs (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, pp. 15- 16). GHG Significance Thresholds The City of Menifee has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year to determine if additional analysis is required is an acceptable approach for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the County of Riverside) and numerous cities in the South Coast Air Basin and is based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 31) As noted by the SCAQMD: City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-58 Global Warming Potential and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, Table 2-2) “…the…screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects...the policy objective of [SCAQMD’s] recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that [SCAQMD] staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 [MMTCO2e/yr]). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to [Best Available Control Technology] (BACT) for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single-permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.” (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, pp. 31-32) Thus, and based on guidance from the SCAQMD, if a non-industrial project would emit GHGs less than 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the project is not considered a substantial GHG emitter and the GHG impact is less than significant, requiring no additional analysis and no mitigation. On the other hand, if a non- industrial project would emit GHGs in excess of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, then the project could be considered a substantial GHG emitter, requiring additional analysis and potential mitigation. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 32) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-59 Discussion of Project-Related GHG Emissions The Project-specific GHG Analysis, which is provided as Addendum Appendix D, identifies the estimated GHG emissions that would result from both construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project. The assumptions used in the construction and long-term modeling of Project-related GHG emissions are provided below, followed by a summary of the Project’s calculated aggregate GHG emissions. Construction and Operational Life-Cycle Analysis A full life-cycle analysis (LCA) for construction and operational activity is not included in the GHG Analysis due to the lack of consensus guidance on LCA methodology at this time. Life-cycle analysis (i.e., assessing economy-wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the project development, infrastructure, and on-going operations) depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for all processes. At this time a LCA would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 33) Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of CO2 and CH4 from construction activities. Refer to the Project’s air quality impact analysis (Addendum Appendix A) for a discussion of assumptions utilized in the GHG analysis for estimating Project-related construction GHG emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 33) For construction phase emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommend calculating the total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by the project life (i.e., 30 years) then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30 year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 33) Operational Emissions Operational activities associated with implementing residential development associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 34): o Area Source Emissions o Energy Source Emissions o Mobile Source Emissions o Area Source Emissions o Solid Waste o Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution A summary of each of these sources is provided below. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 34) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-60 Area Source Emissions Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. The emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CalEEMod model. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 34) Energy Source Emissions GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEMod™ default parameters were used in the analysis. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 34) Mobile Source Emissions Project operational (vehicular) impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the Project. The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix H1) were utilized in this analysis. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 34) Solid Waste Residential land uses as proposed by the Project would result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A large percentage of this waste would be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted will be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the proposed Project were calculated by the CalEEMod™ model using default parameters. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, pp. 34-35) Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Indirect GHG emissions result from the off-site production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEMod™ default parameters were used. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 35) Emissions Summary Project-Related Aggregate GHG Emissions As shown in Table 3-9, Total Project GHG Emissions (Annual), the annual GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project are estimated to comprise 1,405.81 MTCO2e per year. As previously discussed, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is an acceptable approach for small projects to determine if additional analysis is required and is therefore applied for this Project City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-61 (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 32). As shown, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to GHG emissions because emissions would be below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 35) Total Project GHG Emissions (Annual) Source: CalEEMod™ model output, See Appendix 3.1 of the GHG Analysis (Appendix D) for detailed model outputs. Note: Totals obtained from CalEEMod™ and may not total 100% due to rounding. Table results include scientific notation. e is used to represent times ten raised to the power of (which would be written as x 10b”) and is followed by the value of the exponent. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, Table 3-1) Comparative GHG Emissions Impacts As previously noted, the Project site is Planning Area 41 of the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 2. EIR No. 423 assumed that Planning Area 41 would be built out with 116,000 square feet of commercial retail use. The Project is proposing to develop 80 single-family detached residential dwelling units and a 1.1 park that includes a private recreation center/pool to be utilized by residents of Heritage Lake within Planning Area 41. As shown on Table 3-10, Comparison of Approved SPA 2 Land Use and Proposed Project GHG Emissions, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 69.3% fewer GHG emissions as compared to the land use evaluated in EIR No. 453. The overall GHG emissions of the proposed Project would be substantially less than the project that was analyzed in EIR No. 423. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, pp. 35-36) Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: VII.a): EIR No. 423 Finding: Although EIR No. 423 did not address this subject, EIR No. 423 contained enough information about projected air quality emissions associated with construction and operation of SP 301 that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about SP 301’s potential effects due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was readily available to the public. Specifically, the EIR included an City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-62 Comparison of Approved SPA 2 Land Use and Proposed Project GHG Emissions Source: CalEEMod™ model output, See Appendix 3.1 of the GHG Analysis (Appendix D) for detailed model outputs. Note: Totals obtained from CalEEMod™ and may not total 100% due to rounding. Table results include scientific notation. e is used to represent times ten raised to the power of (which would be written as x 10b”) and is followed by the value of the exponent. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, Table 3-2) analysis of air quality impacts associated with buildout of the approved project, inclusive of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOX), and other GHG emissions. EIR No. 423 also addressed vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption, which are the most common sources of greenhouse gas emissions. However, no conclusion was reached with respect to GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the land uses proposed as part of SP 301. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As shown in Table 3-9, implementation of the proposed Project would result in GHG emissions of 1,405.81 MTCO2e per year. The Project’s level of annual GHG emissions would therefore be below the threshold of significance for all land use projects, which is 3,000 MTCO2e per year before implementation of appropriate efficiency measures and no additional analysis is required. As such, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact due to GHG emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 35) Moreover, and as demonstrated in Table 3-10, the proposed reduction in residential intensity on-site as proposed by the Project (i.e., from commercial land uses to 80 single-family residential lots) would result in decrease in GHG emissions as compared to the existing approved SP 301A2; therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be reduced as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would have been disclosed by EIR No. 423 for the approved SP 301A2. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 36) As the proposed Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Impacts would be less-than-cumulatively considerable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-63 VII.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the issues of Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change typically were not evaluated in CEQA documents. Additionally, at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, there were no plans, policies, or regulations of any agency that were adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Nonetheless, EIR No. 423 contained enough information about projected air quality emissions associated with construction and operation of SP 301 that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about SP 301’s potential effects due to GHG emissions was readily available to the public. EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to a conflict with greenhouse gas reduction plans, policies, or regulations. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing (2018) conditions, the City of Menifee has not adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). As such, the analysis provided below evaluates the Project’s consistency with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), which are the primary laws related to GHGs for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases statewide. The Project also would be subject to the following regulatory requirements that address GHG emissions (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, pp. 3-4): • Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. Assuming mandatory compliance with the above-listed regulatory measures, the following provides a discussion and analysis of the Project’s consistency with AB 32 and SB 375. Project Consistency with AB 32 AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 28.5% below business as usual. CARB identified reduction measures to achieve this goal as set forth in the CARB Scoping Plan. Thus, City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-64 projects that are consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan are also consistent with the 28.5% reduction below business as usual required by AB 32. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 23) The screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for non-industrial projects proposed by the SCAQMD was designed to ensure compliance with AB 32 emissions reductions requirements in the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, if a proposed project emits below the screening threshold it can be assumed to comply with AB 32 within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. As the Project would emit less than 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the Project would not conflict with the state’s ability to achieve the reduction targets defined in AB 32. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 30) Additionally, the CARB Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan recommendations serve as statewide strategies to reduce the state’s existing GHG emissions and proposed Project’s contributions. Table 3-11, Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies, highlights measures that have or will be developed under the Scoping Plan and that would be applicable to the Project. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of AB 32. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 30) Project Consistency with SB 375 SB 375 requires local metropolitan planning agencies to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction targets through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the metropolitan planning agency for the project area. The SCS for the southern California region, including Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties, was prepared by SCAG and approved in April 2016. The 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) incorporates transportation, land use, and housing policies that would result in an eight percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 2020, an 18 percent reduction by 2035, and a 21 percent reduction by 2040, as compared with 2005 levels. This would meet or exceed the GHG emissions targets established by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) for 2020 (8% reduction) and 2035 (13% reduction). In June 2016, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicated that all air conformity requirements for the 2016 RTP/SCS have been met. (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, p. 29) The Project proposes to change the Project site’s existing commercial land use designations to instead allow for the construction of up to 80 dwelling units and a community recreation facility. Although this represents an increase in the number of residents and a decrease in the number of jobs for the Project site, Table 3-10 (previously presented) demonstrates that the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 69.3% fewer GHG emissions as compared to the commercial land use evaluated in EIR No. 453. Thus, development of the Project site with residential instead of commercial land uses would assist SCAG in meeting the emission reduction targets as set forth in the 2016 RTP/SCS by substantially reducing the amount of GHG emissions from the Project site. Because the 2016 RTP/SCS is specifically intended to achieve the GHG reduction targets of AB 32, as required by SB 375, and because the Project would result in fewer GHG emissions than assumed for the site by the 2016 RTB/SCS, the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable provisions of SB 375. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-65 Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Source: CARB. 2008, MMTons CO2e: million metric tons of CO2e. 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 Target (Urban Crossroads, 2016b, Table 3-3) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-66 Conclusion As the modified project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-67 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials contamination. Policy S-5.1: Locate facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials away from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities and areas susceptible to impacts or damage from a natural disaster. Policy S-5.2: Ensure that the fire department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy S-5.4: Ensure that all facilities that handle hazardous materials comply with federal and state laws pertaining to the management of hazardous wastes and materials. Policy S-5.5: Require facilities that handle hazardous materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal. Goal S-6: A City that responds and recovers in an effective and timely manner from natural disasters such as flooding, fire, and earthquakes, and as a result is not impacted by civil unrest that may occur following a natural disaster. Policy S-6.1: Continuously review, update, and implement emergency preparedness, response, and recovery plans that make the best use of the City- and county-specific emergency management resources available. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: VIII.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that there were no known hazardous conditions associated with the SP 301 site, based on a field reconnaissance, review of historic aerials, and research of government databases. However, the EIR did indicate the presence of the former Menifee Landfill, which is a closed landfill located within 0.5 mile of SP 301, northwest of the intersection of Menifee and Simpson Roads. Mitigation was imposed requiring additional study of the Menifee Landfill, in particular in reference to the potential for methane gas that could impact future project residents. No impacts were identified during construction activities. With respect to long-term operations, EIR No. 423 disclosed that future commercial uses planned by SP 301 would have the potential to involve the use and storage of materials inside individual on-site structures, which could potentially result an accidental release of materials considered hazardous under state and local regulation. Mitigation for this impact was imposed, requiring City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-68 the identification of appropriate mitigation for any future uses that could result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. With implementation of the required mitigation, EIR No. 423 concluded impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project has the potential to result in impacts from hazardous waste or materials based on existing site conditions, during construction of the Project, and during long-term operation. Each is discussed below. Existing Site Conditions The Project site was previously fully disturbed in 2013 as part of grading operations associated with Tentative Tract Map (TR) 33406. In anticipation of future development of the Project site, fill material from other portions of TR 33406 has been stockpiled on site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed for the SP 301 area in 2001, which did not identify any hazardous conditions. Thus, because the Project site was not identified as being contaminated, and because fill material needed to achieve the grades as set forth by TR 2016-139 would come from other portions of SP 301, no new impacts due to existing site conditions would result from the proposed Project. Temporary Construction-Related Activities Heavy equipment would be used during construction of the residential uses that would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed Project, which would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. It should be noted that similar construction-related hazards would result from development of the site with the site’s existing designation of commercial. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site or anticipated by EIR No. 423. As such, hazardous materials-related impacts associated with future development that would be a reasonably consequence of Project construction activities would be less than significant and would be within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423. Long-Term Operation The proposed Project consists of a proposal to change the site’s existing land use and zoning designations to allow for the future development of up to 80 residential dwelling units. Residential uses are not associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Household goods used by residential homes that contain toxic substances are usually low in concentration and small in amount; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment from the use of such household goods. Residents are required to dispose of household hazardous waste including pesticides, batteries, old paint, solvents, used oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility. The nearest collection site for household hazardous waste is the Good Hope/Meadowbrook Temporary City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-69 Household Hazardous Collection Facility, 21565 Steele Peak Drive, Perris, CA 92570, approximately 11.3 roadway miles west of the Project site. Furthermore, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are fully regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State, Riverside County, and/or City of Menifee. It also should be noted that development and operation of the Project site with residential and recreational uses in lieu of commercial uses would reduce the potential for storage or transport hazardous materials on site, because certain types of commercial land uses are associated with the storage or transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project would be less than significant requiring no mitigation. Conclusion As indicated in the above analysis, the residential and recreational land uses proposed by the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with existing site conditions, near-term construction activities, or long-term operation. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 identified that the commercial uses in SP 301 could involve use and storage of materials inside individual on-site structures, which could potentially result an accidental release of materials considered hazardous under state and local regulations. Aside from commercial uses, EIR No. 423 concluded that there are no other impacts that would result an accidental release of hazardous materials. EIR No. 423 imposed mitigation requiring the implementation of mitigation for any uses that may involve the storage or use of hazardous materials to ensure the protection of public health and safety. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Threshold VIII.a), near-term construction activities and long-term operational activities that would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed Project are not anticipated to result in any significant adverse effects associated with hazardous materials handling or disposal. Residential uses are not associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Household goods used by residential homes that contain toxic substances are usually low in concentration and small in amount; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment from the use of such household goods. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, impacts would be reduced in comparison to the land uses evaluated in EIR No. 423, as commercial uses are more likely to contain hazardous materials and substances as compared to residential land uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-70 impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that the former Menifee Landfill located off-site and adjacent to the site northwest of the intersection of Menifee and Simpson Roads. However, because no school sites were proposed within 0.25 mile of this facility, EIR No. 423 did not disclose any impacts to schools due to the presence of this former landfill site. EIR No. 423 also disclosed potential impacts due to future commercial uses that may store or utilize hazardous materials; however, none of the school sites planned by SP 301 are located within 0.25 mile of proposed commercial land uses on-site. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to the emission or storage of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of the on-site schools. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The nearest school facilities to the Project site are Mesa View Elementary School, located 0.6 miles northwest of the site, Ethan A. Chase Middle School, located 0.3 miles southwest of the site, and Heritage High School, located 1.3 miles north of the site. There are no school facilities located within 0.5 mile of the Project site (Google Earth, 2016). Furthermore, residential uses are not associated with the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Accordingly, future residential development that would be a likely consequence of Project approval has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.5 mile of an existing or proposed school. As compared to the analysis presented in EIR No. 423, residential uses would result in a decrease in the potential for storage or use of hazardous materials as compared to the site’s existing commercial land use designation, although the site is located more than 0.25 mile from the school and both commercial and residential land uses on- site would not adversely impact any school sites. As such, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the Project would have no impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 identified that the SP 301 site has never been cited or known to have been involved with hazardous waste and/or petroleum generation, storage, treatment, or disposal. As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the SP 301 site was not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would cause no impacts to the public or environment. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, no impact would City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-71 occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. As the modified project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to existing or historic site contamination, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the SP 301 site is not located within close proximity (i.e., two miles) of any public airport and was not under the purview of any airport land use plan. No impacts were identified. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port (MARB/IP) Airport Influence Area (AIA). Zone E does not restrict residential density, and also prohibits hazards to flights. The Project does not involve any components that would result in hazards to flights. Nonetheless, because the Project is located within the MARB/IP AIA, the Project would require review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). On April 12, 2018, the ALUC staff determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the MARB/IP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) subject to standard conditions requiring notification of property owners regarding airport proximity and the existence of aircraft overflights as part of future real estate transactions. This requirement has been added to the Project’s Conditions of Approval. Because the Project is not located within a portion of the AIA where potential safety hazards could exist associated with the MARB/IP operations, the Project would not expose future Project residents to potential airport-related safety hazards. (RCALUC, 2014, Map MA-1 and Table MA-2; RCALUC, 2018) Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.f) EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the SP 301 site is not located within close proximity to any private airstrip, and no impacts were identified. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of any private airports or heliports. The nearest private airport is the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately five miles northwest of the Project site. (Google Earth, 2016) As such, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-72 impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.g): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that the SP 301 site is not part of an emergency evacuation route in any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. EIR No. 423 did not identify any potential adverse effects due to the interference of emergency evacuation routes or evacuation plans. No impacts were identified. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is not located within any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. During construction and at buildout of the future residential uses that would reasonably result from the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. As part of its review of the proposed Project, the Riverside County Fire Department conducted a review to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to and from the site to ensure public safety, and to confirm that the development as proposed would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. These measures also would be evaluated as part of future grading permits, building permits, and improvement plans. As such, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. VIII.h): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the SP 301 site is not located within a designated “Hazardous High Fire Area.” However, due to the presence of open space areas on-site, fuel management was required as part of the SP 301 development standards and design guidelines. As a consequence, EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to wildland fire hazards. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site and areas to the north and northwest have been subject to mass grading and contain no flammable vegetation that could pose a wildfire risk. Existing residential areas to the west and south are under development with residential uses, and these areas also would not pose a risk of wildfire hazards. Areas east of the Project site consist of irrigated agricultural fields that also do not pose a risk of wildfire hazards. Furthermore, and as mapped by Riverside County, the nearest area to the Project site that is subject to fire hazards occurs 0.4 mile to the northeast of the Project site (RCIT, 2016a). Thus, no lands surrounding the Project site are subject to wildland fire hazards. Moreover, SPA 2016-140 includes design guidelines and development standards that require fuel modification be provided for any structures adjacent to planned open space areas, which would reduce City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-73 the potential risk for fires to spread within the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?     d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?     e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?     h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?     City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-74 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-3: A community that is minimally disrupted by flooding and inundation hazards. Policy S-3.1: Require that all new developments and redevelopments in areas susceptible to flooding (such as the 100-year floodplain and areas known to the City to flood during intense or prolonged rainfall events) incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards. Policy S-3.2: Reduce flood hazards in developed areas known to flood. Policy OSC-7.8: Protect groundwater quality by decommissioning existing septic systems and establishing connections to sanitary sewer infrastructure. Policy OSC-7.9: Ensure that high quality potable water resources continue to be available by managing stormwater runoff, wellhead protection, and other sources of pollutants. Policy OSC-7.10: Preserve natural floodplains, including Salt Creek, Ethanac Wash, Paloma Wash, and Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate water percolation, replenishment of the natural aquifer, proper drainage, and prevention of flood damage. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: IX.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that construction of SP 301 would result in grading cut and fill operations that could create short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. EIR No. 423 concluded that construction impacts to water quality would be mitigated to below a level of significance because the standard conditions of approval required compliance with the NPDES program (including the conditions issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board), applicable Riverside County ordinances, and the project-specific mitigation measures included in EIR No. 423. EIR No. 423 also determined that operational impacts of SP 301 would be less than significant, because SP 301 includes standards and techniques intended to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process on-site, and would be required to conform to the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District and NPDES permit program. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project has the potential to violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements during both construction and long-term operation. Each is discussed below. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-75 Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping installation, which would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, and other pollutants with the potential to affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures, which is consistent with the finding of the EIR No. 423. Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB, the proposed Project would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one-acre of total land area. Mandatory adherence to a NPDES Permit would ensure that the proposed Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Consistent with the EIR No. 423, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in EIR No. 423. Post-Development Water Quality Impacts Storm water pollutants commonly associated with the land uses proposed by the Project (i.e., residential) include sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash/debris, oxygen-demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil/grease, pesticides, and metals. Based on current receiving water impairments (303(d) List) and allowable discharge requirements (USEPA TMDL List), the Project does not have any pollutants of concern. The proposed Project would be required to implement its site-specific WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES permit and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the pollutants of concern of a development project via best management practices (BMPs), implementation of which ensures the on-going protection of the watershed basin. The WQMP identifies permanent structural source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), including inlet markings, preservation of existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover, no outdoor vehicle repair or maintenance, and avoiding roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals. The WQMP identifies operational source control BMPs, including maintenance of inlet markings, informing site owners of stormwater pollution prevention, maintenance of landscaping using minimum or no pesticides, prevention of vehicle and equipment washing operation discharge to the storm drain system, and collecting debris and litter. These control measures are intended to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat storm water runoff flows before they are discharged from the site. Compliance with the site-specific WQMP would be required as a standard condition of Project approval and long-term maintenance of on-site BMPs would be required to ensure their long-term effectiveness. (MDS Consulting, 2017a, pp. 32-34) As the modified Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-76 the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 would apply to the proposed Project, as modified to reflect current regulatory requirements. MM HYD-1 Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with City of Menifee requirements. MM HYD-2 Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities. Construction activity includes: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acres of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of one acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this specific plan, the developer or builder shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. MM HYD-3 The Menifee Valley Ranch site is subject to the payment of applicable area drainage plan fees. Portions of the site lie in the Winchester/North Hemet, Salt Creek, and Homeland/Romoland Area Drainage Plans. MM HYD-4 Proposed grading and drainage improvements shall conform to Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and shall incorporate the minimum standards for the FEMA which insures that 100-year flood protection is provided to all habitable dwellings located within a floodplain. MM WQ-1 Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, a State-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. Therefore, the developer or builder for Menifee Valley Ranch shall be required to obtain the appropriate State NPDES permits prior to commencing grading activities. The NPDES permit shall apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acres of total land area or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff, as well as non-storm water discharges. The permit also requires a Monitoring, Reporting City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-77 and Inspection Program to be developed and implemented to assure the effectiveness of the controls. MM WQ-2 The developer or builder for Menifee Valley Ranch shall be required, pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a NPDES construction permit prior to issuance of grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Post-Construction Management Program to identify parties responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of any structural or programmatic controls and long-term funding mechanisms for operation and maintenance. Post- Construction monitoring is also required by the permit at least one year following project construction. MM WQ-3 The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 to MM WQ- 3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that SP 301 would not use groundwater wells for landscape irrigation or as a potable water source, and therefore would have no impact on groundwater levels due to groundwater extraction. EIR No. 423 also determined that groundwater recharge would be able to occur in all open space areas of the Specific Plan area, including the parks, greenbelts, and lake. As such, EIR No. 423 determined that impacts to groundwater recharge and groundwater supplies would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Consistent with approved SP301A2, no potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project, and the Project would be served with potable water by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD’s local supplies include groundwater, desalinated groundwater, and recycled water. Groundwater is pumped from the Hemet/San Jacinto and West San Jacinto areas of the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. (EMWD, 2016) The Project site would drain to the existing Heritage Lake for treatment. Runoff from Heritage Lake would continue to flow into the existing local storm drain system until it reaches the Salt Creek Channel and eventually connects to Canyon Lake. Because areas planned for development by the Project, as well as the Project’s proposed water quality BMPs, are substantially consistent with those proposed by the existing approved SP301A2, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for groundwater supplies, nor would the Project result in increased interference of groundwater recharge areas, beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. Consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge areas would be less than significant. As the modified project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-78 recharge, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. IX.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site and increased rates of runoff could result in erosion from the construction of SP 301. EIR No. 423 disclosed that SP 301 is designed to utilize the natural drainage patterns and courses to the maximum extent possible. EIR No. 423 indicated that the open space system for SP 301 is designed to provide detention areas to reduce run-off resulting from development of the site to pre-development levels where drainage leaves the site. The EIR found that the plan’s design would minimize drainage diversions, while providing erosion control and 100-year flood protection. EIR concluded that construction impacts to the existing drainage pattern and increased rates of runoff would be mitigated to below a level of significance, because the conditions of approval require compliance with the NPDES program (including the conditions issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board), applicable Riverside County ordinances, and mitigation measures. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As with the existing approved SP301A2, during construction of the proposed Project, the site would be graded to facilitate the construction of 80 residential homes and a private recreation center. In general, grading activities would involve cut and fill of earth materials that would result in minor changes to the site’s existing topography to intercept the street runoff by catch basin and convey the flows by storm drain pipe. The Project site currently sheet flows in a southerly direction towards McCall Boulevard and the existing runoff is collected by an inlet structure located at a depressed area. As part of the revised drainage concept associated with the Project, the site would drain to the existing Heritage Lake for treatment. Runoff from Heritage Lake would continue to flow into the existing local storm drain system until it reaches the Salt Creek Channel and eventually connects to Canyon Lake. (MDS Consulting, 2017a) Construction-Related Drainage Impacts The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction related activities. The SWPPP would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for erosion and siltation to occur and would include specific Project site measures identified in the hydrology report to address the potential for caving in temporary excavations. Consistent with the EIR No. 423, erosion impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-79 Post-Development Drainage Impacts With development of the Project site as proposed, runoff of the site would discharge at the same location as occurs under existing conditions (i.e., Node 80), and the post-development runoff rate during peak storm events would be reduced from 38.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 33.6 cfs. The proposed grading consists of several low points that would intercept the street runoff by catch basin and convey the flows by storm drain pipe within McCall Boulevard to Heritage Lake. In addition, with buildout of the Project, the site would generally be converted from an undeveloped site to that of a residential community consisting of urban land uses and ornamental landscaping. As compared to existing conditions, development of the site with residential land uses would reduce the site’s potential for generating substantial amounts of erosion or siltation due to the reduction in permeable surfaces. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Project’s proposed drainage concept generally would maintain the site’s existing drainage patterns. Additionally, because peak flows discharging from the site would be conveyed to Heritage Lake, it can reasonably be concluded that Project runoff in the post-developed condition would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. (MDS Consulting, 2017a, pp. 32-34) Thus, although the Project would result in minor changes to the site’s topography, such changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the conclusions of EIR No. 423. As the modified project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3, provided above under Threshold IX.a), shall apply. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site and increased rates of runoff could result in flooding on-site. EIR No. 423 determined that the construction of roadways, parking facilities and structures would increase the amount of impervious surfaces and that the time of conveyance of the flow is shortened as compared to flow in natural watercourses. The EIR disclosed that the difference in the rate of runoff must be managed on-site through the use of detention basins, which are designed to accept the increased flow and discharge only the rate of flow prior to development at all locations discharging from the site. EIR No. 423 also found that the drainage system is designed to utilize the natural drainage patterns and courses to the maximum extent possible, while providing required erosion control and 100-year flood protection. The open space system for SP 301 is designed to provide detention areas that reduce run off resulting from development of the site to pre-development levels where drainage leaves the site. The EIR found that the plan’s design would minimize drainage diversions and that the construction impacts associated with flooding from increased rates of runoff would be mitigated to below a level of significance. The EIR further concluded that SP 301 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-80 is required to comply with the NPDES program, Riverside County ordinances, Riverside County Flood Control District standards, and mitigation measures B to attenuate increased runoff impacts on site. As a result, the EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As discussed above under the discussion and analysis of Threshold IX.c), the Project site currently sheet flows in a southerly direction towards McCall Blvd and the existing runoff is collected by an inlet structure located at a depressed area. As part of the revised drainage concept associated with the Project, the site would drain to the existing Heritage Lake for treatment. Runoff from Heritage Lake would continue to flow into the existing local storm drain system until it reaches the Salt Creek Channel and eventually connects to Canyon Lake. As shown on Table 3-12, Post- Development Peak Flows Existing Conditions vs. Proposed SPA3, the calculated 100-year storm flow at the downstream point of connection to the storm drain facilities located within SP301A3 would be 33.6 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 4.7 cfs less than the existing drainage facilities were designed to handle. In addition, with buildout of the Project, the site would generally be converted from an undeveloped site to that of a residential community consisting of urban land uses and ornamental landscaping. As compared to existing conditions, development of the site with residential land uses in lieu of commercial would reduce the site’s 100-yearstorm peak flows. (MDS Consulting, 2017b) Therefore, because the Project would not result in an increase in the amount of runoff within the on- and off-site natural drainage areas, and because the existing storm drain facilities within SP301 are adequately designed to handle peak runoff from the Project site, the Project’s proposed minor changes to the site’s drainage pattern would not result in any new flood hazards on- or off-site. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, impacts would be less than significant. As the modified project would not result in any new flood hazards on- or off-site, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3, provided above under Threshold IX.a), shall apply. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: The EIR disclosed that the difference in the rate of runoff must be managed on- site through the use of detention basins, which are designed to accept the increased flow and discharge only the rate of flow prior to development at all locations discharging from the site. The EIR concluded that the final size and location of all the required drainage systems will ultimately be determined at the tract map stage of development, per the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-81 Post-Development Peak Flows Existing Conditions vs. Proposed SPA3 (MDS Consulting, 2017b, Table 1) Conservation District (RCFCWCD). As such, EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to exceedances to the existing or planned stormwater system. With respect to the issue of polluted runoff, EIR No. 423 disclosed that construction of SP 301 would result in grading cut and fill operations that could create short- term erosion and sedimentation impacts. EIR No. 423 concluded that construction impacts to water quality would be mitigated to below a level of significance because the standard conditions of approval required compliance with the NPDES program (including the conditions issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board), applicable Riverside County ordinances, and mitigation measures. EIR No. 423 also determined that operational impacts of SP 301 would be less than significant because SP 301 includes standards and techniques intended to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process on-site, and would be required to conform to the requirements of the RCFCWCD and NPDES permit program. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As noted above under the discussion and analysis of Threshold IX.d), flows from the areas planned for development by the Project would be conveyed west to Heritage Lake. Flows would thence be conveyed to the Salt Creek Channel and Canyon Lake. Based on calculations performed by MDS Consulting (Appendix F2), the calculated 100-year storm flow at the downstream point of connection to the storm drain facilities located within SP301A3 would be 33.6 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 4.7 cfs less than the existing drainage facilities from the commercial site (TR34406) were designed to handle. The storm peak flows have significantly decreased due to a lower impervious factor for the residential land use proposed with SP301A3, as compared to the existing conditions of TR34406. (MDS Consulting, 2017b) Additionally, with required adherence to a SWPPP and WQMP as discussed above under Threshold IX.a), the Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff, and, consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, impacts would be less than significant. As the modified Project would not 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, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-82 Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3, provided above under Threshold IX.a), shall apply. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.f) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any additional water quality impacts aside from what is discussed above and below. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: There are no conditions associated with the proposed Project that would otherwise result in the substantial degradation of water quality beyond what is described above in Thresholds IX.c), IX.d), or IX.e). As the modified project would not otherwise degrade water quality (beyond what is already discussed under Thresholds IX.a) and IX.e), no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3, provided above under Threshold IX.a), shall apply. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.g) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the northern portion and the southeast corner of SP 301 are located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone A flood hazard area. Zone A areas are referenced as being “areas of 100-year flood, base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.” EIR No. 423 identified that housing is proposed within the 100-year flood areas in the northern and southeastern portions of SP 301. However, EIR No. 423 concluded that mandatory compliance with Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum standards for the FEMA, and mitigation measures, would reduce impacts associated with housing in the 100-year flood area to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Per FEMA Map No. 06065C2060H, the proposed Project site (Planning Areas 41A and 41B) is not located within a FEMA Flood Zone. (FEMA, 2014) Accordingly, the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur. As the modified project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-83 Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3, provided above under Threshold IX.a), shall apply. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.h) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that the northern portion and the southeast corner of SP 301 are located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone A flood hazard area. Zone A areas are referenced as being “areas of 100-year flood, base flood elevations, and flood hazard factors not determined.” EIR No. 423 identified that structures are proposed within the 100-year flood areas in the northern and southeastern portions of SP 301. However, mandatory compliance with Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum standards for the FEMA, and implementation of mitigation measures, were found to mitigate impacts associated with structures impeding or redirecting flood flows in the 100-year flood area to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Per FEMA Map No. 06065C2060H, the proposed Project site (Planning Areas 41A and 41B) is not located within a FEMA Flood Zone. (FEMA, 2014) Accordingly, the proposed Project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. As the modified project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3, provided above under Threshold IX.a), shall apply. Monitoring: As required by Mitigation Measure Nos. MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, and MM WQ-1 through MM WQ-3 of Final EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included herein in EIR Addendum Section 5.1). IX.i): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that other than the natural flooding condition of the site, there are no dams, rivers, creeks, or washes which directly affect the site. Accordingly, no impacts due to dam inundation were identified in EIR No. 423. However, it should be noted that EIR No. 423 did identify the then recently constructed Diamond Valley Lake reservoir and dam may impact portions of the site, but that the dam inundation maps were not available at the time EIR No. 423 was prepared. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the Project site. As identified in Figure 5.9-4 of the City of Menifee’s General Plan EIR, Dams with Potential to Flood Menifee, the nearest dam or levee is Quail Valley 829 Dam located approximately 6.6 miles west of the Project site and Railroad Canyon 818 Dam located approximately 8.2 miles southwest of the Project site. (City of Menifee, 2013b) Because both of these dams drain downstream of the Project site, there is no City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-84 potential that a failure of either of these dams would result in inundation of the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. As the modified project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. IX.j): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that because no large bodies of water or substantial slopes that could be subject to mudflows are located on or near the site, no impacts associated with inundation by seiching, tsunamis, or mudflows would occur. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Pacific Ocean is located more than 35 miles from the Project site. Thus, there is no potential for tsunamis to impact the Project site. In addition, the Project site and immediate surrounding area consist of relatively level topography and do not contain steep hillsides subject to mudflow. There are no water bodies in close proximity to the Project site that would be subject to seiches. Therefore, and consistent with the conclusions reached in EIR No. 423, no impact would occur. As the modified project would not be subject to inundation hazards associated with seiches, tsunamis, or mudflow, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. Conditions of Approval: The Public Works/Engineering Department's conditional approval of this application includes an expectation that the conceptual grading plan reviewed and approved for it complies or can comply with any WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan) required by the City. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-85 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.4: Require that any future mining activities be in compliance with the State Mining Reclamation Act, federal and state environmental regulations, and local ordinances. Policy OSC-4.5: Limit the impacts of mining operations on the City's natural open space, biological and scenic resources, and any adjacent land uses. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XI.a): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that implementation of SP 301 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or residents of the State. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that there would be no impacts. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: According to Figure OSC-3 of the Menifee General Plan, the Project site is located within Mineral Resources Zone 3 (MRZ-3) (City of Menifee, 2014). Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), MRZ-3 is defined by the State of California Department of Conservation SMARA Mineral Land Classification project as an area “where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.” Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-86 XI.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that implementation of SP 301 would not result in the loss of availability of a site designated by the County as a locally-important mineral resource recovery area. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that there would be no impacts. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: According to Figure OSC-3 of the Menifee General Plan, the Project site is located within Mineral Resources Zone 3 (MRZ-3) (City of Menifee, 2014). Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), MRZ-3 is defined by the State of California Department of Conservation SMARA Mineral Land Classification project as an area “where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.” The City of Menifee General Plan does not otherwise identify the Project site for mineral resources, nor does the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. Accordingly, the Project site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site by a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 11. NOISE Would the project result in: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-87 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure. Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications. Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes. Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors: Table N-1 Stationary Source Noise Standards Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 40 Leq (10 minute) 55 Leq (10 minute) 45 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute) Policy N-1.8 Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses. Consider federal, state, and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review. Policy N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise-producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors and require that new noise-producing land be are designed with adequate noise abatement measures. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-88 Policy N-1.10: Guide noise-tolerant land uses into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors adjacent to the I-215 or within the projected noise contours of any adjacent airports. Policy N-1.11: Discourage the siting of noise-sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. Goal N-2: Minimal Noise Spillover. Minimal noise spillover from noise-generating uses, such as agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses into adjoining noise-sensitive uses. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XII.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that construction noise impacts would be minimized by time restrictions placed on grading permits, which restrict the operation of powered equipment from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the following morning, and all day on Sundays and holidays. Compliance with these limits was predicted to create a less-than-significant temporary noise impact during construction activities. As disclosed in EIR No. 423, future residential lots’ exterior noise exposure from SR-74, McCall Blvd, and Menifee Road were estimated to be approximately 76 dB, which would exceed Riverside County’s noise level limits of 65 dB. The remaining perimeter roadways on SP 301 were found to expose residential lots to noise levels ranging from 69 to 74 dB and required mitigation ranging from 4 to 9 dB to meet the County standard of 65 dB. EIR No. 423 determined that mitigation measures requiring the construction of noise barriers ranging in height from six to eight feet would mitigate impacts associated with exterior noise exposure of persons within SP 301 to below a level of significance. As identified in EIR No. 423, SR-74, McCall Blvd, and Menifee Road were found to result in interior noise levels ranging from 68 to 75 dB and required mitigation ranging from 28 to 30 dB to meet the County interior noise standard of 45 dB. All the other perimeter roadways on SP 301 were found to range from 68 to 69 dB and EIR No. 423 imposed mitigation requiring interior noise level reductions ranging from 23 to 30 dB to meet the County interior noise standard of 45 dB. EIR No. 423 determined that the noise- related mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423 would mitigate impacts associated with interior noise exposure to persons to below a level of significance. With regards to off-site transportation-related noise impacts, EIR No. 423 concluded that maximum exterior noise mitigation of 11 dB is required for homes backing up to SR-74 and to McCall Boulevard to meet the Riverside County standard. Mitigation ranging from 4 to 9 dB was identified as being necessary along other perimeter roadways. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: In conformance with EIR No. 423 Mitigation Measure B.9- 5, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a noise study to determine the noise exposure for the proposed Project City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-89 and to confirm the conclusions of EIR No. 423 as they pertain to the Project site (SP 301 Planning Area 41). The Project’s noise study is included in this EIR Addendum as Appendix G. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c) Noise Impacts would be considered significant if any of the conditions identified in Table 3-13, Noise Significance Criteria Summary, occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Noise Significance Criteria Summary 1 Source: City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element. 2 Source: City of Menifee Municipal Code, Section8.01.010. 3 Source: NIOSH, Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure, June 1998. 4 Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.; "n/a" = No nighttime construction activity is permitted and therefore, no nighttime construction noise level threshold is identified. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 4-2) Construction Noise Impacts Construction Noise Standards To accurately describe the potential Project-related construction noise level contributions to the existing noise environment, this analysis presents the appropriate construction noise standards for the City of Menifee. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 27) To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant temporary construction noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, a construction-related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than four hours per day, 92 dBA for more than one hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction-related noise level Construction within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.2 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-90 threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time period, they are expressed as Leq noise levels. Therefore, the noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of eight hours or more is used to evaluate the potential Project-related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 43) Construction Noise Levels Noise generated by the Project construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur in the following stages: • Site Preparation • Grading • Building Construction • Paving • Architectural Coating (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, pp. 43-44) As shown on Exhibit 9-A, Receiver Locations, of the Project’s noise study (Addendum Appendix G), the closest noise receivers would be located approximately 93 feet north of the Project site, which is currently being developed with medium-density residential land uses in accordance with SP 301. Construction Noise Analysis To describe the Project construction noise levels, Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected measurements for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 3-14, Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Levels Summary, provides a summary of the noise levels from each stage of construction at each of the sensitive receiver locations. The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from the center of construction activity. As identified on Table 3-14, the unmitigated peak construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations will range from 57.3 to 74.2 dBA Leq, which would be below the construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the construction of the Project would result in a less-than-significant noise impact at the nearby sensitive receiver locations during peak construction activity. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 52) Future On-Site Noise Impacts Existing Noise Level Measurements Existing noise levels in the Project area were measured by Urban Crossroads to assess the existing noise environment. Four 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A of Addendum Appendix G provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 29) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-91 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Levels Summary 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. 2 Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 9-7) The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by the transportation- related noise associated with the arterial roadway network. This includes the auto and heavy truck activities near the noise level measurement locations on McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road. Table 3-15, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 31) 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average hourly levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement printouts are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 5-1) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-92 Methods and Procedures The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 33). Refer to Section 6 of the Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix G) for a description of the various inputs used in the modeling of future on-site noise levels. Based on the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element, Exhibit C-3, McCall Boulevard is classified as a 6-lane Urban Arterial, and Briggs Road is classified as a 4-lane Major. To predict the future on-site noise environment at the Project site, the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element Traffic Impact Analysis future daily roadway capacity traffic volumes were used. The traffic volumes shown on Table 3- 16, On-Site Roadway Parameters, reflect future long-range traffic conditions needed to assess the future on-site traffic noise environment and to identify potential mitigation measures (if any) that address the worst-case future conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, soft site conditions were used to analyze the on-site traffic noise impacts for the Project study area. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 33) On-Site Roadway Parameters 1 Source: City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element, Exhibit C-3. 2 Source: City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element Traffic Study, Table 2-1. 3 Posted speed limit on McCall Boulevard. The Briggs Road speed limit is based on Ordinance No. 2008-16 speed limits. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 6-1) Table 3-17, Distribution of Traffic Flow by Vehicle Type (Vehicle Mix), presents the total traffic flow distributions (vehicle mixes) obtained from the County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene noise study City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-93 requirements. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model based on roadway types (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 34) Distribution of Traffic Flow by Vehicle Type (Vehicle Mix) (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 6-3) To predict the future noise environment at lots within the Project site, coordinate information was collected to identify the noise transmission path between the noise source and receiver. The coordinate information is based on the Project site plan showing the plotting of the residential lots in relationship to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road as shown in Appendix 6.1 of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix G). The exterior noise level impacts at the outdoor living area receivers were placed five feet above the pad elevation and ten feet from the proposed barrier location or at the proposed building façade, whichever is greater. All second-floor receivers were located 14 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 34) Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model, the expected future exterior noise levels for the individual lots were calculated. Table 3-18, Future On-Site Exterior Noise Levels, presents a summary of future exterior noise level impacts in the outdoor living areas (backyards) of the Project building. The on-site traffic noise level impacts indicate that the lots adjacent to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road would experience unmitigated exterior noise levels ranging from 64.1 to 70.5 dBA CNEL. Future On-Site Exterior Noise Levels 1 The unmitigated exterior noise level satisfies the City of Menifee standard. No exterior noise mitigation required. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 7-1) To satisfy the City of Menifee 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, the construction of 6-foot-high noise barriers for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential lots 23, City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-94 24, 31, and 32 adjacent to Briggs Road, and lots 33 to 44 adjacent to McCall Boulevard would be required. With the recommended noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (Addendum Appendix G), the mitigated future exterior noise levels will range from 61.4 to 62.8 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the recommended noise barriers will satisfy the City of Menifee 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards. The recommendations identify the minimum required noise barrier height to satisfy the City of Menifee exterior noise level standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 37) Thus, no additional mitigation measures are warranted. Interior Noise Levels To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards, future noise levels were calculated at the first and second floor building façades. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 38) The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building façade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction provides a noise level reduction of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." However, sound leaks, cracks, and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: (1) weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; (2) upgraded dual glazed windows; (3) mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and (4) exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 38) To provide the necessary interior noise level reduction, Table 3-19, First Floor Interior Noise Impacts (CNEL), and Table 3-20, Second Floor Interior Noise Impacts (CNEL), indicate that residential lots adjacent to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road would require a “windows closed” condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). Table 3-19 shows that the future unmitigated noise levels at the first-floor building façade are expected to range from 60.1 to 61.5 dBA CNEL. The first-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standards can be satisfied using standard windows with a minimum STC rating of 27. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 38) Table 3-20 shows that the future noise levels at the second-floor building façades are expected to range from 67.2 to 69.3 dBA CNEL, and standard windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 are required to satisfy the City of Menifee’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standards. The interior noise analysis shows that with the recommended interior noise mitigation measures the Project would satisfy the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standards for residential development. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 38) EIR No. 423 identified noise barrier recommendations for residential homes adjacent to roadways within SP 301 (Mitigation Measure B.9-1) and required interior noise analyses prior to building plan approval (Mitigation Measure B.9-2). The Project’s noise study identifies the exterior noise barrier heights and interior noise reduction measures required to satisfy the City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element criteria for residential land use. These requirements have been imposed as part of Project-specific Mitigation Measures MM NOISE-1 and MM NOISE-2. While the barrier recommendations identified in the Project’s noise study are lower than those found in the EIR No. 423 findings, the exterior noise impacts City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-95 would remain less than significant, consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423. Further, the Project-specific interior noise analysis shows that the Project would satisfy the City of Menifee interior noise level standards with standard building construction, consistent with the interior noise mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 38) First Floor Interior Noise Impacts (CNEL) 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 6 Receiver location does not include an interior area requiring interior noise analysis. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 7-2) Second Floor Interior Noise Impacts (CNEL) 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 6 Receiver location does not include an interior area requiring interior noise analysis. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 7-3) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-96 Additionally, a construction-related noise impact could occur if residential homes are developed on adjacent properties and are occupied at the time of construction. Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-3 has been identified to ensure Project-related construction noise results in less-than-significant impacts to adjacent residential uses if the adjacent residential units are occupied at the time of construction by requiring the installation of construction noise barriers. Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-3 further identifies measures to reduce construction-related noise to the maximum feasible extent. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts to adjacent occupied residential uses would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts The Heritage Lake Trip Generation Evaluation (Addendum Appendix H1) indicates that the Project would generate a net total of approximately 762 based trip-ends per day with 60 based AM peak hour trips and 80 based PM peak hour trips. By comparison, EIR No. 423, which assumed the Project site would be developed with 116,000 s.f. of commercial retail uses, found that development of the Project site with commercial land uses would generate approximately 4,953 trip-ends per day with 112 AM peak hour trips and 430 PM peak hour trips. The development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 4,191 fewer trip ends per day with 52 fewer AM peak hour trip and 350 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed in EIR No. 423. The Heritage Lake Trip Generation Evaluation shows that the previously approved commercial retail land use generates more than five times the traffic volumes than that of the residential land uses proposed by the Project. A doubling of traffic volumes typically results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise level increase. However, the Project would generate substantially less trip-ends per day than the previously approved land use and would result in offsite traffic noise levels which are less than those disclosed in EIR No. 423. Therefore, the off-site traffic noise level impacts would be less than those already approved in Heritage Lake SP 301A2, due to the nature of residential land use which will attract fewer vehicle trips than the previously approved commercial retail use. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 1) Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis and assuming compliance with the recommendations of the Project’s Noise Study (Addendum Appendix G), implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation measures were presented in EIR No. 423 to address potential noise impacts at the Specific Plan level of detail. Based on the Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis, the mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 423 have been updated and replaced with the following measures. It should be noted that the revisions to the mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 merely reflect Project-specific requirements, and mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 have been omitted because the requirements were incorporated into the updated Project-specific mitigation, or because the Project has fulfilled the requirements of the mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423. Refer to the EIR No. 423 Compliance City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-97 Matrix in Section 5.2 for a listing of mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 that have been omitted along with a discussion as to why the measure is no longer applicable to the proposed Project. MM NOISE-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, and in order to satisfy the City of Menifee 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, the City of Menifee shall verify that 6-foot high noise barriers have been constructed for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential lots 23, 24, 31, and 32 adjacent to Briggs Road, and lots 33 to 44 adjacent to McCall Boulevard. The recommendations identify the minimum required noise barrier height to satisfy the City of Menifee exterior noise level standards. 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. 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 noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials:  Masonry block;  Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-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;  Any combination of these construction materials. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. MM NOISE-2 To satisfy the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level criteria, lots adjacent to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road will require a Noise Reduction (NR) of up to 25.0 dBA and a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). In order to meet the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards, and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of Menifee shall verify that the Project provides the following or equivalent noise mitigation measures:  Windows: All windows and sliding glass doors shall be well-fitted, well weather- stripped assemblies and shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 27.  Doors: All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped solid core assemblies at least one and three-fourths-inch thick. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-98  Walls: 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: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be well fitted or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Ceilings shall be well fitted, fully 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.  Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. 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. MM NOISE-3 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Menifee shall verify that the following requirements are noted on all grading and building 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.  If the residential homes are fully developed and occupied at the time of Project construction, install a minimum 8-foot high temporary construction noise barrier at the Project’s northern site boundary (receiver location R2) for the duration of the Site Preparation and Grading stages of Project construction, as shown on Exhibit 10- A of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (EIR Addendum as Appendix G). The noise control barriers must have a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barriers must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows: • 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; • 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.  Noise-generating Project construction activities within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-99 from the City Building Official or City Engineer. (Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.01.010).  During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.  The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise- sensitive receivers nearest the Project site (i.e., to the center) during all Project construction.  The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays). The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise. Monitoring: The City of Menifee shall ensure the recommendations of the Project’s Noise Study are adhered to during the City’s review of implementing grading and building permits, as summarized in Section 5.1. XII.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: As identified in EIR No. 423, the presence of train tracks was determined not to comprise constraint relative to meeting the 65 dB CNEL contour. However, train proximity was identified as a significant noise constraint due to recurring single-event peaks. Single-event peak levels were estimated to be 90 dB, which would be reduced to 80 dB inside the closest home with open windows, and reduced to 65-70 dB with windows closed. EIR No. 423 concluded that mitigation measures included in EIR No. 423, requiring a 100-foot setback from the train tracks and allowing a reduced setback with the construction of noise attenuation barriers ranging in height from 6.0 to 11.5 feet, would mitigate impacts associated with groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project has the potential to result in significant groundborne vibration or noise impacts during the construction phase, only. No impacts would occur under long-term operating conditions because residential uses are not associated with the production of groundborne vibration or noise. Additionally, the Project site is located approximately 700 feet from the train tracks running parallel to Case Road, thereby indicating that future on-site residents would not be impacted by railroad noise. Accordingly, the analysis below focuses only on the Project’s potential for groundborne vibration or noise impacts during construction of the Project. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent vibration effects. The City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-100 proposed Project’s construction activity most likely to cause vibration impacts is the operation of heavy construction equipment and trucks. Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to a building, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. Heavy equipment such as large bulldozers would not operate close enough to any residences to cause a vibration impact. Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 53) Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Construction activities that would have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration within the Project site include grading and paving. The FTA guidelines provide a threshold of significance of 80 vibration decibels (Vdb), which applies to residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the FTA, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. At distances ranging from 93 to 651 feet from the Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to approach 69.9 VdB, as shown on Table 3-21, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels. Based on the FTA vibration standard of 80 Vdb, the proposed Project site will not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in a barely perceptible human response (annoyance) for infrequent events. Therefore, the vibration levels due to Project construction are considered less than significant impacts. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, pp. 23, 53) Construction Equipment Vibration Levels 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-4 of the Project’s Noise Study (Addendum Appendix G). 3 Does the Peak Vibration exceed the FTA maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 VdB? (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, Table 9-9) Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but would occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating close to the Project site perimeter. Moreover, construction at the Project site City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-101 would be restricted to daytime hours consistent with the City of Menifee requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration impacts during the sensitive nighttime hours. Accordingly, and based on the preceding analysis, the Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. (Urban Crossroads, 2016c, p. 53) Mitigation: Mitigation Measure MM Noise-3, provided above under the analysis of Threshold 11.a), shall apply. Monitoring: The City of Menifee shall ensure the recommendations of the Project’s Noise Study are adhered to during the City’s review of implementing grading and building permits, as summarized in Section 5.1. XII.c): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity above existing noise levels, with exception of homes proposed on-site (refer to the discussion under Threshold XII.c). No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As noted under the discussion and analysis of Threshold XII.a), the Project proposes 80 dwelling units in lieu of the commercial uses approved as part of SPA 2, which would result in a slight reduction in the amount of traffic generated by the site (and associated vehicular noise) as compared to the noise levels evaluated and disclosed in EIR No. 423. Thus, the Project is within the scope of EIR No. 423’s analysis of long-term noise impacts, which concluded that such impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, future development of 80 residential dwelling units at the site would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at the property, as residential uses are not associated with high levels of ambient noise. Although ambient noise levels at the site would increase under the proposed Project, such an increase would not be considered “substantial” and would be slightly reduced as compared to the land use assumptions evaluated in EIR No. 423, which assumed development of the site with commercial uses. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, long-term operation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impacts associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. As the modified project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-102 XII.d) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that construction activities on the SP 301 site would result in temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels, but that construction-related noise impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through mandatory compliance with time limits on construction (which would restrict the hours during which construction activities could occur on the site). EIR No. 423 concluded that mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423 would mitigate impacts associated with increases in temporary or periodic ambient noise levels to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As discussed above under the analysis of Threshold XII.a), near-term construction activities that would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project would be less than significant due to mandatory compliance with Section 8.01.010 of the City of Menifee Municipal Code and adherence to the recommendations of the Project’s Noise Study (Addendum Appendix G). There are no other components of the proposed Project, such as the Project’s operational characteristics, that have the potential to result in substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise level increases. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. As the modified project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure MM Noise-3, provided above under the analysis of Threshold 11.a), shall apply, and would ensure Project compliance with Section 8.01.010 of the City of Menifee Municipal Code and would reduce to the maximum feasible extent the Project’s construction-related noise impacts. Monitoring: The City of Menifee shall ensure the recommendations of the Project’s Noise Study are adhered to during the City’s review of implementing grading and building permits, as summarized in Section 5.1. XII.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the SP 301 site is not located within close proximity (i.e., two miles) of any public airport and was not under the purview of any airport land use plan. No impacts were identified. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of MARB/IP AIA. According to Table MA-1 of the MARB/IP ALUCP Zone E (and thus, the Project site) is located beyond the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour for the MARB/IP. (RCALUC, 2014, Map MA-1 and Table MA-1) As such, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-103 XII.f) EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the SP 301 site is not located within close proximity (i.e., two miles) of any private airport or airstrip. No impacts were identified. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the Project site is not located within the vicinity of any private airstrips, and therefore has no potential to result in noise-related impacts to future Project residents (Google Earth, 2016). As the modified project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with private airstrips, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XIII.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 identified that the housing in SP 301 would generate a projected population of 10,878 people, which is approximately 0.46 percent of the total 2,340,810 people expected in the Western Riverside Subregion by the year 2020. EIR No. 423 concluded that SP 301 would not induce substantial population growth in the area. As such, EIR No. 423 concluded that a less-than-significant impact associated with direct substantial population growth would occur. EIR No. 423 determined that SP 301 would involve the extension of infrastructure as necessary to accommodate development within the SP 301 area, and such infrastructure would not result in substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. EIR No. 423 concluded that a less-than- significant impact associated with indirect substantial population growth would occur. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-104 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project would allow for the future development of up to 80 residential lots and a 1.1-acre private recreation center. Under existing conditions, EIR No. 423 considered development of the site with commercial land uses; thus, the analysis herein considers impacts associated with the construction of 80 residential lots. However, and as explained in Addendum Subsection 2.4.2, the total number of dwelling units allocated to SPA 2016-140 would only be increased by 48 dwelling units due to approved Tract Maps containing fewer units than what was allocated by SP 301A2. Thus, the 48-dwelling unit increase would reasonably result from the Project would generate a future population increase of approximately 152 persons as compared to what was evaluated in EIR No. 423, based on the rates used in the City of Menifee General Plan Housing Element. Additionally, although the Project would not result in any permanent jobs on-site, construction workers would be employed during the reasonably foreseeable construction of 80 dwelling units on-site. As such, although the Project would result in the conversion of lands from commercial to residential and would result in a net increase in the City’s population by 152 persons as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423, such an increase would not substantially exceed the regional population projections. The proposed Project would involve the extension of infrastructure as necessary to accommodate development within the SPA 2016-140 area, and such infrastructure would not result in substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, because no improvements are required that would increase the likelihood that surrounding or nearby properties would be developed. Moreover, all lands surrounding the Project site are designated for urban development as part of SP 301 (for areas north, west, and south of the Project site) or the Riverside County General Plan (for areas east of the Project site). Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impacts due to substantial population growth. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XIII.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that SP 301 would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that no impact would occur. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing conditions, and similar to the conditions that existed at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, the Project site does not contain any housing. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would have no potential to displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-105 Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XIII.c): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that SP 301 would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and concluded that no impact would occur. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing conditions, and similar to the conditions that existed at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, the Project site does not contain any housing and contains no residents. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would have no potential to displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 13. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal LU-1: Land uses and building types that result in a community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a diversity of options of where they can live, work, shop, and recreate within Menifee. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-106 Policy LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options. Policy LU-1.4: Preserve, protect, and enhance established rural, estate, and residential neighborhoods by providing sensitive and well-designed transitions (building design, landscape, etc.) between these neighborhoods and adjoining areas. Policy LU-1.5: Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate, that reduce reliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal transportation opportunities. Policy LU-1.6: Coordinate land use, infrastructure, and transportation planning and analysis with regional, county, and other local agencies to further regional and subregional goals for jobs-housing balance. Policy LU-1.8: Ensure new development is carefully designed to avoid or incorporate natural features, including washes, creeks, and hillsides. Policy LU-1.9: Allow for flexible development standards provided that the potential benefits and merit of projects can be balanced with potential impacts. Policy LU-1.10: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses. Goal LU-2: Thriving Economic Development Corridors that accommodate a mix of nonresidential and residential uses that generate activity and economic vitality in the City. Policy LU-2.1: Promote infill development that complements existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Infill development and future growth in Menifee is strongly encouraged to locate within EDC areas to preserve the rural character of rural, estate, and small estate residential uses. Goal ED-1: A diverse and robust local economy capable of providing employment for all residents desiring to work in the City. Policy ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations. Goal ED-2: A variety of retail shopping areas distributed strategically throughout the City and regional retail, dining, and entertainment destinations in key locations with freeway access. Policy ED-2.1: Promote retail development by locating needed goods and services in proximity to where residents live to improve quality of life, retain taxable spending by Menifee residents, and attract residents from outside the City to shop in Menifee. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-107 • Locate businesses providing convenience goods and services in retail centers that are on arterials adjacent to neighborhoods and communities throughout the City but not in rural residential areas. • Encourage comparison goods businesses to locate in larger retail centers located on major arterials near freeway interchanges, because businesses that provide comparison goods tend to draw customers from larger areas. Policy ED-2.2: Require regional retail districts to provide entertainment and dining in addition to retail sales and services to create destinations prepared to withstand e-commerce's increasing capture of retail spending. These districts should create a pedestrian-friendly human-scale atmosphere with street furniture, shading, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping and socializing. Local retail centers (primarily intended to serve Menifee residents) need not necessarily provide dining and entertainment but shall provide street furniture, shading, pedestrian-circulation, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping. Goal ED-3: A mix of land uses that generates a fiscal balance to support and enhance the community's quality of life. Policy ED-3.1: Incorporate short-term and long-term economic and fiscal implications of proposed actions into decision making. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: X.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to physically dividing an established community. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing conditions, and consistent with the conditions that existed at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, the Project site comprises vacant land that was previously subject to grading activities. Future residential development as proposed by the Project would not result in the physical division of any of the existing nearby residential neighborhoods, as the future development of up to 80 residential dwelling units on site would provide public roadways and pedestrian/bicycle connections within and through the Project site. Additionally, the areas east of the Project site are agricultural lands and do not comprise an existing established community. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would have no potential to physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. X.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-108 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Although the Project is not consistent with the site’s existing commercial Specific Plan land use or zoning designation, the Project proposes to amend the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan (SPA 2016-140) and change the site’s zoning designation (CZ 2017- 140). With approval of SPA 2016-140 and adoption of CZ 2017-140, the Project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan, Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, or zoning map. Additionally, the Project complies with the Western Riverside County MSHCP (addressed earlier in Subsection IV.4 of this Initial Study), SCAG’s Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and the SCAQMD AQMP, addressed earlier in Subsection IV.3. Furthermore, the proposed Project also would be conditioned to comply with applicable regulations from other agencies with approval authority over the proposed Project. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would have no impact associated with a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Such impacts would be similar whether the site is developed with residential uses, or with commercial uses as called for by the site’s existing Commercial land use designation; thus, Project- related impacts would be within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. X.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the only adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan was the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). EIR No. 423 noted that the SP 301 site occurred within the Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Fee area for the SKR, and found that all future implementing development within the SP 301 site would be subject to payment of fees. EIR No. 423 concluded that, with the mandatory payment of fees per the SKR HCP, SP 301’s impacts due to a conflict with the SKR HCP would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Since the certification of EIR No. 423 in 2002, Riverside County has adopted the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is the applicable habitat conservation/planning program for Western Riverside County. The Project site and surrounding off-site areas occur within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan portion of the MSHCP but are not within a Criteria Cell, a designated Cell Group, or a subunit within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan that requires conservation of land for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project site also is not within any cores or linkages (i.e., Special Linkage Areas). (Riverside County, 2003) As such, the Project would only be required to contribute MSHCP Mitigation Fees pursuant to County Ordinance No. 810 (as adopted by the City of Menifee) to assist in the establishment of the MSHCP Reserve System. Additionally, although the Project site is not targeted for conservation by the Stephens’ kangaroo rat Habitat Conservation Program (HCP), the Project Applicant would be required to contribute fees towards the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 663, as adopted by the City of Menifee. Furthermore, prior to mass grading of the Project site in 2013, a MSHCP 30-day Pre- Construction Survey for the burrowing owl was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA), the results of which are documented in a report dated January 7, 2013 (Addendum Appendix B). As part of that pre-construction survey, BFSA identified one burrow near Case Road (0.3 mile north of the Project site), and a 100-meter radius was established around the burrow in which grading was disallowed until such time as any fledglings leave the nest and the adults can be relocated. Subsequently, the entire TR City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-109 33406 area has been completely graded, with only minor grading needed on the Project site to achieve conformance to existing surrounding grades. Because all native vegetation has been removed, additional burrowing owl surveys are not anticipated to be warranted. However, and as discussed under Addendum Subsection IV.4, in the event that the site is left undisturbed for a period of more than 30 days, pre- construction surveys would be required pursuant to the MSHCP. In such a case, Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 has been imposed herein to ensure Project compliance with the MSHCP by requiring pre- construction surveys, and additional surveys in the event ground-disturbing activities are suspended for a period of one month or more. Accordingly, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts due to a conflict with habitat conservation plans, natural conservation plans, and other approved local, regional, and state conservation plans. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 shall apply, which requires pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist if the Project site has been left undisturbed for more than 30 days. Monitoring: As specified by Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 provided above in subsection 4, Biological Resources (refer also to Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2 in subsection 5.1). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Fire protection?     b) Police protection?     c) Schools?     d) Parks?     e) Other public facilities?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-110 Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. Policy OSC-1.7: Ensure that parks and recreational facilities are well-maintained by the responsible agency. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XIV.a): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 concluded that buildout of SP 301 would cumulatively affect the Riverside County Fire Department's ability to serve the area. EIR No. 423 determined that mandatory compliance with Section 1503 of the Uniform Building Code, County Ordinance Nos. 460 and 787, and Mitigation Measure PS-1 (requiring the payment of Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program fees) would reduce potential adverse impacts to local fire protection services to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Under existing conditions, and consistent with the conditions that existed at the time EIR No. 423 was certified, fire protection services to the Project site are provided by the Riverside County Fire Department at the Sun City Station #7, located at 27860 Bradley Road, approximately 2.9 roadways miles from the Project site, and Menifee Lakes Station #76, located at 29950 Menifee Road, approximately 3.1 roadway miles from the Project site (Google Earth, 2016). EIR No. 423 evaluated potential impacts to fire protection services and facilities associated with buildout of SP 301. At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the Project site was identified for development with commercial land uses. Thus, EIR No. 423 assumed that the Project site would contribute to the projected demand for fire protection services that would occur with buildout of the SP 301. Although the Project proposes to change the site’s existing commercial land use to allow for the future development of up to 80 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center, development of the site with residential land uses would not result in a substantial increase in demand for fire protection services as compared to development with approximately 116,000 s.f. of Commercial land uses, as was assumed for the site by EIR No. 423. As such, the construction of up to 80 dwelling units and a recreation center on-site would be within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423, which concluded that impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the need for new expanded fire protection facilities. The proposed Project also would not adversely affect fire department response times because the Project site is located within a portion of the City that is planned for development and is adequately served by an existing fire station that already provides service to existing developments in this area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-111 Mitigation: The following mitigation measure from EIR No. 423 shall apply, although revisions are proposed to reference the appropriate City ordinance: MM PS-1 The applicant shall will participate in an existing Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program via the City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232 that provides funds for the purchase of land to build new fire stations, remodel existing fire stations, or for the purchase of equipment when necessary as development occurs. Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to Mitigation Measure MM PS-1 in the Project-specific MMRP attached under Section 5.1). XIV.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department's ability to serve the area was found to be adversely affected and implementation of SP 301 was found to result in the future need for approximately seven additional sheriff’s deputies. EIR No. 423 determined that mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measures MM PS-2 to MM PS-4 (referred to as Mitigation Measures C.4-1 through C.4-3 by EIR No. 423), which generally require the payment of fees, implementation of Neighborhood Watch Programs, and compliance with design standards included in SP 301, would further reduce potential adverse impacts to police protection services. Therefore, the EIR concluded that impacts associated with police protection services would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Police protection services to the Project site are provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department at the Perris Station, located at 137 N. Perris Boulevard, approximately 6.7 miles from the Project site (Google Earth, 2016). At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the Project site was identified for development with commercial land uses. Thus, EIR No. 423 assumed that the Project site would contribute to the projected demand for police protection services that would occur with buildout of SP 301. Although the Project proposes to change the site’s existing commercial land use designation to allow for the future development of up to 80 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center, development of the site with residential land uses would not result in a substantial increase in demand for police protection services as compared to development with approximately 258,400 s.f. of commercial land uses. As such, the construction of 80 dwelling units and a recreation center on-site is within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423, which concluded that impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. As the Project would not increase demand and would be required to pay impact fees per Riverside County Ordinance No. 659 (as adopted by the City of Menifee), a less-than-significant impact to police protection facilities would occur. The proposed Project also would not adversely affect police department response times or staffing levels because the Project site is located within a portion of the City that is already planned for additional development and is adequately served by existing police station resources that provide service to this area of the city. As the Project would not affect police department response times and would be required to pay impact fees, a less-than-significant impact to police protection facilities would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-112 Mitigation: The following mitigation measures from EIR No. 453 shall apply, as modified below: MM PS-2 The applicant will pay fees in accordance with the provisions of City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232 to off-set the cost of acquisition and construction of Sheriff Department facilities as the need arises due to the rapid population growth in the region. MM PS-3 The project applicant will inform the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff’s Department of all new Homeowners Associations. These associations can be used as the foundation for establishing Neighborhood Watch Programs. MM PS-4 A number of design concepts and crime prevention measures to be incorporated or considered during site and building layout designs are discussed in the design standards of Section III.A.2, Specific Land Use Plan, of the Specific Plan Amendment. Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to Mitigation Measure MM PS-2 to MM PS-4 in the Project- specific MMRP in Section 5.1). XIV.c) EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the construction of 4,200 residential homes, as provided by approved SP 301, would increase the population in the local area and would consequently place greater demand on the existing public school system by generating additional students to be served by the Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District. EIR No. 423 determined that the provision of two K-8 schools and one high school on the SP 301 site would contain capacity in excess of the students generated by SP 301. Mitigation Measure C.5-1 also requires payment of school impact fees that would constitute complete mitigation for project-related impacts to school services. EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with school services would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the Project site was identified for development with commercial land uses. The Project proposes to change the commercial land use designation to allow for the development of up to 80 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center. The project would generate approximately 25 elementary and middle school students based on the elementary and middle school student generation rate for single-family detached homes provided in the City of Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, which is 0.3119 student/unit. The project would generate approximately 11 high school students based on the high school student generation rate for single-family detached homes provided in the City of Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, which is 0.1317 student/unit. (City of Menifee, 2013b) Thus, the Project would result in a slight increase in the demand for school services as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. However, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute school development impact fees on a per-unit basis as required by State law (Senate Bill 50), City Ordinance No. 659, and EIR No. 423. The Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District currently assess this fee to help pay for school needs and other public services. Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation for project-related impacts to school City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-113 services. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure from EIR No. 423 shall apply to the proposed Project: MM PS-5 The project shall mitigate impacts to schools by payment of State-mandated school impact fees at the time that building permits are issued. Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to Mitigation Measure MM PS-5 in the Project-specific MMRP attached under Section 5.1). XIV.d): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that SP 301 would not contribute to substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks because SP 301 would provide sufficient park land on-site to accommodate on-site residents’ demand. EIR No. 423 concluded that there would be less- than-significant impacts associated with parks due to proposed parkland within SP 301. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the Project site was identified for development with commercial land uses. The Project proposes to change the commercial land use designation to allow for the development of up to 80 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center. Thus, the Project would result in a slight increase in the demand for parks as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. Buildout of the approved SP 301 would result in a future population of approximately 13,791 residents (based on the person per household rates used in the City’s General Plan Housing Element, as discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.B), which translates into a demand for approximately 69.0 acres of parkland within the City in order to meet a service ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The 80 dwelling units that would reasonably result from Project approval would generate a future population increase of 253 persons, also based on the General Plan Housing Element person per household ratio of 3.164. However, the total number of dwelling units allocated to SPA 2016-140 would only be increased by 48 dwelling units in comparison to what was evaluated in EIR No. 423, due to approved Tract Maps containing fewer units than what was allocated by SP 301A2 (refer to Addendum Subsection 2.4.2). Thus, with the proposed increase of 48 dwelling units on-site, the total future population within SP SPA 2016-140 would increase to 13,944 persons in comparison to what was evaluated in EIR No. 423, which translates into a total demand for approximately 69.76 acres of parkland. As indicated in Table II-1 of SPA 2016-140, a total of 75.2 acres of parkland are accommodated within the SP 301 area, in addition to 1.1 acres of private recreation center; a swim club and parking lot on 3.5 acres; greenbelt/lake on 41.8 acres; and open space/greenbelts on 31.7 acres. In the event that these amenities not meet the Specific Plan’s revised demand for parkland as determined by the City of Menifee and the VWRPD, then in-lieu fees, as discussed below, would be required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-114 As required by Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.55 (Park Land Dedication, In-Lieu Fees, and Park Development Fees), the Project Applicant would be required to pay impact fees for parks and recreation facilities on a per-unit basis. The City of Menifee currently assesses this fee to help pay for parks and recreation needs and other public services. Additionally, the Project provides recreation facilities, including a 1.1-acre recreation center, which would help to meet the projected demand for recreation facilities caused by Project residents. Nonetheless, since the Project would contribute fees to the City’s parkland acquisition program, and since the City is required by its General Plan to provide adequate parkland, a less-than-significant impact to recreational facilities would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XIV.e): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 found that implementation of SP 301 would not overburden facilities or resources of the Riverside County Library System. EIR No. 423 determined that Mitigation Measure C.10-1, which requires payment of fees in accordance with County Ordinance No. 659, would further reduce potential adverse impacts to local library services by providing fair-share funds for the acquisition of additional library materials. The EIR concluded that impacts to library services would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the Project site was identified for development with commercial land uses. The Project proposes to change the commercial land use designation to allow for the development of up to 80 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center. Thus, the Project would result in a slight increase in the demand for library services as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the demand for new library space would be met through collection of Development Impact Fees that would be used to fund the expansion of the current library or to develop additional branch library to meet this demand. Pursuant to County Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fees), as adopted by the City of Menifee, the Project Applicant would be required to pay impact fees for library facilities. The City of Menifee currently assesses this fee to help pay for library needs and other public facilities and services. Moreover, and also consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the City is obligated to provide for adequate library space. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the Project’s incremental increase in demand for new library space would represent a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure from EIR No. 453 shall apply, as modified below. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-115 MM PS-6 The project shall be subject to the payment of mitigation fees in accordance with the provisions of City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232. At the City’s option, a portion of these fees may be utilized by the City to provide additional library facilities and staff. Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to Mitigation Measure MM PS-6 in the EIR No. 423 MMRP attached under Section 5.0). 15. RECREATION New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. Policy OSC-1.1: Provide parks and recreational programs to meet the varied needs of community residents, including children, youth, adults, seniors, and persons with disabilities, and make these facilities and services easily accessible and affordable to all users. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XV.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that SP 301 would not contribute to substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks because SP 301 would provide sufficient park land on-site to accommodate on-site residents’ demand. EIR No. 423 concluded that there would be less- than-significant impacts associated with the physical deterioration of neighborhood and regional parks. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: At the time EIR No. 423 was certified in 2002, the Project site was identified for development with commercial land uses. The Project proposes to change the existing commercial land uses, which would reasonably result in the future development of up to 80 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-116 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center. Thus, the Project would result in a slight increase in the demand for parks in the eastern portions of the City as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. Buildout of the approved SP 301 would result in a future population of approximately 13,791 residents (based on the person per household rates used in the City’s General Plan Housing Element, as discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.B), which translates into a demand for approximately 69.76 acres of parkland within the City in order to meet a service ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The 80 dwelling units that would reasonably result from Project approval would generate a future population increase of 253 persons, also based on the General Plan Housing Element person per household ratio of 3.164. However, and as explained in Addendum Subsection 2.4.2, the total number of dwelling units allocated to SPA 2016-140 would only be increased by 48 dwelling units due to approved Tract Maps containing fewer units than what was allocated by SP 301A2. Thus, with the proposed increase of 48 dwelling units on-site as compared to what was evaluated by EIR No. 423, the total future population would increase to 13,944 persons, which translates into a total demand for approximately 69.76 acres of parkland. As indicated in Table II-1 of SPA 2016-140, a total of 75.2 acres of parkland are accommodated within the SP 301 area, in addition to 1.1 acres of private recreation center; a swim club and parking lot on 3.5 acres; greenbelt/lake on 41.8 acres; and open space/greenbelts on 31.7 acres. In the event that these amenities not meet the Specific Plan’s revised demand for parkland as determined by the City of Menifee and the VWRPD, then in-lieu fees, as discussed below, would be required. As required by Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.55 (Park Land Dedication, In-Lieu Fees, and Park Development Fees), the Project Applicant would be required to pay impact fees for parks and recreation facilities on a per-unit basis. The City of Menifee currently assesses this fee to help pay for parks and recreation needs and other public services. Additionally, the Project provides recreation facilities, 1.1- acre recreation center, which could help to meet the projected demand for recreation facilities caused by Project residents. Nonetheless, since the Project would contribute fees to the City’s parkland acquisition program, and since the City is required to provide adequate parkland, a less-than-significant impact to recreational facilities would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XV.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 identified that SP 301 would provide four neighborhood parks and one community park on a total of 48.8 acres, a jogging path over 5.5 miles, a golf course, a 22.6-acre lake, and a greenbelt system on a total of 23.2 acres. EIR No. 423 determined that the construction of on-site recreational amenities would result in potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality, which were addressed within the respective issue areas of EIR No. 423. EIR No. 423 disclosed that where potentially significant impacts associated with the construction of recreational facilities on-site were identified, mitigation measures were imposed to reduce City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-117 the impact to the maximum feasible extent. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with physical effects on the environment from the construction of recreational facilities would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As noted above in Threshold IV.15.a), buildout of the proposed Project and remaining areas within SP 301 would result in a total demand of approximately 69.7 acres of parkland, which would either be accommodated by planned amenities within SP 301 or through the payment of in-lieu fees. In addition, the Project would provide for a 1.1-acre community recreation center, which would help to meet the parkland demand resulting from buildout of SP 301. Impacts associated with the buildout of parks throughout the SP 301 area were fully evaluated in EIR No. 423, which also assumed the Project site (including the 1.1-acre community recreation facility) would be developed with commercial land uses. Additionally, impacts that may result from development of the 1.1- acre park site has been addressed throughout this Addendum, and impacts were determined to be equal to or less than what was disclosed by EIR No. 423. Accordingly, although the Project includes a recreational facility and would be served by other parks in the SP 301 area, the buildout of these areas would not result in any new impacts not already addressed by EIR No. 423 or this EIR Addendum. Accordingly, buildout of parks as needed to meet the recreational needs of SP 301 would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?     b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-118 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?     d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?     Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal C-1: A roadway network that meets the circulation needs of all residents, employees, and visitors to the City of Menifee. Policy C-1.1: Require roadways to: • Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. • Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. • Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. • Be maintained in accordance with best practices. Policy C-1.2: Require development to mitigate its traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) D or better at intersections, except at constrained intersections at close proximity to the I-215 where LOS E may be permitted. Policy C-1.5: Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Goal C-2: A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized travel throughout the City of Menifee. Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to: • Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. • Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. • Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. • Be maintained in accordance with best practices. Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on-street bike lanes as our primary paths of citywide travel, and explore the shared use of low speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe to do so. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-119 Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points. Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way and other potential options. Goal C-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent. Policy C-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary. Goal C-4: Diversified local transportation options that include neighborhood electric vehicles and golf carts. Policy C-4.1: Encourage the use of neighborhood electric vehicles and golf carts instead of automobiles for local trips. Goal C-5: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts. Policy C-5.3: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the negative environmental impacts of goods movement. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XVI.a) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that with implementation of SP 301, all study maintained roads and conventional State Highways in the County would need to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better. EIR No. 423 identified that LOS D or better would be an acceptable LOS, subject to approval from the County Board of Supervisors, in urban areas at intersections of any combination of Major Streets, Arterials, Expressways, or conventional State Highways within one mile of a freeway interchange and also at freeway ramp intersections. EIR No. 423 disclosed that mandatory compliance with Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor plans, County roadway standards, and County bike rack standards would be required. Additionally, EIR No. 423 concluded that the mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423, which generally requires installation of traffic signals, phasing of roadway improvements, County roadway fees, incorporation of traffic demand management programs, construction of roadways, County General Plan Circulation Element changes, and development monitoring requirements, would further reduce potential adverse impacts to any applicable circulation/transportation plan, ordinance, or policy. As such, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to impact the surrounding circulation network, a Trip Generation Evaluation was prepared for the proposed City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-120 Project by Urban Crossroads Inc., the results of which are presented in Addendum Appendix H1. Using the trip generation rates per data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Single- Family Detached Residential (ITE Land Use Code 210), Table 3-22, Project Trip Generation Summary, summarizes the amount of daily vehicular trips that would be generated under the proposed Project. As shown, the proposed Project would result in a total of approximately 762 based daily trip-ends, with 60 trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 80 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. (Urban Crossroads, 2016d, pp. 1-2) Project Trip Generation Summary (Urban Crossroads, 2016d, Table 1) The Trip Generation Evaluation also makes a comparison between the potential changes in trip generation/traffic associated with the proposed changes in the site’s existing land use designation. As previously noted, EIR No. 423 assumed the Project site would be developed with approximately 116,000 s.f. of commercial land uses. With approval of the proposed Project, the Project site’s land use designation would be changed to instead allow for the development of up to 80 detached single-family dwelling units at the site. As shown in Table 3-23, Currently Approved Land Use Trip Generation Summary, the commercial land uses in Planning Area 41 would have resulted in approximately 4,953 total average daily trips (ADT) with 112 trips during the AM peak hour and 430 trips during the PM peak hour (or an increase of 4,191 ADT as compared to the proposed Project). (Urban Crossroads, 2016d, pp. 2-3) Thus, the commercial land use evaluated in EIR No. 423 for the Project site would have resulted in approximately five times as much daily traffic as compared to the amount of traffic that would be generated under the proposed Project. Accordingly, the impact analysis provided in EIR No. 423 more than accounted for traffic that would be generated by the Project site. Moreover, mitigation measures were required as part of the County’s approval of TR 34406 to reduce traffic impacts to less-than-significant levels, and the Project site was assumed to be developed with 116,000 s.f. of commercial land uses by the traffic study prepared in conjunction with TR 34406. All mitigation requirements have since been completed, including roadways that abut the Project site. The Project Applicant also would be required to contribute Developer Impact Fee (DIF) fees pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City of Menifee, portions of which would be used for regional transportation improvements, and the Project Applicant also would be required to contribute Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) fees, which are used for regional transportation improvements. Accordingly, because the Project would substantially reduce the amount City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-121 of traffic generated by the site, and because the Project would contribute fees towards local and regional transportation improvements, impacts would be less than significant. Currently Approved Land Use Trip Generation Summary (Urban Crossroads, 2016d, Table 2) In addition to the Project’s Trip Generation Evaluation, a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis (TSWA) also was conducted for the intersection of McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive and is provided as Technical Appendix H2. Refer to the TWSA for a description of the methodology used to evaluate the potential need for signalization of this intersection. The evaluation indicated that the intersection of McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive does not meet traffic signal warrants based on existing volumes but is anticipated to meet traffic signal warrants based on projected volumes at the buildout of the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan 301. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. Nonetheless, the TSWA determined that traffic generated by the Project would not trigger the need for signalization of this intersection. As such, impacts associated with the Project evaluated herein would be less than significant; however, future development within the Specific Plan would cause the need for signalization. As required by EIR No. 423 Mitigation Measure C.1-2 (referred to herein as Mitigation Measure MM TR-2, and in Subsection 5.2 as Mitigation Measure 68), traffic studies will be required prior to approval of future development within the Specific Plan area, and the traffic studies will include an evaluation of the need to signalize the intersection of McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive. If a traffic study for an implementing development project determines the need for signalization of this intersection, then the signalization would be imposed as mitigation on that implementing development. As such, the Project as evaluated herein would result in less-than-significant impacts due to the need to signalize the intersection of McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive. (Urban Crossroads, 2017) Based on the preceding analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-122 Mitigation: No mitigation is required aside from mandatory payment of DIF and TUMF fees; however, Mitigation Measure C.1-2 from EIR No. 423 (referred to herein as Mitigation Measure MM TR-2, and in Subsection 5.2 as Mitigation Measure 68) would continue to apply to future development within the Specific Plan area. The mitigation requires traffic studies for implementing developments, which would identify potential impacts to area intersections that would result from new development, including the potential need for signalization of intersections such as the intersection of McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive. Mitigation measures would be required for any impacts found to be potentially significant and may include the installation of traffic signals. Monitoring: In conformance with Mitigation Measure C.1-2 from EIR No. 423 (referred to herein as Mitigation Measure MM TR-2, and in Subsection 5.2 as Mitigation Measure 68), traffic studies shall be prepared concurrently with the submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan, and improvements shall be completed prior to release of occupancy. XVI.b) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that with implementation of SP 301, all study maintained roads and conventional State Highways in the County would need to operate at LOS C or better. EIR No. 423 identified that LOS D or better would be an acceptable LOS, subject to approval from the County Board of Supervisors, in urban areas at intersections of any combination of Major Streets, Arterials, Expressways, or conventional State Highways within one mile of a freeway interchange and also at freeway ramp intersections. EIR No. 423 disclosed that mandatory compliance with CETAP corridor plans and County roadway standards was required. Additionally, EIR No. 423 disclosed that the mitigation measures identified to address potential traffic impacts, which generally require installation of traffic signals, phasing of roadway improvements, payment fees, incorporation of traffic demand management programs, construction of roadways, County General Plan Circulation Element changes, and development monitoring requirements, would further reduce potential adverse impacts to any applicable congestion management plan. As such, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) is the CMP currently in effect for the Project area. The 2011 CMP identifies the following facilities nearby transportation facilities as part of its Regional CMP System: SR-74, located approximately 1.6 miles north of the Project site; I-15, located 2.8 miles west of the Project site; and SR-79, located 3.0 miles east of the Project site (RCTC, 2011, Exhibit 2-1). As indicated above under the discussion of Threshold XVI.a), implementation of the Project would produce more than five times less daily traffic trips as compared to the commercial uses that were evaluated in EIR No. 423. Additionally, the proposed Project would result in 52 fewer AM peak hour trips and 350 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to development of the Project site with 116,000 s.f. of commercial retail uses, as was assumed for the Project site by EIR No. 423. EIR No. 423 identified less-than-significant impacts to CMP facilities, including SR-74, I-215, and SR-79; thus, because the Project would generate substantially fewer peak hour trips than the commercial land uses evaluated for Planning Area 41 in EIR No. 423, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact due to a conflict with an applicable congestion management program. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-123 in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: EIR No. 423 identified 16 separate mitigation measures for buildout of the Specific Plan area. However, a number of the mitigation requirements identified by EIR No. 423 would not apply. Provided below are the mitigation measures that would continue to apply. Refer to EIR No. 423 MMRP Compliance Matrix in Section 5.2 for a listing of all of the mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423, along with an explanation as to why several of the mitigation measures do not apply to the Project. MM TR-1 The project shall contribute to the installation of off-site traffic signals when warranted through the payment of City of Menifee traffic signal mitigation fees. Prior to approval of the first tentative tract map or use case associated with the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, an additional funding mechanism for the following project-related traffic signals shall be prepared by the project proponent and approved by the City of Menifee Planning Division: a) Menifee Road (NS) at:  Planning Area 6 (EW)  McLaughlin Road (EW)  Rouse Road (EW)  Menifee Loop North (EW)  Grand Avenue (EW)  Planning Area 40 (EW) b) Malaga Road (NS) at:  State Route 74 (EW) c) Lindenberger Road (NS) at:  Simpson Road (EW) d) Briggs Road (NS) at:  Planning Area 12 (EW)  Planning Area 18 (EW)  Grand Avenue (EW)  Planning Areas 31/32 (EW) e) Planning Areas 25/20 (NS) at:  McCall Boulevard (EW) f) Menifee Loop East (NS) at:  McCall Boulevard (EW) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-124 MM TR-2 Improvements required to achieve the minimum level of service, as required by the City of Menifee General Plan Community Plan, shall be evaluated at each phase of project development. To ensure that off-site roadway improvements are provided in conjunction with each development phase, the following development monitoring requirements shall be required: a) A traffic impact study report shall be submitted concurrently with the submittal of each tentative tract map or plot plan as required by the City of Menifee. b) Each traffic impact study report shall be prepared in a format as required by the City of Menifee. The required format shall include an evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impacted by each phase of development. c) If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed City service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for City staff review. d) All improvements necessary to maintain the City service level standards shall be in place or fully funded and scheduled for construction prior to occupancy of the relevant development phase. MM TR-3 Because off-site improvements are generally needed to serve area wide growth, all areas of the project shall participate in benefit district and/or other fee programs to implement General Plan roadway segments. Given the regional nature of key corridors which serve the project, two new road and bridge benefit districts are recommended for the study area (see EIR No. 423 Figure V.C-12, Recommended Benefit Districts) MM TR-4 The project shall incorporate such traffic demand management programs as may be appropriate to comply with the goals of the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plan. Prior to the Tentative Tract Map or Plot Plan approval, the project applicant shall consult with and obtain clearance from the following agencies to assure compliance and coordinate with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plans: a) Caltrans, District 8; b) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); c) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and d) The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Confirmation of such contact and coordination shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department. MM TR-5 Traffic impact study reports shall be provided to the City concurrently with submittal of tentative tract maps or plot plans as required by the City of Menifee. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-125 MM TR-6 The required format for each traffic impact study report shall be determined by the City of Menifee. The required format will include evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impact by each phase of development. MM TR-7 If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed City service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for City staff review. MM TR-8 The improvements needed to maintain the City service level standards shall be in place or fully funded and scheduled for construction prior to occupancy of the relevant development phases. Monitoring: Monitoring shall be as set forth by EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific MMRP, included herein in Section 5.1). XVI.c): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts to air traffic patterns or change in location that result in substantial safety risks. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port (MARB/IP) Airport Influence Area (AIA). Zone E does not restrict residential density, and also prohibits hazards to flights. The Project does not involve any components that would result in hazards to flights. Nonetheless, because the Project is located within the MARB/IP AIA, the Project would require review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). On April 12, 2018, the ALUC staff determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the MARB/IP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) subject to standard conditions requiring notification of property owners regarding airport proximity and the existence of aircraft overflights as part of future real estate transactions. This requirement has been added to the Project’s Conditions of Approval. Because the Project is not located within a portion of the AIA where potential safety hazards could exist associated with the MARB/IP operations, the Project would not expose future Project residents to potential airport- related safety hazards. (RCALUC, 2014, Map MA-1 and Table MA-2). Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the modified Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, and no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVI.d): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to increased hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-126 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: There are no off-site roadways that would require improvement as part of the Project, and all on-site roadway improvements proposed by the Project would be fully compliant with City standards. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in increased hazards due to a design feature beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed in EIR No. 423 as a less-than-significant impact. Additionally, because land uses surrounding the Project site consist of undeveloped lands, residential uses, and agricultural lands, the Project also would not result in any safety hazards associated with incompatible land uses. Therefore, and consistent with the conclusion of EIR No. 423, no impact would occur. As the modified project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVI.e) EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts to emergency access or access to nearby uses. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project would be served by two primary points of access: from McCall Boulevard to the south, and from Heritage Lake Drive to the west. Improvements to these roadways have already been completed to current City standards. Additionally, the Project has been reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department, which did not identify any potential issues associated with emergency access. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVI.f): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that the SP 301 area is served by Riverside Transit Agency Bus Routes 19, 37, and 70 along McCall Boulevard (west of the I-215 Freeway) and Newport Road. EIR No. 423 disclosed that SP 301 would implement the Bicycle Routes plan from the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan with Class II bike lanes on State Route 74 and Simpson Road. EIR No. 423 identified that all roads serving SP 301 would include sidewalks for pedestrians. EIR No. 423 found that SP 301 requires mandatory compliance with County bike rack standards. EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The 2014 City of Menifee General Plan and Citywide Trails Map identifies Class II bike lanes on McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road; and Class III bike lanes on Heritage City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-127 Lake Drive. Bike facilities along McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road were previously constructed. The Class III bike lanes on Heritage Lake Drive are expected to be in place prior to development of the Project site, as this improvement is already a condition of approval for the previous phases of TR 34406. There are no components of the proposed Project that would substantially decrease the performance or safety of any public transit facilities, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities. Consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, no impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?     e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?     f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-128 Applicable General Plan Policies: Goal LU-3: A full range of public utilities and related services that provide for the immediate and long-term needs of the community. Policy LU-3.1: Work with utility providers in the planning, designing, and siting of distribution and support facilities to comply with the standards of the General Plan and Development Code. Policy LU-3.2: Work with utility provides to increase service capacity as demand increases. Policy LU-3.3: Coordinate public infrastructure improvements through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the project's ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services. Policy LU-3.5: Facilitate the shared use of right-of-way, transmission corridors, and other appropriate measures to minimize the visual impact of utilities infrastructure throughout Menifee. Goal OSC-7: A reliable and safe water supply that effectively meets current and future user demands. Policy OSC-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a means of preserving water resources. Policy OSC-7.4: Encourage the use of reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public landscaped areas, and other feasible applications as service becomes available from the Eastern Municipal Water District. Policy OSC-7.5: Utilize a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that adequately serves the existing and long-term needs of the community. Policy OSC-7.7: Maintain and improve existing level of sewer service by improving infrastructure and repairing existing deficiencies. Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: XVII.a): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts associated with exceeding wastewater treatments requirements of the California Water Quality Control Board. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed via existing and proposed City of Menifee facilities and treated at the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and San Jacinto Valley RWRF. Wastewater generated by the Project would consist of typical household wastewater and would not have City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-129 the potential to cause EMWD’s facilities to fail to meet RWQCB treatment requirements. The EMWD’s treatment plants are required by the RWQCB to comply with all of its wastewater treatment requirements, and compliance with these requirements is expected to continue upon buildout of the proposed Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVII.b): EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, the water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The EIR identified that SP 301’s existing wastewater treatment facilities would be needed to expand and served by two sewage reclamation facilities, the Hemet/San Jacinto and Perris Valley Reclamation Facilities. The EIR stated that SP 301 would not require any mitigation measures other than mandatory compliance with County water, wastewater, and reclaimed water standards. EIR No. 423 concluded that SP 301’s impacts associated with water, wastewater, or reclaimed water facilities would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Project would construct an on-site network of water and wastewater pipes. The proposed on-site improvements include an 8-inch diameter water pipeline and 8-inch diameter wastewater pipeline in Streets ‘C’ through ‘H’, and a water pipeline connection and wastewater pipeline connection to Heritage Lake Drive and to McCall Boulevard. The installation of water lines and wastewater lines as proposed by the Project would result in physical impacts to the surface and subsurface of infrastructure alignments. These impacts are considered to be part of the Project’s construction phase and are evaluated throughout this Addendum accordingly. In instances where significant impacts have been identified for the Project’s construction phase, mitigation measures are recommended in each applicable subsection of this Addendum to reduce impacts to less-than- significant levels. The construction of water lines and wastewater lines as necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Addendum. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Although impacts water and wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure from EIR No. 423 shall apply. MM UTIL-1 The project will provide the necessary water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. In addition, the project will incorporate reclaimed water for irrigation purposes if reclaimed water is available at the time of project implementation. As Table V.C-7 shows, the EMWD will have sufficient water to meet its customer’s needs through 2020. The Menifee Valley Ranch project will also be served by two sewage reclamation facilities, City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-130 Hemet/San Jacinto and Perris Valley Reclamation Facilities, which will be able to support the projects wastewater flows. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts to water, wastewater, or reclaimed water facilities, and no mitigation measures are required beyond the standards set forth by the City of Menifee and/or EMWD. Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific MMRP in Section 5.1). XVII.c): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to exceedances to the existing or planned stormwater system. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Storm water drainage facilities as proposed by the Project would occur fully on-site. Impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project have been evaluated throughout this Addendum to EIR No. 423, and were found to be less than significant or reduced to a level below significance with the implementation of mitigation measures, consistent with the analysis and conclusions reached by EIR No. 423. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in or require new or expanded off-site storm drainage facilities beyond those facilities that are inherent to the Project and shown on TR 2016-139. Furthermore, the Project’s drainage concept is substantially consistent with the drainage concept proposed by the existing approved SP 301 that was the subject of evaluation in EIR No. 423, indicating that any impacts that may result from construction of storm drain infrastructure by the Project would be fully within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, impacts due to storm drain construction would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVII.d): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 disclosed that there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the SP 301 site through treated imported water, groundwater, and recycled water. EIR No. 423 identified that EMWD assumed there would be sufficient water available to meet projected imported water demands. EIR No. 423 identified that EMWD’s 24 production wells were projected to produce over 17,000 AF of native groundwater for use by its customers. EIR No. 423 identified that EMWD would sell over 25,000 AF of treated wastewater by the year 2000. EIR No. 423 concluded that EMWD would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, and that no new or expanded entitlements would be needed. Accordingly, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The EMWD prepared its most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update in June 2016. The demand projections in the UWMP are based on information about planned development and land uses; thus, for undeveloped areas, the UWMP relies on the land use inputs from the various General Plans of Riverside County and the cities within the EMWD City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-131 service area. Thus, the UWMP would have assumed that the Project site would be developed with up to 15.4 acres of commercial land uses. (EMWD, 2016, p. xiii) The Project proposes to develop the site with 80 residential lots and a recreation center in lieu of the 116,000 s.f. of commercial retail that was evaluated for the site in EIR No. 423. Based on the water demand rates published by the Water Agencies’ Standards (WAS), Table 3-24, Comparison of Water Demand, provides a comparison of the amount of water that would have been demanded under the site’s existing commercial land use designation to the water demand associated with the proposed Project. As shown, development of the Project site with residential uses in lieu of commercial uses would result in a net decrease in demand for water of 29,915 gallons per day (GPD). Comparison of Water Demand Land Use Average Daily Demand Acres Total Daily Water Demand Existing Approved Land Use Commercial (Approved) 5,000 GPD/Ac 15.4 77,000 GPD Existing Approved Water Demand Total: 77,000 GPD Proposed Project Residential 3,150 GPD/Ac1 13.9 43,785 GPD Community Center 3,000 GPD/Ac2 1.1 3300 GPD Proposed Project Water Demand Total: 47,085 GPD NET CHANGE IN WATER DEMAND: -29,915 GPD (38.9% Decrease) Notes: GPD = Gallons per Day; Ac = Acres. 1. Water demand rate for residential uses is based on a population density of 21 persons per acre; because the WAS rates are only provided for 14 and 28 persons per acre, the GPD/Ac rate was interpolated between 2,100 GPD/AC (for 14 persons per acre) and 4,200 GPD/Ac (for 28 persons per acre). 2. Water demand rate for the Community Center is based on the “Landscaped Park,” which represents a conservative assumption because Planning Area 41B would be developed with hardscape, a pool/spa, and pool equipment room/restrooms, which would reduce the areas subject to irrigation. (WAS, 2014, Table 4-1-1) As concluded in the EMWD UWMP, “EMWD has the ability to meet current and projected water demands through 2040 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions using a combination of imported water from [Metropolitan Water District] MWD and existing local supply resources” (EMWD, 2016, p. xv). Therefore, because the EMWD has determined it has adequate supplies to provide water to its service area through 2040, and because the Project would reduce the amount of water demanded by future uses on site by approximately 38.9%, the EMWD UWMP more than accounts for the Project’s future water demand. Accordingly, EMWD would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-132 Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVII.e): EIR No. 423 Finding: As disclosed in EIR No. 423, EMWD determined that sewer service for SP 301 could not be provided solely from the Winchester Regional Water Reclamation Facility. EIR No. 423 identified that due to the available treatment capacity of existing facilities nearby (Perris Valley facility, Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility, and Sun City facility), EMWD determined that there would be sufficient treatment capacity to treat the sewerage generated from the SP 301 site. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Sewer service to the Project site would be provided by EMWD. All wastewater flows from the Project site would be conveyed to the Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for treatment. The Perris Valley RWRF currently accepts approximately 13.8 million gallons per day (mgd) for treatment and has a total capacity of 100.0 mgd. (EMWD, 2014) Table 3-25, Comparison of Wastewater Demand, provides a comparison of the wastewater demand between the site’s existing commercial land use designation and the residential and community center proposed by the Project. As shown, buildout of the Project site with 80 residential homes and a community center in lieu of commercial land uses would lower the wastewater treatment capacity demand by approximately 11.0%. Moreover, the Project’s demand for wastewater treatment capacity would comprise only 0.1% increase to the existing flows at the RWRF, and less than 0.1% of the total remaining daily capacity at the RWRF. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not directly or cumulatively result in a determination by EMWD that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the EMWD’s existing commitments. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Comparison of Wastewater Demand Land Use Average Daily Demand Units Total Daily Water Demand Existing Approved Land Use Commercial (Approved) 1,500 GPD/Ac 15.4 Ac 23,100 GPD Existing Approved Wastewater Demand Total: 23,100 GPD Proposed Project Residential 250 GPD/DU1 80 DU 20,000 GPD Community Center 3,000 GPD/Ac 1.1 Ac 550 GPD Proposed Project Wastewater Demand Total: 20,550 GPD NET CHANGE IN WATER DEMAND: -2,550 GPD (11.0% Decrease) Notes: GPD = Gallons per Day; Ac = Acres; DU = Dwelling Unit. 1. WAS provides a range for residential uses of between 200 and 250 GPD/DU; the analysis herein relies on the higher demand rate (250 GPD/DU). 2. WAS provides a range for parks of between 100 and 500 GPD/Ac; the analysis herein assumes the Community Center will result in a future demand for up to 500 GPD/AC (WAS, 2014, Table 4-2-1) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-133 Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Monitoring: No monitoring is required. XVII.f): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that the El Sobrante Landfill would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate SP 301’s solid waste disposal needs. EIR No. 423 identified that SP 301 requires mandatory compliance with County standards for solid waste. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the site’s solid waste disposal needs would be less than significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in the generation of solid waste, requiring disposal at a landfill. Solid waste generated by the Project could be disposed at two landfill facilities in the County: Badlands and/or El Sobrante. Therefore, the analysis below evaluates the Project’s potential to result in adverse impacts to these landfill facilities. The Badlands Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day. The Badlands Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2024; however, future landfill expansion opportunities exist at this site (CalRecycle, 2016a). The El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2045; however, future landfill expansion opportunities also exist at this site (CalRecycle, 2016b). Under existing conditions and based on a waste generation factor of 2.4 tons per 1,000 square feet, the development of 116,000 s.f. of commercial uses, as evaluated in EIR No. 423, would generate approximately 278.4 tons per year, or approximately 0.8 tons per day. Based on a waste generation factor of 0.41 tons per home per year as documented in the Riverside County General Plan EIR, the Project’s proposed 80 homes would generate approximately 32.8 tons of waste per year, or approximately 0.08 tons per day. Additional solid waste would be generated by the proposed community center; however, solid waste generated by the community center would not exceed the amount of solid waste generated by the Project’s proposed 80 homes. Even if the community center was assumed to generate 32.8 tons of solid waste per year, the Project would result in the generation of 65.6 tons of solid waste per year, which would be 212.8 tons less than if the Project site were to be developed with commercial land uses. Therefore, because the Project would substantially reduce the amount of solid waste generated on site, and because adequate capacity exists at County landfills that would serve the Project, impacts would be less than significant and would be less than was disclosed in EIR No. 423. (Riverside County, 2014b) Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Although impacts to solid waste would be less than significant, the following mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 shall apply: City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-134 MM UTIL-2 The developer(s) of implementing projects will make every effort to reduce and/or divert from landfill disposal construction and demolition waste by the use of onsite grinders or by directing the materials to recycling facilities. MM UTIL-3 The developer(s) of implementing projects will make every effort to reduce and/or divert from landfill disposal construction and demolition waste by the use of on-site grinders or by directing the materials to recycling facilities. MM UTIL-4 The developer shall participate in any established County-wide program to reduce solid waste generation. The elements of such a program may include: ○ Developing and distributing brochures on residential recycling, residential source reduction, waste management issues, the importance of using recycled goods, and litter control. ○ Ensuring that all newly constructed single family residences are provided with durable recycling containers for curbside pickup of recyclable materials. ○ Development of curriculum guides and kits in cooperation with the Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District. ○ Production of video programs which can be shown on local cable television stations in the project area. ○ Pursue an environmental labeling program at local grocery stores, liquor stores, etc. which would educate consumers in recycling of packaging and consumer goods. ○ Pursue a recycled products awareness campaign which would commend businesses which use recycled products. This program could issue stickers to businesses that use recycled products to display in their windows. ○ Develop a library of media production on recycling and source reduction which can be borrowed by various citizen groups, agencies, and schools within the County. MM UTIL-5 The developer(s) of implementing projects is encouraged to keep green waste generated by the project separate from other waste types in order that it can be recycled through the practice of grass recycling (where lawn clippings from a mulching type mower are left on the lawn) or onsite composting or directed to local wood grinding and/or composting operations. MM UTIL-6 The developer(s) of implementing projects is encouraged to use mulch and/or compost in the development and maintenance of landscape areas. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-135 Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific MMRP in Section 5.1) XVII.g): EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 identified that conditions of approval were applied to SP 301 to ensure that development and long-term operation of SP 301 would comply with State and County solid waste statutes and regulations. Therefore, EIR No. 423 concluded that impacts associated with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes would be less-than-significant. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill, AB, 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50% waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted. Per the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), which outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County and its cities will implement to create an integrated and cost effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates. In order to assist the County of Riverside and City of Menifee in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the Project Applicant would be required to work with future refuse haulers to develop and implement feasible waste reduction programs, including source reduction, recycling, and composting. The implementation of these programs would reduce the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and conveyed to landfills, which in turn would aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites as compared to the site’s existing commercial land use designation. As such, and consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, the Project would comply with the mandates of applicable solid waste statutes and regulations and impacts would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. Mitigation: Although impacts would be less than significant, Mitigation Measures MM UTIL-2 through MM UTIL-6 shall apply. Monitoring: As required by EIR No. 423 (refer to the Project-specific MMRP in Section 5.1). City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-136 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: EIR No. 423 Finding: EIR No. 423 determined that SP 301 would not substantially impact habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and prehistorical resources. EIR No. 423 identified that the SP 301 site has little to no native vegetation or habitat, except for small patches of Riversidean sage scrub, which would mitigate cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. EIR No. 423 identified that cumulative impacts associated with pre-historic or historic resources would be mitigated to below a level of significance. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: As indicated throughout the analysis presented herein, the proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, and for the reasons discussed under Issue IV.4, the proposed Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Furthermore, and for the reasons identified under the discussion and analysis of Issue IV.5, the Project site does not contain any important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and no impacts to such resources would occur. As the modified project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, no new, significant environmental effects would result from the Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 3-137 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?     Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: Cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the approved SP 301A2 land uses were evaluated throughout EIR No. 423, which concluded that all such impacts would not occur, would be less than significant, or would be reduced to a level below significant with implementation of the mitigation measures specified by EIR No. 423. Additionally, this Addendum also includes a discussion and analysis of the Project’s potential cumulatively- considerable impacts, and concludes that the Project as modified would not result in any new or more severe cumulative effects beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. All applicable mitigation measures identified as part of EIR No. 423 and that were imposed to address cumulatively- considerable effects would continue to apply to the proposed Project as revised, except as modified or supplemented by this Addendum to EIR No. 423. The analysis throughout this Addendum demonstrates that all Project impacts would be less than significant, or would be reduced in comparison to the analysis and conclusions of EIR No. 423. Additionally, the analysis herein demonstrates that physical impacts associated with the Project (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, etc.) would not substantially change or increase compared to the analysis presented in EIR No. 423 Therefore, because the Project would have similar or reduced cumulative impacts to the environment as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed, the Project would not result in any new or increased impacts to the environment beyond what was evaluated, disclosed, and mitigated for by EIR No. 423. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     Analysis of Project Effects and Determination of Significance: The Project’s potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings has been evaluated throughout this Addendum (e.g., Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Noise, etc.). Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 have been imposed on the Project to reduce these adverse effects to a level below significance. There are no components of the proposed Project that could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings that are not already evaluated and disclosed throughout this Addendum and/or by EIR No. 423. Accordingly, no additional impacts would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in EIR No. 423. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 4.0 REFERENCES T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 4-1 4.0 REFERENCES The following information sources were used during the preparation of this Addendum: Cited As: Source: BFSA, 2014a Results of Archaeological Monitoring at the Heritage Lake Phase 4 Project.Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc, March 28, 2014. BFSA, 2014b Paleontological Monitoring at the Heritage Lake Phase 4 Project.Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc, January 31, 2014. CalRecycle, 2016a Badlands Sanitary Landfill Info, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA- 0006/Detail/ CalRecycle, 2016b El Sobrante Landfill Info, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA- 0217/Detail/ CDC, 2015 Riverside County Important Farmland Map. California Department of Conservation, February 2015. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/riv12_w.pdf CDC, 2016 Riverside County Williamson Act Map FY 2015/2016. California Department of Conservation, 2016. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Riverside_w_15_16_WA.pdf City of Menifee, 2013a Menifee General Plan, Exhibit C-8 "Scenic Highways". City of Menifee, June 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1025 City of Menifee, 2013b General Plan Draft EIR. City of Menifee, September 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Draft- Environmental-Impact-Report City of Menifee, 2013c Menifee General Plan, Exhibit S-1, Fault Map. City of Menifee, March 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1028 EMWD, 2014 Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Eastern Municipal Water District, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.emwd.org/home/showdocument?id=1424 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 4.0 REFERENCES T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 4-2 Cited As: Source: EMWD, 2016 Urban Water Management Plan. Eastern Municipal Water District, June 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.emwd.org/home/showdocument?id=1506 FEMA, 2014 Map No 06065C2060H. FEMA, 2014. Retrieved from http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraList.cgi?displ=wsp/item_06 065C2060H.txt GeoSoils, Inc., 2007 GeoSoils, Inc., 2018 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Tentative Tract 34406. GeoSoils, Inc., March 2007. Geotechnical Update Review, Tentative Tract No. 37136. GeoSoils, Inc., March 19, 2018. Google Earth, 2016 Site Imagery. Google Earth, 2016. MDS Consulting, 2017a Project Specific Water Quality Mangement Plan - TTM No. 2016- 139. MDS Consulting. March 2017. MDS Consulting, 2017b Preliminary Hydrology Study – TTM No. 2016-139. MDS Consulting. March 2017. RCALUC, 2014 March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. November 13, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan RCIT, 2016a Map My County – Riverside County GIS (Fire Hazards). Riverside County IT, 2016. Retrieved from: http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_ Public RCIT, 2016b Map My County – Riverside County GIS (Airports). Riverside County IT, 2016. Retrieved from: http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_ Public RCTC, 2011 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program. Riverside County Transportation Commission, December 14, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media_items/congestionmanageme ntprogram.original.pdf City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 4.0 REFERENCES T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 4-3 Cited As: Source: Riverside County, 2002 Riverside County Agenda. Riverside County, November 5, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2002/a20 02_11_05.htm Riverside County, 2003 Final MSHCP. County of Riverside, 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume1/index.html Riverside County, 2006 Riverside County Agenda. Riverside County, April 25, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2006/a20 06_04_25.htm Riverside County, 2008 Riverside County Agenda. Riverside County, June 3, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.clerkoftheboard.co.riverside.ca.us/agendas/2008.htm Riverside County, 2014a Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Figure 4.12.1, Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones. Riverside County, 2014. Retrieved from: http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_plan_2014/ EnvironmentalImpactReport/04-12_GeologyAndSoils_2014-04- 07.pdf Riverside County, 2014b Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Figure 4.12.3, Liquefaction Zones. Riverside County, 2014. Retrieved from http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_plan_2014/ EnvironmentalImpactReport/04-12_GeologyAndSoils_2014-04- 07.pdf SCAG, 2012 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. SCAG, April 2012. Retrived from http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2012-2035-RTP-SCS.aspx SCAQMD, 2003 Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. SCAQMD, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst- methodology-document.pdf SCAQMD, 2015 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 4.0 REFERENCES T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 4-4 Cited As: Source: Urban Crossroads, 2016a Heritage Lake (Specific Plan Amendment No. 3) Air Quality Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, May 24, 2017. Urban Crossroads, 2016b Heritage Lake (Specific Plan Amendment No. 3) Greenhouse Gas Analysis. Urban Crossroads, November 2016. Urban Crossroads, 2016c Heritage Lake (Specific Plan Amendment No. 3) Noise Impact Analysis. Urban Crossroads, November 2016. Urban Crossroads, 2016d Urban Crossroads, 2017 Heritage Lake (Specific Plan Amendment No. 3) Trip Generation Evaluation. Urban Crossroads, April 2016. McCall Boulevard and Aqua Drive Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis. Urban Crossroads, December 19, 2017. VWRPD, 2010 Valley-Wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Valley-Wide, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.vwrpd.org/userimages/Master%20Plan%202010.pdf City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-1 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Provided below in Subsection 5.1 is a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that implements the mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423 at the Project level for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2016-140, Change of Zone No. 2017-140, and Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 (the “Project”). It should be noted that the mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423, which are presented in Subsection 5.2, would continue to apply to new development within the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. The MMRP in Subsection 5.2 also provides an analysis of Project consistency with each mitigation measure requirement. Minor modifications to the language in the MMRP in Subsection 5.2 have been made to reflect the City of Menifee as Lead Agency. Changes to the original mitigation in Subsection 5.2 are shown in redline format (strikeout/underline). 5.1 PROJECT-SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 The mitigation measures in the following table shall apply to Specific Plan Amendment No. 2016-140, Change of Zone No. 2017-140, and Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139. These measures are derived from or implement the mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 423. It should be noted that in an effort to avoid confusion between the mitigation numbering used in EIR No. 423 and the Project- specific requirements, mitigation measures applicable to the proposed Project evaluated herein have been numbered differently from the numbering in EIR No. 423. Refer to the EIR No. 423 Compliance Matrix in Section 5.2 for a discussion of Project compliance with all of the mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 423, which also identifies which Project-specific mitigation measures implement the mitigation measures identified by EIR No. 423. IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE SECTION 3.1 - AESTHETICS Assuming mandatory compliance with the landscaping and architectural design guidelines of the Specific Plan Amendment, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the area. Less than Significant The project would be required to implement the landscaping and architectural design requirements of the Specific Plan Amendment, which are directed at providing an aesthetically pleasing development. The project also would be in compliance with the Land Use Policies of the City of Menifee General Plan and with City Ordinance No. 655, such that impacts to Mt. Palomar Observatory would be minimized. N/A N/A SECTION 3.2 – AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The Project site does not contain any Important Farmland types. The site also is not zoned for agricultural use, is not under active agricultural Less than Significant MM AG-1: The City of Menifee has a “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625). The Menifee Community Development Prior to Recordation of City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-2 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE production, is not located within an Agricultural Preserve, and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The Project would be subject to City’s “Right to Farm” ordinance (Ordinance No. 625), which would preclude indirect impacts to agricultural lands located east of the Project site. The Project also would not impact any forest lands. ordinance is intended to provide for a means of giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm that has been in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have entered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc. Department Final Map SECTION 3.3 – AIR QUALITY Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP. Emissions during construction activities would be below the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds of Significance, and localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for any criteria pollutant. Similarly, long-term operation emissions associated with buildout of the proposed Project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds of Significance and would have no potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs. The proposed Project also would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and odors during construction and operation would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 would continue to apply. Less than Significant MM AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to the City of Menifee Community Development Department. This involves developing a dust control program to supplement the routine watering that constitutes the best available control measures (BACMSs) in excess of any minimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BACMs shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while awaiting construction; b. Adding chemical binders or surfactants (according to manufacturer’s specifications) to all inactive construction areas or previously graded areas that remain inactive for four or more days; c. Early paving or chip sealing of roads; d. Enforcing reduced travel speeds (15 mph) in unpaved areas; e. Installation of sand fences and perimeter sandbags; f. Watering for dust control during clearing, grading and construction; and g. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult. MM AQ-2 Develop a program concurrent with construction activities to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. The program shall be reviewed and City of Menifee Community Development Department and the SCAQMD Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and SCAQMD Prior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-3 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE monitored by the City of Menifee Community Development Department. Measures recommended for inclusion in the program are: a. Schedule receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. b. Route construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. c. Limit lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. d. Provide ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. MM AQ-3 Vehicles entering public roadways from dirt off-road project areas shall be washed, and project access to public roadways washed and swept on a consistent and regular schedule. MM AQ-4 Emissions control will be required from on-site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. MM AQ-5. Limit grading/soil disturbance to no more than 15 acres at any one time. MM AQ-6 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 113, Table of Standards, by requiring that all architectural City of Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD City of Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD operations Prior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Prior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Prior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Prior to building permit issuance and throughout building City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-4 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE coatings must consist of low VOCs (i.e., VOCs of less than 100 grams per liter [g/L]) unless otherwise specified in the SCAQMD Table of Standards. construction SECTION 3.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Project site has been fully disturbed resulting from grading activities that occurred on site in 2013. As such, the Project site’s vegetation does not provide any quality habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species that may be regulated by the CDFW or USFWS. The site also does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive vegetation communities. No portion of the site contains wetlands or other jurisdictional features. The site does not provide for opportunities for wildlife movement corridor. Additionally, the site is not targeted for conservation by the MSHCP or the SKR HCP, and implementation of the proposed Project would be fully consistent with applicable MSHCP requirements. Less than Significant MM BIO-1 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat: The proposed project lies within the coverage area of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan; however, it is not a part of a designated preserve. Approval of this project will include payment of the appropriate SKR mitigation fee in accordance with the SKRHCP. MM BIO-2 In the event that prior to the issuance of grading permits the Project site has been left undisturbed for more than 30 days, then a pre-construction survey shall be implemented by the Project Applicant. The pre-construction 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 Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) and Wildlife Agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service). Additionally, if the site is not precise graded within one month of rough grading, or if construction and/or disturbance is suspended for a period of one month or more, an additional pre-construction survey shall be required. A copy of the results of the pre-construction survey (or surveys) shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department prior to any vegetation clearing and ground-disturbance activities (or reinitiation of vegetation clearing/ground-disturbing activities). Menifee Community Development Department City of Menifee Community Development Department Prior to site disturbance Within 30 days of ground-disturbing activities/grading, if required SECTION 3.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-5 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE The Project site was fully graded in 2013, and archaeological monitoring of grading activities did not identify any historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. No human remains were uncovered during previous grading activities. Additionally, there are no Tribal Cultural Resources on site. No Impact No impact would occur; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. N/A N/A SECTION 3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS There are no faults on the site, and impacts associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault included on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map would be less than significant. With mandatory compliance to the 2016 California Building Code requirements, or applicable building code at the time of Project construction, future Project residents and structures would not be exposed to substantial adverse ground-shaking effects associated with Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones or County Fault Hazard Zones. During mass grading of the Project site as part of the grading permit issued pursuant to TR 34406, the recommendations of the geological study were adhered to, including recommendations related to soil stability. Moreover, due to the minimum depth to groundwater (±60 feet), the likelihood for liquefaction hazards on site is very low. The Project site is not located within an area with the potential for seismically induced landsliding. The proposed Project would be subject to an NPDES permit for construction activities, and as part of the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 8.04, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that would address construction fencing, sand bags, and other erosion-control features that would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce the site’s potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Requirements for the reduction of particulate matter in the air also would apply, pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Because the drainage associated with the proposed Project would be fully controlled via the on-site drainage plan and/or would be similar to existing conditions, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would not increase substantially as compared to existing conditions. In addition, the Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for approval of a Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and to the City for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Given that the site is underlain by the dense fan deposits, the amount of subsidence during grading and construction would be minimal. Soil materials within the Project area are considered to have a “very low” Less than Significant MM SLOPES-1 Prior to development within any planning area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the planning area in process shall be submitted for Planning Division approval. The Grading Plan for each planning area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual stages of development within that planning area and shall include: 1) techniques employed to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process; 2) approximate time frames for grading; 3) identification of areas which may be graded during high probability rain months (January through March); and 4) preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Grading on the project site shall conform to City regulations first, then to the Conceptual Grading Plan. MM SLOPES-2 All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Menifee Grading Standards including erosion control requirements during rainy months. MM SLOPES-3 Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study will be performed to further analyze on-site soil conditions and slope stability and will include the appropriate measures to control erosion and dust as mentioned in the first mitigation standard. MM SLOPES-4 Where cut and fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees. City of Menifee, Planning Division and Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Community Development Departments Prior to Project Approval Prior to issuance of grading permits and through grading operations Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of building permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-6 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE to “low” expansion potential. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems on soils incapable of supporting such systems. Significant short-term impacts associated with wind erosion would be precluded with mandatory compliance to the Project’s SWPPP and WQMP and Riverside County Ordinance No. 484.2 (as adopted by the City of Menifee). Implementation of the proposed Project would not significantly increase the risk of long-term wind erosion on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. MM SLOPES-5 All streets shall have a gradient not to exceed 15 percent. MM SLOPES-6 Slopes steeper than 2:1 or higher than ten feet are allowed, provided that they are recommended to be safe in the slope stability report prepared by the soils engineer or engineering geologist. All slopes shall be landscaped per City requirements. The slope stability report also shall contain recommendations for landscaping and erosion control. The Uniform Building Code, Chapter 8.04 of the City’s Municipal Code, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee shall be observed. MM SLOPES-7 Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. MM SLOPES-8 Grading work on the entire project site shall be balanced on-site whenever possible. MM SLOPES-9 Graded, but undeveloped, land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. MM SLOPES-10 Planting of developed land shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices Construction Handbook Section 6.2. City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Prior to Project approval and prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to the issuance of grading permits and through grading operations Prior to issuance of grading permits and concurrent with grading activities Prior to issuance of grading permits and concurrent with grading activities Concurrent with grading activities Concurrent with grading activities City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-7 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE MM SLOPES-11 All grading shall be done in conformance with recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report included as Appendix B to EIR No. 423. MM SOILS-1 Required Soils Report and Geotechnical Study. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be prepared to further analyze slope stability and soil conditions on the project site. The study shall include analysis of: 1) soils engineering qualities of underlying soils and rock conditions (e.g., soil bearing, consolidation, expansion, etc.); 2) seismic refraction traverses to determine ability characteristics of crystalline rock units; 3) percolation testing of site earth materials for feasibility of on-site sewage disposal systems; and 4) site seismic parameters for building construction. MM SOILS-2 Erosion Control Measures. To minimize the potential for the occurrence of erosion and sedimentation on-site and downstream of the site, the following measures shall be implemented: a. All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring. Detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Planning Division prior to Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of groundcovers, shrubs, and trees. b. The Uniform Building Code, City Ordinance No. 457, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee shall be observed. c. Graded, but undeveloped land, shall be maintained and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading activities, unless building City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Concurrent with grading activities Prior to the issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits and concurrent with grading activities City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-8 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE permits are obtained from the City. d. In order to minimize erosion and sedimentation concerns on the property and downstream, potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete to minimize erosion and sedimentation. SECTION 3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The annual GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project are estimated to comprise 1,405.81 MTCO2e per year, which is below the screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The proposed Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, applicable provisions of AB 32 and SB 375. Less than Significant Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. N/A N/A SECTION 3.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The Project site does not contain any hazardous materials or recognized environmental concerns (RECs). There would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with buildout of the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction sites. Additionally, residential uses are not associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, the residential and recreational land uses proposed by the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with existing site conditions, near-term construction activities, or long-term operation. Near-term construction activities and long-term operational activities that would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed Project are not anticipated to result in any significant adverse effects associated with hazardous materials handling or disposal; thus, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. There are no school facilities located within 0.5 mile of the Project site. The Project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, no impact would occur. The proposed Project would be fully consistent with the MARB/IP Less than Significant Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. N/A N/A City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-9 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE ALUCP and impacts due to a conflict would not occur. The proposed Project site is not located within the vicinity of any private airports or heliports. The Project site is not located within any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No lands surrounding the Project site are subject to wildland fire hazards. Moreover, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the SPA 2016-140 design guidelines and development standards that require fuel modification be provided for any structures adjacent to planned open space areas, which would reduce the potential risk for fires to spread within the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. SECTION 3.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mandatory adherence to a NPDES Permit would ensure that buildout of the proposed Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. The proposed Project would be required to implement its site-specific WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES permit and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. Thus, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, no new, significant environmental effects would occur. The proposed Project would not result in increased interference of groundwater recharge area and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES permit, which involves the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction related activities. The SWPPP would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for erosion and siltation to occur and would include specific Project site measures identified in the hydrology report to address the potential for caving in temporary excavations. Erosion impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. With development of the site as proposed, runoff of the site would discharge at the same location as occurs under existing conditions (i.e., Node 80), and the post-development runoff rate during peak storm events would be reduced from 38.3 cubic feet per second Less than Significant MM HYD-1 Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with City of Menifee requirements. MM HYD-2 Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities. Construction activity includes: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this specific plan, the developer or builder shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. MM HYD-3 The Menifee Valley Ranch site is subject to the payment of applicable area drainage plan fees. Portions of the site lie in the Winchester/North Hemet, Salt Creek, and Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments and California State Water Quality Control Board Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments and RCFCWCD Prior to Project approval and prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-10 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE (cfs) to 33.6 cfs. As compared to existing conditions, development of the site with residential land uses would reduce the site’s potential for generating substantial amounts of erosion or siltation due to the reduction in permeable surfaces. Runoff in the post-developed condition would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed Project would not result in an increase in the amount of runoff within the on- and off-site natural drainage areas, and because the existing downstream storm drain facilities are adequately designed to handle peak runoff from the site, the minor changes to the site’s drainage pattern would not result in any new flood hazards on- or off-site. The calculated 100-year storm flow at the downstream point of connection to the existing storm drain facilities would be 33.6 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 4.7 cfs less than the existing drainage facilities were designed to handle. Additionally, with required adherence to a SWPPP and WQMP, the proposed Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant. There are no conditions associated with the proposed Project that would otherwise result in the substantial degradation of water quality. Per FEMA Map No. 06065C2060H, the Project site is not located within a FEMA Flood Zone. There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the Project site, and there is no potential that a failure of any dams would result in inundation of the Project site. The Project site is not subject to impacts from tsunamis, mudflow, or seiches. Homeland/Romoland Area Drainage Plans. MM HYD-4 Proposed grading and drainage improvements shall conform to Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and shall incorporate the minimum standards for the FEMA which insures that 100-year flood protection is provided to all habitable dwellings located within a floodplain. MM WQ-1 Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, a State-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. Therefore, the developer or builder for Menifee Valley Ranch shall be required to obtain the appropriate State NPDES permits prior to commencing grading activities. The NPDES permit shall apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five one acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff, as well as non-storm water discharges. The permit also requires a Monitoring, Reporting and Inspection Program to be developed and implemented to assure the effectiveness of the controls. MM WQ-2 The developer or builder for Menifee Valley Ranch shall be required, pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a NPDES Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments and the California State Water Quality Control Board Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments and California State Water Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-11 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE construction permit prior to issuance of grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Post-Construction Management Program to identify parties responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of any structural or programmatic controls and long-term funding mechanisms for operation and maintenance. Post- Construction monitoring is also required by the permit at least one year following project construction. MM WQ-3 The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Quality Control Board California State Water Quality Control Board During grading and construction activities SECTION 3.10 – MINERAL RESOURCES According to Figure OSC-3 of the Menifee General Plan, the Project site is located within Mineral Resources Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is defined as an area “where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.” The City of Menifee General Plan does not otherwise identify the Project site for mineral resources, nor does the adopted Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, impacts would not occur. Additionally, the Project site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site by a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No Impact No impact would occur; therefore, mitigation is not required. N/A N/A SECTION 3.11 – NOISE The unmitigated peak construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations will range from 57.3 to 74.2 dBA Leq, which would be below the construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. The on-site traffic noise level impacts indicate that the lots adjacent to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road would experience unmitigated exterior noise levels ranging from 64.1 to 70.5 dBA CNEL, requiring the construction of 6-foot-high noise barriers Less than Significant with Mitigation MM Noise-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, and in order to satisfy the City of Menifee 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, the City of Menifee shall verify that 6-foot high noise barriers have been constructed for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential lots 23, 24, Menifee Community Development Department Prior to issuance of building permit. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-12 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of certain lots. Additionally, residential lots adjacent to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road would require a “windows closed” condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). The Heritage Lake Trip Generation Evaluation shows that the previously approved commercial retail land use generates more than five times the traffic volumes than that of the residential land uses proposed by the Project. Thus, the proposed Project would generate substantially less trip-ends per day than the previously approved land use and would result in offsite traffic noise levels which are less than those disclosed in EIR No. 423. Based on the FTA vibration standard of 80 Vdb, the proposed Project will not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in a barely perceptible human response (annoyance) for infrequent events. Therefore, the vibration levels due to construction are considered less than significant impacts, and no vibration impacts would occur during long-term operation. Future development of 80 residential dwelling units at the site would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at the property, as residential uses are not associated with high levels of ambient noise. Although ambient noise levels at the site would increase, such an increase would not be considered “substantial” and would be slightly reduced as compared to the land use assumptions evaluated in EIR No. 423, which assumed development of the site with commercial uses. Accordingly, long-term operation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impacts associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There are no other components of the proposed Project, such as the Project’s operational characteristics, that have the potential to result in substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise level increases. Buildout of the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. 31, and 32 adjacent to Briggs Road, and lots 33 to 44 adjacent to McCall Boulevard. The recommendations identify the minimum required noise barrier height to satisfy the City of Menifee exterior noise level standards. 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. 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 noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials: ○ Masonry block ○ Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-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; ○ Any combination of these construction materials. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. MM NOISE-2 To satisfy the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level criteria, lots adjacent to McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road will require a Noise Reduction (NR) of up to 25.0 dBA and a windows closed condition requiring a Menifee Community Development Department Prior to issuance of building permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-13 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). In order to meet the City of Menifee 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards, and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City of Menifee shall verify that the Project provides the following or equivalent noise mitigation measures: ○ Windows: All windows and sliding glass doors shall be well-fitted, well weather- stripped assemblies and shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 27. ○ Doors: All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped solid core assemblies at least one and three-fourths-inch thick. ○ Walls: 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: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be well fitted or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Ceilings shall be well fitted, fully 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. ○ Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. 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 MM NOISE-3 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Menifee shall verify that the following requirements are noted on all Menifee Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of building or grading City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-14 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE grading and building 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. ○ If the residential homes are fully developed and occupied at the time of Project construction, install a minimum 8- foot high temporary construction noise barrier at the Project’s northern site boundary (receiver location R2) for the duration of the Site Preparation and Grading stages of Project construction, as shown on Exhibit 10-A of the Project’s Noise Impact Analysis (EIR Addendum as Appendix G). The noise control barriers must have a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barriers must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows: o 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; o 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; o The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed and the site appropriately restored upon the permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-15 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE conclusion of the construction activity. ○ Noise-generating Project construction activities within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. (Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.01.010). ○ During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. ○ The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Project site (i.e., to the center) during all Project construction. ○ The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays). The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck- related noise. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-16 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE SECTION 3.12 – POPULATION AND HOUSING Although SPA No. 2016-140would result in the conversion of lands from commercial to residential and would result in a net increase in the City’s population by 152 persons as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423, such an increase would not substantially exceed the regional population projections. Extension of infrastructure would be limited to that necessary to accommodate development within the site, and such infrastructure would not result in substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, because no improvements are required that would increase the likelihood that surrounding or nearby properties would be developed. Moreover, all lands surrounding the site are designated for urban development as part of SP 301 (for areas north, west, and south of the Project site) or the Riverside County General Plan (for areas east of the Project site). Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts due to substantial population growth. There are no housing or residents on site; thus, implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Less than Significant Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. N/A N/A SECTION 3.13 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Future residential development of the site would not result in the physical division of any of the existing nearby residential neighborhoods, as the future development of up to 80 residential dwelling units on site would provide public roadways and pedestrian/bicycle connections within and through the Project site. The proposed Project has been reviewed by the City of Menifee Community Development Department for consistency with all applicable General Plan policies adopted to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects, and determined that the Project would not conflict with any such policies. Additionally, the Project complies with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, SCAG’s Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and the SCAQMD AQMP. Furthermore, the proposed Project also would be conditioned to comply with applicable regulations from other agencies with approval authority over the proposed Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no impact associated with a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts due to a conflict with habitat conservation plans, natural conservation plans, and other approved local, regional, and state conservation plans. Less than Significant Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. N/A N/A City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-17 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE SECTION 3.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES The construction of up to 80 dwelling units and a recreation center on-site would be within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423, which concluded that impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of EIR No. 423, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the need for new expanded fire protection facilities. Although the Project proposes to change the site’s existing commercial land use designation to allow for the future development of up to 80 residential dwelling units and a 1.1-acre recreation center, development of the site with residential land uses would not result in a substantial increase in demand for police protection services as compared to development with approximately 258,400 s.f. of commercial land uses. As such, the construction of 80 dwelling units and a recreation center on-site is within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423, which concluded that impacts to police protection services would be less than significant. The Project would result in a slight increase in the demand for school services as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by EIR No. 423. However, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute school development impact fees on a per-unit basis as required by State law (Senate Bill 50), City Ordinance No. 659, and EIR No. 423. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As required by Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.55 (Park Land Dedication, In-Lieu Fees, and Park Development Fees), the Project Applicant would be required to pay impact fees for parks and recreation facilities on a per-unit basis. The City of Menifee currently assesses this fee to help pay for parks and recreation needs and other public services. Additionally, the Project provides recreation facilities, including a 1.1-acre recreation center, which would help to meet the projected demand for recreation facilities caused by Project residents. Nonetheless, since the Project would contribute fees to the City’s parkland acquisition program, and since the City is required by its General Plan to provide adequate parkland, a less-than-significant impact to recreational facilities would occur. Pursuant to County Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fees), as adopted by the City of Menifee, the Project Applicant would be required Less than Significant MM PS-1 The applicant shall will participate in an existing Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program via the City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232 that provides funds for the purchase of land to build new fire stations, remodel existing fire stations, or for the purchase of equipment when necessary as development occurs. MM PS-2 The applicant will pay fees in accordance with the provisions of City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232 to off-set the cost of acquisition and construction of Sheriff Department facilities as the need arises due to the rapid population growth in the region. MM PS-3 The project applicant will inform the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff’s Department of all new Homeowners Associations. These associations can be used as the foundation for establishing Neighborhood Watch Programs. MM PS-4 A number of design concepts and crime prevention measures to be incorporated or considered during site and building layout designs are discussed in the design standards of Section III.A.2, Specific Land Use Plan, of the Specific Plan Amendment. MM PS-5 The project shall mitigate impacts to school by payment of State-mandated school impact fees at the time that building permits are issued. MM PS-6 The project shall be subject to payment of mitigation fees in accordance with the provisions of City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232. At the City’s option, a portion of these fess may be Menifee Community Development Departments and Riverside County Fire Department Menifee Community Development Department Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and Menifee Community Development Department Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District and Menifee Community Development Department City of Menifee Community Development Department Prior to issuance of occupancy permits Prior to release of occupancy Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to approval of the final site of development Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-18 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE to pay impact fees for library facilities. The City of Menifee currently assesses this fee to help pay for library needs and other public facilities and services. Moreover, the City is obligated to provide for adequate library space. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of EIR No. 423, the Project’s incremental increase in demand for new library space would represent a less-than-significant impact. utilized by the City to provide additional library facilities and staff. SECTION 3.15 – RECREATION As required by Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.55 (Park Land Dedication, In-Lieu Fees, and Park Development Fees), the Project Applicant would be required to pay impact fees for parks and recreation facilities on a per-unit basis. Additionally, the Project provides recreation facilities, 1.1-acre recreation center, which could help to meet the projected demand for recreation facilities caused by Project residents. Nonetheless, since the Project would contribute fees to the City’s parkland acquisition program, and since the City is required to provide adequate parkland, a less-than-significant impact to recreational facilities would occur. Although the Project includes a recreational facility and would be served by other parks in the SP 301 area, the buildout of these areas would not result in any new impacts not already addressed by EIR No. 423 or Addendum(s) thereto. Less than Significant Impacts to recreation would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. Not applicable Not applicable SECTION 3.16 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The commercial land use evaluated in EIR No. 423 for the Project site would have resulted in approximately five times as much daily traffic as compared to the amount of traffic that would be generated under the proposed Project. Moreover, mitigation measures were required as part of the County’s approval of TR 34406 to reduce traffic impacts to less-than-significant levels, and the Project site was assumed to be developed with 116,000 s.f. of commercial land uses by the traffic study prepared in conjunction with TR 34406. All mitigation requirements have since been completed, including roadways that abut the Project site. The Project Applicant also would be required to contribute Developer Impact Fee (DIF) fees pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City of Menifee, portions of which would be used for regional transportation improvements, and the Project Applicant also would be required to contribute Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) fees, which are used for regional transportation improvements. Accordingly, because the Project would substantially reduce the amount of traffic generated by the site, and because the Project would contribute fees towards local and regional transportation improvements, impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would produce more than five times less Less than Significant MM TR-1 The project proponent shall contribute to the installation of off-site traffic signals when warranted through the payment of County of Riverside City of Menifee traffic signal mitigation fees. Prior to approval of the first tentative tract map or use case associated with the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, an additional funding mechanism for the following project-related traffic signals shall be prepared by the project proponent and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Department City of Menifee Planning Division. ○ Menifee Road (NS) at: o Planning Area 6 (EW) o McLaughlin Road (EW) o Rouse Road (EW) o Menifee Loop Road North (EW) o Grand Avenue (EW) o Planning Area 40 (EW) Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-19 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE daily traffic trips as compared to the commercial uses that were evaluated in EIR No. 423. Additionally, the proposed Project would result in 52 fewer AM peak hour trips and 350 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to development of the Project site with 116,000 s.f. of commercial retail uses, as was assumed for the Project site by EIR No. 423. EIR No. 423 identified less-than-significant impacts to CMP facilities, including SR-74, I-215, and SR-79; thus, because the Project would generate substantially fewer peak hour trips than the commercial land uses evaluated for Planning Area 41 in EIR No. 423, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact due to a conflict with an applicable congestion management program. The ALUC staff determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the MARB/IP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) subject to standard conditions requiring notification of property owners regarding airport proximity and the existence of aircraft overflights as part of future real estate transactions. This requirement has been added to the Project’s Conditions of Approval. Because the Project is not located within a portion of the AIA where potential safety hazards could exist associated with the MARB/IP operations, the Project would not expose future Project residents to potential airport-related safety hazards. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in increased hazards due to a design feature beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed in EIR No. 423 as a less-than-significant impact. Additionally, because land uses surrounding the Project site consist of undeveloped lands, residential uses, and agricultural lands, the Project also would not result in any safety hazards associated with incompatible land uses. The Project has been reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department, which did not identify any potential issues associated with emergency access. The 2014 City of Menifee General Plan and Citywide Trails Map identifies Class II bike lanes on McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road; and Class III bike lanes on Heritage Lake Drive. Bike facilities along McCall Boulevard and Briggs Road were previously constructed. The Class III bike lanes on Heritage Lake Drive are expected to be in place prior to development of the Project site, as this improvement is already a condition of approval for the previous phases of TR 34406. There are no components of the proposed Project that would substantially decrease the performance or safety of any public transit facilities, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities. ○ Malaga Road (NS) at: State Route 74 (EW) ○ Lindenberger Road at: Simpson Road (EW) ○ Briggs Road (NS) at: o Planning Area 12 (EW) o Planning Area 18 (EW) o Grand Avenue (EW) o Planning Areas 31/32 (EW) ○ Planning Areas 25/20 (NS) at: o McCall Boulevard (EW) ○ Menifee Loop East (NS) at: ○ McCall Boulevard (EW) MM TR-2 Improvements to achieve the minimum level of service, as required by the City of Menifee General Plan, shall be evaluated at each phase of project development. To ensure that off-site roadway improvements are provided in conjunction with each development phase, the following development monitoring requirements shall be required: ○ A traffic impact study report shall be submitted concurrently with the submittal of each tentative tract map or plot plan as required by the City of Menifee. ○ Each traffic impact study report shall be prepared in a format as required by the City of Menifee. The required format shall include an evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impacted by each phase of development. ○ If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed City service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for County staff review. ' Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Concurrently with submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan and prior to release of occupancy (for installation of improvements) City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-20 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE ○ All improvements necessary to maintain the City service level standards shall be in place or fully funded and scheduled for construction prior to occupancy of the relevant development plans. MM TR-3 Because off-site improvements are generally needed to serve area wide growth, all areas of the project shall participate in benefit district and/or other fee programs to implement General Plan roadway segments. Given the regional nature of key corridors which serve the project, two new road and bridge benefit districts are recommended for the study area (See Figure V.C-12 of the EIR). MM TR-4 Traffic Demand Management Programs. The project shall incorporate such traffic demand management programs as may be appropriate to comply with the goals of the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plan. Prior to the Tentative Tract Map or Plot Plan approval, the project applicant shall consult with and obtain clearance from the following agencies to assure compliance and coordinate with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plans: ○ Caltrans, District 8; ○ The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); ○ The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and ○ The Riverside Transportation Commission (RCTC). Confirmation of such contact and coordination shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department. MM TR-5 Traffic impact study reports shall be provided to the City concurrently with submittal of tentative tract maps or plot plans as required by the City of Menifee. Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and Community Development Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and Community Development Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to the release of occupancy Concurrently with submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan Concurrently with submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-21 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE MM TR-6 The required format for each traffic impact study report shall be determined by the City of Menifee. The required format will include evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impact by each phase of development. MM TR-7 If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed City service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for City staff review. MM TR-8 The improvements needed to maintain the City service level standards shall be in place or fully funded and scheduled for construction prior to occupancy of the relevant development phases. Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Concurrently with submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan Concurrently with submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan Prior to the release of occupancy SECTION 3.17 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The EMWD’s treatment plants are required by the RWQCB to comply with all of its wastewater treatment requirements, and compliance with these requirements is expected to continue upon buildout of the proposed Project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. The construction of water lines and wastewater lines as necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Addendum. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in or require new or expanded off-site storm drainage facilities beyond those facilities that are inherent to the Project and shown on TR 2016-139. Furthermore, the Project’s drainage concept is substantially consistent with the drainage concept proposed by the existing approved SP 301 that was the subject of evaluation in EIR No. 423, indicating that any impacts that may result from construction of storm drain infrastructure by the Project would be fully within the scope of analysis of EIR No. 423. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion reached in EIR No. 423, impacts due to storm drain construction would be less than significant. Less than Significant MM UTIL-1 The project will provide the necessary water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. In addition, the project will incorporate reclaimed water for irrigation purposes if reclaimed water is available at the time of project implementation. As Table V.C-7 shows, the EMWD will have sufficient water to meet its customer’s needs through 2020. The Menifee Valley Ranch project will also be served by two sewage reclamation facilities, Hemet/San Jacinto and Perris Valley Reclamation Facilities, which will be able to support the projects wastewater flows. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts to water, wastewater, or reclaimed water facilities, and no mitigation measures are required beyond the standards set forth by the City of Menifee and/or EMWD. MM UTIL-2 The developer(s) of implementing projects will make every effort to reduce and/or divert from landfill disposal construction and Eastern Municipal Water District will be responsible for assuring standard conditions. Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Not applicable Prior to occupancy permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-22 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE Because the EMWD has determined it has adequate supplies to provide water to its service area through 2040, and because the Project would reduce the amount of water demanded by future uses on site by approximately 38.9%, the EMWD UWMP more than accounts for the Project’s future water demand. Accordingly, EMWD would have sufficient water supplies to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Buildout of the Project site with 80 residential homes and a community center in lieu of commercial land uses would lower the wastewater treatment capacity demand by approximately 11.0%. Moreover, the Project’s demand for wastewater treatment capacity would comprise only 0.1% increase to the existing flows at the RWRF, and less than 0.1% of the total remaining daily capacity at the RWRF. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not directly or cumulatively result in a determination by EMWD that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the EMWD’s existing commitments. Because the Project would substantially reduce the amount of solid waste generated on site compared to what was evaluated in EIR No. 423, and because adequate capacity exists at County landfills that would serve the Project, solid waste impacts would be less than significant and would be less than was disclosed in EIR No. 423. The Project would comply with the mandates of applicable solid waste statutes and regulations and impacts would not occur. demolition waste by the use of onsite grinders or by directing the materials to recycling facilities. MM UTIL-3 The developer(s) of implementing projects will make every effort to reduce and/or divert from landfill disposal construction and demolition waste by the use of on-site grinders or by directing the materials to recycling facilities. MM UTIL-4 The developer shall participate in any established County-wide program to reduce solid waste generation. The elements of such a program may include: ○ Developing and distributing brochures on residential recycling, residential source reduction, waste management issues, the importance of using recycled goods, and litter control. ○ Ensuring that all newly constructed single family residences are provided with durable recycling containers for curbside pickup of recyclable materials. ○ Development of curriculum guides and kits in cooperation with the Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District. ○ Production of video programs which can be shown on local cable television stations in the project area. ○ Pursue an environmental labeling program at local grocery stores, liquor stores, etc. which would educate consumers in recycling of packaging and consumer goods. ○ Pursue a recycled products awareness campaign which would commend businesses which use recycled products. This program could issue stickers to Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Prior to occupancy permits Prior to occupancy permits City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-23 IMPACTS/FINDINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2016-140, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 2017-140, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2016-139 RESPONSIBLE PARTY/MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE businesses that use recycled products to display in their windows. ○ Develop a library of media production on recycling and source reduction which can be borrowed by various citizen groups, agencies, and schools within the County. MM UTIL-5 The developer(s) of implementing projects is encouraged to keep green waste generated by the project separate from other waste types in order that it can be recycled through the practice of grass recycling (where lawn clippings from a mulching type mower are left on the lawn) or onsite composting or directed to local wood grinding and/or composting operations. MM UTIL-6 The developer(s) of implementing projects is encouraged to use mulch and/or compost in the development and maintenance of landscape areas. Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments and Community Development Department During Project construction During Project construction and throughout the duration of the Project City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-24 5.2 EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE TABLE Provided below is the EIR Summary Matrix/Mitigation Monitoring Program from EIR No. 423, along with a brief discussion of the applicability of each measure to Specific Plan No. 2016-140, Change of Zone No. 2017-140, and Tentative Tract Map No. 2016-139 (herein, the “Project”). Revisions have been made to the EIR No. 423 mitigation measures to reflect current conditions and are shown in strikeout/underline in the following table. The mitigation measures from EIR No. 423 are numbered consistent with the EIR Summary Matrix/Mitigation Monitoring Program from EIR No. 423. EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY SECTION 3.1- AESTHETICS Implementation of the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan Amendment will result in the transformation of the vacant site into a planned residential community. The Menifee Valley Ranch project site is within the 30- mile radius surrounding the Mt. Palomar Observatory and, therefore, must comply with the requirement to install and maintain low pressure sodium lights in order to avoid “skyglow” which interferes with the uses of the telescope. Mitigated to a level below significance 66. The project will implement the landscaping and architectural design requirements of the Specific Plan Amendment, which are directed at providing an aesthetically pleasing development. The project also will be incompliance with the Land Use Policies of the Riversided County Comprehensive General PlanCity of Menifee General Plan and with Riverside CountyCity Ordinance No. 655, such that impacts to Mt. Palomar Observatory will be minimized. Because significant visual impacts are not anticipated, no mitigation is required. Riverside County Planning Menifee Community Development Department and Building and Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permitsPrior to project approval and prior to the issuance of building permits EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 66 has been imposed as mitigation on the proposed Project (refer to Mitigation Measure MM AES-1 in Subsection 5.1). SECTION 3.2- AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Project implementation will result in urban development in the area identified as “Local Important Farmland,” “Prime Farmland,” and “Statewide Important Farmland.” As a result of project implementation, lands which are classified as “Prime Farmland,” Statewide Important Farmland,” and “Local Important Farmland,” will be converted to urban use, precluding any further agricultural production. In addition, the property owner of the agricultural preserve located on-site has filed for diminishment/ disestablishment. Impacts associated with agriculture determined not to be significant. 14. Project landscaping and open space shall serve to buffer the proposed project from surrounding agricultural land uses in accordance with Section IV, Design Guidelines. 15. The County of RiversideCity of Menifee has a “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625). The ordinance is intended to provide for a means of giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided Riverside County Planning Department Menifee Community Development Department Riverside County Planning Menifee Community Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit Prior to project approval and prior to the issuance of building permits Condition of Approval Prior to recordation of final map EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 14 is a project design feature and would be enforced separately as part of Mitigation Measure MM AES-1 in Subsection 5.1. EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 15 has been imposed on the Project as Mitigation Measure MM AG-1 in Subsection City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-25 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm that has been in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have entered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc. Development Department 5.1. SECTION 3.3- AIR QUALITY The proposed Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan will contribute to the regional inability to attain the ozone standard based on SCAQMD’s recommended significance levels. The greatest project-related air quality concern centers on the 66,801 external vehicle trips that will be generated at project completion. Project- related emission levels for the two primary exhaust pollutants (NOx, and ROC) exceed the significance threshold by 769 percent and 413 percent, respectively. Impacts associates with air quality determined to be less than significant. 46. The project will implement dust control measures during clearing, grading, and construction mandated by the SCAQMD. All soil excavation and grading operations will be terminated when wind speeds exceed 25 mph and make dust control extremely difficult. 46a. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to the County of Riverside City of Menifee Community Development Department. This involves developing a dust control program to supplement the routine watering that constitutes the best available control measures (BACMSs) in excess of any minimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BACMs shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while awaiting construction; b. Adding chemical binders or surfactants (according to manufacturer’s specifications) to all inactive construction areas or previously graded areas that remain inactive for four or more days; c. Early paving or chip sealing of roads; d. Enforcing reduced travel speeds (15 mph) in unpaved areas; e. Installation of sand fences and perimeter Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Community Development Department and the SCAQMD City of Menifee Community Development Department and the SCAQMD Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operationsPrior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Prior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 46. Mitigation Measure 46a, as shown here, was omitted from the MMRP for EIR No. 423, but was included as Mitigation Measure B.7.1. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements these requirements. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-26 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY sandbags; f. Watering for dust control during clearing, grading and construction; and g. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult. 47. Apply non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers as defined in SCAQMD Rule 403 (according to manufacturer’s specifications), to all inactive construction areas or previously graded areas that remain inactive for four or more days. 48. Develop a program concurrent with construction activities to minimize construction interference with regional non-project traffic movement. The program shall be reviewed and monitored by the Riverside County Building and SafetyCity of Menifee Community Development Department. Measures recommended for inclusion in the program are: a. Schedule receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. b. Route construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. c. Limit lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. d. Provide ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. 49. Vehicles entering public roadways from dirt off- road project areas shall be washed, and project access to public roadways washed and swept on a consistent and regular schedule. Riverside County Building and Safety Department Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and SCAQMD Riverside County Building and Safety Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Community Development Department Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operations Prior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operations Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operationsPrior to grading permit issuance and Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 47. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 48. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 49. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-27 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 50. Emissions control will be required from on-site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups. 51. Limit grading/soil disturbance to no more than 15 acres at any one time. 52. Limit the application of architectural surface treatments (i.e., paint, etc.) to less than 40 gallons per average day. and SCAQMD Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD Riverside County Building and Safety Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD Riverside County Building and Safety Menifee Community Development Department and SCAQMD. throughout grading operations Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operationsPrior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operationsPrior to grading permit issuance and throughout grading operations Prior to the issuance of grading permitsPrior to building permit issuance and throughout building construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ-4 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 50. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-5 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 51. As of February 5, 2016, SCAQMD Rule 1113 requires the use of low VOC architectural coating. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure MM AQ-6 in Subsection 5.1 updates and replaces EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 52. SECTION 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Approximately 11.56 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub will be impacted. The project site also lies within the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. One loggerhead shrike was observed on-site. The study area does not contain wildlife migration or movement Impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. 16. Riversidian Sage Scrub. Planning Area 13 has been designed to contain 11.2 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, which will be included in the designated open space. A large greenbelt and lake will be created in Planning Area 27A south of Atchison, Project Applicant Project Design This Mitigation Measure addresses development within planning Areas 11 and 27A and is not applicable to the Project City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-28 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY corridors. The agricultural irrigation pond falls under the jurisdiction of the CA Dept. of Fish and Game. The small drainage feature and detention basins are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the CA Dept. of Fish and Game. Potential impacts are primarily associated with direct impacts such as increased habitat loss and unauthorized use of any remaining habitat, as well as with a range of indirect impacts such as increased human presence in the area, predation by domestic animals, levels of ambient noise and light and, potentially, contaminated urban runoff. Development of the project area will contribute to the regional loss of open space and natural resources. Topeka and Santa Fe railroad tracks. In addition, Planning Area 11 between the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad tracks and McLaughlin Road will be used as a golf course. 17. Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. The proposed project lies within the coverage area of the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, however, it is not part of a designated preserve. Approval of this project will include payment of the appropriate SKR mitigation fee in accordance with the SKRHCP. 17a. Open space will be preserved on parcels throughout the project site. A greenbelt system and lake will be created in between Planning Areas 25 and 28 south of the BNSF Railroad tracks. Planning Area 11 between the BNSF Railroad tracks and Mc Laughlin Road will be used as a golf course. The hills containing Riversidean sage scrub northwest of the railroad track and Briggs Road junction located in Planning Area 13 will be maintained as open space. Six sites, Planning Areas 5, 21, 22B, 26, 27B and 39, will be used for parkland. 18.Birds and Raptors. There is marginal potential for raptors and one observed loggerhead shrike to utilize the site; however, significant impacts to these species will not occur. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Menifee Community Development Department City of Menifee Community Development Department Not Applicable Prior to site disturbance unless deferred to Building Permits During Review of Implementing Tract Maps Not applicable site which is located within Planning Area 41 (renumbered Planning Areas 41A and 41B by Specific Plan No. 2016- 140). Mitigation Measure MM BIO 1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 17. Mitigation Measure 17a was omitted from the EIR No. 423 MMRP but was included as Mitigation Measure B.3- 3. This measure is not applicable to the proposed Project, which is located within Planning Area 41 (renumbered Planning Areas 41A and 41B by Specific Plan No. 2016- 140). Impacts to birds and raptors were determined to be less than significant by EIR No. 423, requiring no mitigation. Nonetheless, Mitigation City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-29 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 19. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. No Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or its habitat/host plant was encountered during the surveys conducted on-site. However, an Environmental Assessment will be required for every tract and use permit development. 20. Agricultural Stock Pond: While the stock pond is a man-made feature, the increased quality of wildlife habitat that it provides and its peripheral vegetation community mean that the pond is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife (CDFWG). Therefore, consultation with CDFWG will occur to the agency’s satisfaction prior to issuance of the grading permit. 21. Drainage Feature and Retention Basin: Because the drainage feature was found to be historically natural and currently conveys flows during normal years. The retention basin on site receives flow from the drainage feature and is hydrologically connected to another WoUS. Both features are therefore under the jurisdiction of ACE and CDFWG. As a result, consultation with both agencies regarding these features will occur to the agencies’ satisfaction prior to issuance of the grading permit. Riverside Planning Transportation City of Menifee Community Development Department Riverside Planning Transportation Department City of Menifee Planning Division and CDFW Riverside Planning Transportation Department City of Menifee Planning Division, ACE, and CDFW Concurrently with submittal of Tentative Tract Map Concurrently with submittal of Tentative Tract Map Concurrently with submittal of Tentative Tract Map Measure MM BIO 2 in Subsection 5.1 requires pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl, as required by the MSHCP. The Project site has been mass graded as part of grading for an adjacent tract map and contains no habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly; thus, this mitigation is not required. The agricultural stock pond was located in the north-central portion of the Specific Plan area and did not occur on the Project site; thus, this mitigation measure does not apply to the proposed Project. The Project site has been mass graded as part of an adjacent tract and does not contain any drainage features or retention basins under existing conditions; thus, this mitigation measure does not apply to the proposed Project. SECTION 3.5- CULTURAL RESOURCES All identified on-site archaeological resources will be Impacts to 22. Due to the lack of integrity of the historic and Riverside Concurrent with the Impacts to City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-30 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY affected by the grading activity of the proposed development. This grading action will impact the sites by the removal of foundations, features and soils containing artifacts. Due to the lack of integrity, the sites do not qualify for further evaluation under CEQA '15064.5. The site has a slight potential for the discovery of paleontological resources during development, especially at depth in the older alluvial materials that underlie the upper few feet of topsoil in the project area. cultural resources will be mitigated to below a level of significance. prehistoric sites, none of the sites were recommended as significant resources according to CEQA guidelines. The level of information obtained from Sites RIV- 6482, RIV-3429 and P-33-9726 during the current investigation has very likely exhausted the research potential of these sites. As a result, no further archaeological investigations at Sites RIV- 6482, RIV-3429 and P- 33-9726 are recommended, and no mitigation would be required. Although the level of information obtained insofar from Sites P-33-9722, P-33-9724 and P-33-9725 mostly likely represents a large portion of the research potential of the sites, there remains the possibility for additional buried deposits to be uncovered. While the integrity of the homestead on P-33-9722 has been compromised by several alteration to the original structure and years of abandonment, the privy associated with the original occupation of this site was not located during the testing program. This feature is either located in an untested areas of the site or has been destroyed by plowing. Additionally, a 1939 aerial photograph of the project site indicates that Sites P-33-9724 and P- 33-9725 were in use prior to the construction of the concrete foundations; however, no significant evidence of earlier activities was observed during the testing program. Therefore, the potential exists for additional foundations and/or buried artifact deposits at these three sites. It is recommended that construction grading activities at Sites P-3-9722, P- 33-9724 and P-33- 9725 be monitored by a qualified archaeologist in the event that additional foundations and/or buried cultural deposits are uncovered. Should any previously undiscovered historic deposits or features be discovered, grading at that location should be halted and the discovery be evaluated for research potential. If any deposits are deemed to be significant, archaeological excavations would be necessary to mitigate impacts County Planning DepartmentCity of Menifee Planning Division issuance of grading permits archaeological resources were determined to be less than significant. Although archaeological monitoring was recommended, the Project site has been mass graded as part of an adjacent tract, and Project-related grading would not extend to depths that could impact previously unknown archaeological resources. Additionally, monitoring of grading activities occurred as part of mass grading of the Project site. As such, fine grading activities associated with the Project would not require archaeological monitoring as the Project would not result in impacts to subsurface resources. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 22 is not applicable to the proposed Project. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-31 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY to the significant historic deposit. 23. Due to the low sensitivity, there is no need to have a grading monitor present on the property during grading. However, if fossils are found by the owners of the property, their agents, contractors, or subcontractors during the development of the property it shall be immediately reported to a qualified paleontologist for evaluation. If fossils are encountered on the property during development, the following mitigation measures shall be followed: a. The paleontologist who is contacted shall immediately evaluate the fossils which have been discovered to determine if they are significant and, if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. b. An archaeologist shall monitor grading and excavation in archaeologically sensitive areas. c. If any Luiseño cultural resources or human remains are encountered during grading and excavation activities, the following mitigation should be implemented immediately: 1. The developer shall contact the Pechanga Band to execute a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. The Agreement shall contain the following element: 2. All Luiseño cultural items found on site, other than human remains and associated grave goods, are to be either avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or Riverside County Planning DepartmentCity of Menifee Planning Division Concurrent with issuance of grading permits The Project site was mass graded as part of an adjacent tract, and Project-related grading would not extend to depths that could impact previously unknown paleontological resources. As such, the Project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources, and EIR No. 423 MMRP Mitigation Measure 23 is not applicable to the proposed Project. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-32 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area, in which the item was found, is to resume. d. If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner’s office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the developer shall be required to allow reburial of the remains and associated grave goods within the project boundaries, to be capped to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such reburial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code '6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. 1. If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner’s office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the developer shall be required to pay for reasonable osteoanalysis to determine whether the remains are Native American. 2. Tribal archaeological monitors to be present during all excavation and groundbreaking work in archaeologically sensitive areas. e. If human remains are encountered, the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-33 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY developer shall follow applicable California law, including Health and Safety Code '7050.5 and Public Resources Code '5097.98, which states the following: 1. When human remains are encountered there shall be no further disturbance of the site and related surrounding area until the coroner has determined whether the remains are related to criminal activity OR Native American. Health and Safety Code '7050.5(b). 2. Within two (2) days the coroner shall make the determination as to whether the remains are Native American. Health and Safety Code '7050.5(b). 3. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the developer, the coroner and the County shall be responsible for complying with Health and Safety Code '7050.5 and Public Resources Code '5097.8 with respect to the rights of the MLD (Most Likely Descendant). f. A paleontological monitor shall be immediately retained to be present during earthmoving on the property. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect excavation equipment if additional fossils are found to allow evaluation and removal of them if necessary. The monitor shall be equipped to speedily collect specimens if City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-34 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY they are encountered. g. The monitor, with assistance if necessary, shall collect individual fossils and/or samples of fossil-bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal species are encountered, the most time and cost-efficient method of recovery is to remove a selected volume of fossil- bearing earth from the grading area and stockpile it off-site for processing by screen washing. h. Fossils recovered during earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing of sediment samples shall be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus reducing storage costs. i. A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the public agency responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental impacts upon completion of mitigation. This report will minimally include a statement of the types of paleontological resources found, the methods and procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens recovered, and a statement of their scientific significance. j. The paleontological specimens recovered as a result of the mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution where they shall be afforded long term preservation to allow future scientific study. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-35 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY k. Excavations for sewer and water mains, which might extend to much greater depths than simple grading of relatively flat lands for housing pads shall be monitored for paleontological resources. SECTION 3.6- GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project will alter 1,548.3 acres of the existing landform on-site. The project would result in the creation of manufactured slopes throughout the development area. Manufactured slopes are generally less than 30 feet in height. Recontouring and landscaping of manufactured slopes will be required to mitigate the potential for impacts to landform and topography. All areas proposed for development will be potentially affected by soils having a slight to moderate erosion susceptibility. Mitigated to below a level of significance. 1. Prior to development within any planning area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the planning area in process shall be submitted for Planning Division Department approval. The Grading Plan for each planning area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual stages of development within that planning area, and shall include: 1) techniques employed to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process; 2) approximate time frames for grading; 3) identification of areas which may be graded during high probability rain months (January through March); and 4) preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Grading on the project site shall conform to County regulations first, then to the Conceptual Grading Plan. 2. All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the Riverside County City of Menifee Grading Standards including erosion control requirements during rainy months. 3. Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study will be performed to further analyze on-site soil conditions and slope stability and will include the appropriate measures to control erosion and dust as mentioned in the first mitigation standard. Riverside CountyCity of Menifee, Planning Division Department and Building Engineering and Public Works and Safety Department Riverside County City of Menifee Planning Division and Engineering and Public Works Department Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Prior to the issuance of grading permitsproject approval Concurrent with Prior to issuance of grading permits and through grading operations Prior to issuance of any grading activitiespermits Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 1. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 2. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 3. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-36 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 4. Where cut and fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning DepartmentDivision. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees. 5. All streets shall have a gradient not to exceed 15 percent. 6. Slopes steeper than 2:1 or higher than ten feet are allowed, provided that they are recommended to be safe in the slope stability report prepared by the soils engineer or engineering geologist. All slopes shall be landscaped per County Ordinance No. 457City requirements. The slope stability report also shall contain recommendations for landscaping and erosion control. The Uniform Building Code, Chapter 8.04 of the City’s Municipal CodeCounty Ordinance No. 457, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of MenifeeRiverside County shall be observed. 7. Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the County of Riverside City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. Departments Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Community Development Departments Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Prior to issuance ofgrading building permits Concurrent with maps and/or development plans Prior to project approval and prior to issuance of grading permit Prior to the issuance of grading permits and through grading operations Concurrent with grading activities Prior to the issuance of grading permits and concurrent with grading activities Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-4 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 4. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-5 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 5. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-6 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 6. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-7 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 7. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-37 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY Development in high shrink/swell potential soils such as BfD, PoC, PrD, PsC, PtB, and PvD2 shall be excavated prior Mitigated to below a level of 8. Grading work on the entire project site shall be balanced on-site whenever possible. 9. Graded, but undeveloped, land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 10. Planting of developed land shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices Construction Handbook Section 6.2. 11. All grading shall be done in conformance with recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report included as Appendix B to this EIR No. 423. Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Riverside County Building and Safety City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Riverside County, Planning Department and Building and Safety, Grading Division Menifee Planning Division and Engineering and Public Works Department Riverside County Building and Safety, Grading Division Menifee Engineering and Public Works Concurrent with grading activities Prior to the issuance of grading permits and concurrent with grading activities Concurrent with grading activities Prior to the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with grading activities Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-8 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 8. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-9 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 9. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-10 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 10. Mitigation Measure MM SLOPES-11 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 11. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-38 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY to building, then recompacted in conformance with standard grading and building practices. significance. 12. Required Soils Report and Geotechnical Study. Prior to any grading activities on-site, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be prepared to further analyze slope stability and soil conditions on the project site. The study shall include analysis of: 1) soils engineering qualities of underlying soils and rock conditions (e.g., soil bearing, consolidation, expansion, etc.); 2) seismic refraction traverses to determine ability characteristics of crystalline rock units; 3) percolation testing of site earth materials for feasibility of on-site sewage disposal systems; and 4) site seismic parameters for building construction. 13. Erosion Control Measures. To minimize the potential for the occurrence of erosion and sedimentation on-site and downstream of the site, the following measures shall be implemented: a. All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped to prevent erosion and sedimentation from occurring. Detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the County City of Menifee Planning Department Division prior to Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of groundcovers, shrubs, and trees. b. Slopes steeper than 2:1 or higher than ten feet are permitted, provided they are recommended to be safe in the slope stability report prepared by the soils engineer or engineering geologist. All slopes shall be landscaped per County City Ordinance No. 457. The slope stability report shall also contain Department County of Riverside,City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Planning Department and Riverside County Geologist County of Riverside, City of Menifee Engineering and Public WorksBuilding and Safety Department, Grading Division Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to issuance of grading permits and Cconcurrent with grading activities Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 12. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 13. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-39 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY Significant impacts were identified in the previous environmental documentation and geotechnical studies with respect to geology. No active faults are known to exist at the project site. Potentially active fault zones are located throughout the larger sub-region, and groundshaking as a result of movement along these active fault zones could result in damage to proposed structures. Less than significant. recommendations for landscaping and erosion control. The Uniform Building Code, County City Ordinance No. 457, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in Riverside Countythe City of Menifee shall be observed. c. Graded, but undeveloped land, shall be maintained and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading activities, unless building permits are obtained from the County. d. In order to minimize erosion and sedimentation concerns on the property and downstream, potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the County of Riverside City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 24. All undocumented fill, colluvium and surficial alluvium shall be removed within structural areas during grading to a depth of two to six feet or as deemed necessary, and the upper two to four feet of alluvial fan deposits and two to three feet of older alluvium will require removal. Riverside County Geologist and Building and SafetyMenifee Engineering and Public Works Departments Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 24 does not apply to the proposed Project. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-40 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 25. Underlying soils not considered adequate to support the building loads without further densification shall be overexcavated and reworked within the foundation zone, and shall extend to at least 5 feet beyond the perimeters of structures. The foundation zone shall be taken to extend below footings to a depth equal to twice the footing width, and to extend beyond the edges of footings a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the foundation zone below footings; except that, for the anticipated loads, the depth below continuous footings need not exceed 3 feet and below column pads need not exceed 4 feet, and shall be subject to review of the grading plans and during excavation. 26. Wherever structural fills are to be placeds, the upper six to eight inches of the subgrade shall, after stripping or over excavation, first be scarified and reworked. 27. There shall be at least 18 inches of reworked existing material or compacted fill under slabs-on- grade and pavement. Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 25 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 26 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-41 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 28. If a cut/fill transition or a transition between two geologic units is encountered within the structural area, the exposed native material shall be overexcavated and reworked to a depth of three feet below the planned grade so that there is a minimum of three feet of compacted fill beneath the bottom of the proposed continuous footings. 29. Any loosening of reworked or native material, consequent to the passage of construction traffic, weathering or any other means shall be recompacted and made good prior to further construction activities. Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 27 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 28 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 29 does not apply to the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-42 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 30. Reworking/compaction shall include moisture conditioning/drying as needed to bring the soils to the optimum moisture content as determined in a laboratory in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557. All reworked soils and structural fills shall be densified to achieve at least 90 percent relative compaction with reference to laboratory compaction standards. 31. Fill shall be compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches (loose). 32. The depths of over excavation shall be reviewed by the soil engineer upon completion of grading plans and during the construction activities. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material encountered during grading shall be brought to the immediate attention of the soil Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with issuance of grading permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 30 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 31 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-43 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY engineer and the soil engineer shall then determine the appropriate course of action. No underground obstructions or facilities shall remain in any structural area and all depressions and/or cavities shall be backfilled to the satisfaction of the soil engineer. 33. Any soils used for the subgrade shall be tested for expansion potential. 34. Type II Portland cement shall be used for constructions. Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 32 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 33 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 34 does not apply to the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-44 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 35. The walls of temporary construction trenches shall stand nearly vertical, with only minor sloughing, provided the total depth does not exceed four feet. 36. Trenches shall be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity of to cause settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches shall be clear of a 45-degree plane extending outward and downward from the edge of foundations. 37. All work associated with trench shoring shall conform to state and federal safety codes. Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 35 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 36 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-45 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 38. Positive surface gradients shall be provided adjacent to the buildings to directs surface water run-off away from structural foundations and to suitable discharge facilities. 39. Buildings shall be designed to resist seismic lateral loading in accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 2312 for Seismic Zone 4. Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Geologist Menifee Engineering and Building & Safety Department Concurrent with the issuance of grading permits Prior to the issuance of grading permits site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 37 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 38 does not apply to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM SOILS-1 in Subsection 5.1 requires the preparation of a geotechnical study prior to grading activities on site and would identify any site-specific measures that may be required to address geologic conditions on site. As such, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 39 does not apply to the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-46 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 40. If existing or abandoned wells found on-site shall be abandoned in accordance with state and local requirements, if they are not to be used. Those wells that have already been abandoned shall be verified that they were properly sealed and plugged in accordance with the same requirement. 41. Any septic tanks or leach lines found in association shall be removed prior to site grading. Shallow, small diameter concrete irrigation lines may be crushed in place. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Geologist and Building & Safety Department Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits Prior to the issuance of grading permits proposed Project. The Project site was previously subject to mass grading and contains no wells. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 40 does not apply to the proposed Project. The Project site was previously subject to mass grading and contains no septic tanks or leach lines. Thus, EIR No. 423 Measure 40 does not apply to the proposed Project. SECTION 3.7- GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS EIR No. 423 did not identify any impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions. N/A No impacts were identified by EIR No. 423; therefore, no mitigation measures were identified. N/A N/A No impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions would occur with implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.8- HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS It is not anticipated that the project will generate any toxic waste. The proposed project is not expected to be impacted by leachate from the former Menifee Landfill site. With the proposed introduction of residential development adjacent to the landfill, and the potential for landfill gas to migrate laterally off-site, there is a potential risk to the health, safety and welfare of the adjacent Less than significant 65 Prior to Board of Supervisor’s approval of the project, the proponent shall submit to the Waste Management Department for review and approval a landfill gas (methane) determination report, prepared by a consultant qualified in both waste and landfill gas migration and acceptable to the Department, to determine the extent, if any, of Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Prior to the Board of Supervisor’s approval of project This mitigation measure references the former Menifee Disposal Facility, which comprised 20 acres at the northwest corner of Simpson Road and City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-47 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY residents from this source. No project related impacts are expected from hazardous or toxic waste. landfill gas migration. In order to assure that the study will be satisfactory, the project consultant shall submit a work plan for the analysis prior to commencement. a. If the findings of the report indicate that no methane is present on the project site, no special mitigation measure in relation to landfill gas will be required. b. If the findings of the report indicate that methane gas is present in quantities below 5% by volume (100% Lower Explosive Limit), additional mitigation measures may be required if considered necessary by the Waste Management Department. c. If subterraneous methane is detected on the project site at a concentration exceeding 5% by volume (100% Lower Explosive Limit), or if surface emission of the gas is greater than 500 parts per million, a landfill gas barrier system beneath the specified dwelling units may be required by the Department. Note: It is the recommendation of the Riverside County Waste Management Department that the Environmental Impact Report not be certified until the landfill gas (methane) determination study is performed, in order to ensure that any potential impacts can be properly mitigated. Menifee Road. This mitigation measure was implemented prior to development within Planning Area 40 of the Specific Plan, which is located immediately across Menifee Road from the former landfill. Planning Area 40 has since been built out. As such, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed Project. SECTION 3.9- HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project engineer has determined that flooding of portions of the site could occur during the 100-year storm, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities. Construction activity includes: 42. Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance withRiverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCD) City of Menifee requirements. RCFCD Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to project approval and prior to issuance of grading permits Mitigation Measure MM HYD-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 42. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-48 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY cleaning, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this specific plan, the developer or builder shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. Implementation of the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan will result in grading cut and fill operations that may result in short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Implementation of the project will alter the composition of the surface runoff in the following manner: by grading of the site surfaces; by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities; and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Less than significant. 43. Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities. Construction activity includes: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five one acres of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five one acres of greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this specific plan, the developer or builder shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. 44. The Menifee Valley Ranch site is subject to the payment of applicable area drainage plan fees. Portions of the site lie in the Winchester/North Hemet, Salt Creek, and Homeland/Romoland Area Drainage Plans. 45. Proposed grading and drainage improvements shall conform to Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and shall incorporate the minimum standards for the FEMA which insures that 100-year flood protection is provided to all habitable dwellings located within a floodplain. 53. The developer or builder for Menifee Valley Ranch shall be required to obtain the appropriate State NPDES permits prior to commencing grading activities. The NPDES permit shall apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five one acres of total land area or activity Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and California State Water Quality Control Board Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and RCFCWCD Menifee Engineering and Public Works DepartmentCali fornia State Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Building and Safety Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and the Prior to issuance of commencing grading permits activities Prior to issuance of grading permits Prior to the commencement of grading activities Prior to commencing issuance of grading permits activities Mitigation Measure MM HYD-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 43. Mitigation Measure MM HYD-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 44. Mitigation Measure MM HYD-4 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 45. Mitigation Measure MM WQ-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 53. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-49 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY The project will generate a demand for treatment of sewage, which will require treatment and ultimate disposal by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). which is part of a larger common plan of development of five one acres or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff, as well as non-storm water discharges. The permit also requires a Monitoring, Reporting and Inspection Program to be developed and implemented to assure the effectiveness of the controls. 54. The developer or builder for Menifee Valley Ranch shall be required, pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a NPDES construction permit prior to issuance of grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five one acres of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Post- Construction Management Program to identify parties responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of any structural or programmatic controls and long-term funding mechanisms for operation and maintenance. Post- Construction monitoring is also required by the permit at least one year following project construction. 55. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Diego Region. California State Water Quality Control Board Project Applicant, Riverside County Department of Building and Safety Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and California State Water Quality Control Board California State Water Quality Control Board Prior to issuance of grading permits During grading and construction activities Mitigation Measure MM WQ-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 54. Mitigation Measure MM WQ-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 55. SECTION 3.10- MINERAL RESOURCES No impacts, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. N/A No impacts were identified by EIR No. 423; therefore, no mitigation measures were identified. N/A N/A No impacts to mineral resources would occur with implementation of City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-50 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY the proposed Project; thus, mitigation is not required. SECTION 3.11- NOISE The proposed Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan project will generate approximately 66,801 ADT, and, as a result, will alter noise levels in the surrounding areas. Barriers will be required to lessen noise levels below 65dB CNEL. Structural noise reductions will be needed to meet a 45dBA CNEL noise standard. On-site impacts from noise will be reduced to below a level of significance. 56. Exterior perimeter walls of the following minimum heights are needed to meet Riverside County City of Menifee exterior noise standards: a. Expressway Corridor - 8-foot high (Highway 74) b. Urban Arterial Highway - 8-foot high (Menifee Road & McCall Road) c. Major Highway - 6.5-foot high (Briggs Road) d. Secondary Highway - 5-foot high (Malaga Road north of McLaughlin Road, Lindenberger Road, Simpson Road, Grand Avenue East, Grand Avenue West and McLaughlin Road) e. Enhancer Collector 6 -foot high (Menifee Loop East, West and North and Malaga Road south of McLaughlin Road) f. Collector - 6-foot high (Streets “A” & “B”) Six foot high or greater noise barriers shall be constructed using masonry block walls or a combination earth berm and block wall. The walls shall be erected so that the top of each wall extends at least 6 to 8 feet (depending on location) above the pad elevation of the shielded lot. In cases where the road is elevated above the pad, the wall shall extend at least 6 to 8 feet (depending on location) above the highest point between the house and the road. 57.An interior noise analysis shall be submitted to verify that structural noise reduction as follows will be achieved in a livable upstairs space at the perimeter tier of homes by the specified structural components (windows, walls, doors, roof/ceiling Riverside County Menifee Community Development Building and Safety Department Riverside County Menifee Community Development Department Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operationsPrior to issuance of building permits Review and approval of final acoustic reportsPrior to the issuance of building A Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix G) was prepared for the Project and identifies locations where noise barriers are required. Refer to Mitigation Measure MM Noise-1 in Subsection 5.1, which fulfills the intent of EIR MMRP Mitigation Measure No. 56 at the Project level. EIR MMRP Mitigation Measure No. 56 specifies construction materials for noise barriers, which are City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-51 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY assembly) shown on building plans. 58. All homes located adjacent to expressway corridors, urban arterials, major, secondary, enhanced collectors or collectors shall have central air conditioning as a standard feature. 59. A building pad setback of 100 feet shall be maintained from the BNSF railroad track centerline to preclude vibration perception unless evidence is presented in conjunction with building plan submittals that document a lack of vibration impact Building and Safety Riverside CountyMenifee Community Development Building and Safety Department and Department of Environmental Health, Industrial Hygiene Division Riverside CountyMenifee Community Development Building and permits Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operationsPrior to issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits already included in Project-specific Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-1 in Subsection 5.1. Thus, this mitigation measure does not apply to the Project. A Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix G) was prepared for the Project and identifies measures to ensure that all proposed buildings achieve the City of Menifee interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. These requirements have been imposed on the Project as part of Mitigation Measure MM Noise-1 in Subsection 5.1, which replaces EIR MMRP Mitigation Measure 57 at the Project level. A Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix G) was prepared for the Project and identifies City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-52 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY at lesser setbacks. A “standard” subdivision masonry block wall of 6-feet in height is recommended along any rear yards along the tracks for security, however, the wall is not necessary to meet noise standards. If the County approves setbacks that are less than 100 feet and meet the vibration standards, and if train activity levels increase substantially, then walls greater than 6 feet would be required. The rear yard wall height needed to meet noise standards as a function of setback from the tracks for a 20 train per day scenario varies from 6 to 11.5 feet. Up to 50 feet from the track, a standard six-foot wall would suffice. Closer than 50 feet, the wall height requirement would have to noticeably increase. 60. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency shall be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and all legally proclaimed holidays, unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. 61. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. Safety Department Riverside County Menifee Building and Safety Department and Riverside County Environmental Health Department- Industrial Hygiene Division Riverside County Menifee Community Development Building and Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to issuance of building or grading permits measures to ensure that all proposed buildings achieve the City of Menifee interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Mitigation Measure MM Noise-1 in Subsection 5.1 includes a requirement for mechanical ventilation and replaces EIR MMRP Mitigation Measure 58 at the Project level. The Project site, which is located in Planning Area 41 (proposed Planning Areas 41A and 41B), is located more than 700 feet from the BNSF railroad track centerline. As such, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed Project. A Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix G) was prepared for the Project and identifies measures to reduce construction-related noise, including timing restrictions, requiring properly operating mufflers, and temporary City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-53 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 62. An acoustical report addressing residential noise impacts must prepared by a qualified noise consultant using County Noise Criteria for each tentative tract or plot plan. The report shall then be submitted to the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health for review and approval. Riverside County Environmental Health Department- Industrial Hygiene Division Prior to tentative tract map or plot plan approval the issuance of building permits noise barriers. Mitigation Measure MM Noise-1 in Subsection 5.1 replaces EIR MMRP Mitigation Measure 61 at the Project level. A Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis was prepared for the Project and is included as Technical Appendix G. As such, the Project has fulfilled the requirements of EIR MMRP Mitigation Measure No. 62, and additional mitigation measures, beyond the measures identified in Mitigation Measures MM NOISE-1 through MM NOISE-3 in Subsection 5.1, are not required. SECTION 3.12- POPULATION AND HOUSING No impacts, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. N/A No impacts were identified by EIR No. 423; therefore, no mitigation measures were identified. N/A N/A No impacts due to population and housing would occur with implementation of the proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.13- LAND USE AND PLANNING No impacts, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. N/A No impacts were identified by EIR No. 423; therefore, no mitigation measures were identified. N/A N/A No impacts due to land use and planning would occur with implementation of the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-54 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. SECTION 3.14- PUBLIC SERVICES According to the Fire Department, both Stations Nos. 54 and 7 will be the primary stations serving the project area and the other stations would provide the back-up required for adequate Category II response time. These impacts are due to the increased number of emergency and/or public service calls associated with the projected increase in the population of the area. The Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan Amendment project would result in a population increase of 10,878 residents in western Riverside County. The proposed project will contribute incrementally to population growth in the Perris-Hemet region, which also will result in an incremental increase in criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, vandalism, etc. Implementation of Menifee Valley Ranch will result in the construction of 4,200 single-family residential dwelling units and would increase the demand on existing educational facilities and services by generating additional students to be served by Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District. By applying student generation rates supplied by these school districts, the Menifee Valley Ranch project would generate approximately 2,016 elementary school students, 533 junior high school students, and 840 high school students. Mitigated to below a level of significance. Project development will, however, have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Department’s ability to provide an acceptable level of service. Mitigated to below a level of significance Mitigated to below a level of significance 84. The applicant will participate in the City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232an existing Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Program ($400.00 per dwelling unit and $.25 per square foot for commercial/industrial), that provides funds for the purchase of land to build new fire stations, remodel existing fire stations, or for the purchase of equipment when necessary as development occurs. 85. The applicant will pay fees in accordance with City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232the provisions of Ordinance No. 659, to off-set the cost of acquisition and construction of Sheriff Department facilities as the need arises due to the rapid population growth in the region. 86. The project applicant will inform the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff’s Department of all new Homeowners Associations. These associations can be used as the foundation for establishing Neighborhood Watch Programs. 87. A number of design concepts and crime prevention measures to be incorporated or considered during site and building layout designs are discussed in the design standards of Section III.A.2, Specific Land Use Plan, of the Specific Plan Amendment. 88. Mitigation of all environmental effects relating Riverside County, Menifee Building and Safety and Fire Departments and Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County Menifee Building and Safety Department Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Riverside County, Sheriff’s and Planning Department and Menifee Community Development Department Romoland Prior to issuance of occupancy permits Prior to the release of occupancy issuance of Occupancy Permits Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to approval of the final site of Ddevelopment approval or minor Plot Plan approval for recreational sites. Prior to the Mitigation Measure MM PS-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 84. Mitigation Measure MM PS-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 85. Mitigation Measure MM PS-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 86. Mitigation Measure MM PS-4 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 87. Mitigation Measure MM City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-55 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY Adverse impacts to health services are not anticipated as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project. Library staff has indicated, through correspondence, that development of the proposed project will adversely affect existing library conditions. The increase in population to be served will require an increase in funding to the County library to maintain the current level of service. Impacts determined not to be significant Mitigated to below a level of significance to the planned development of the school sites in Planning Areas 9, 22B, and 33 is provided in conjunction with the mitigation measures for project development. No additional impacts on the physical environment are anticipated. The project shall mitigate impacts to schools by payment of State-mandated school impact fees at the time that building permits are issued. 97. Significant impacts are not anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 98. The project shall be subject to payment of mitigation fees in accordance with the provisions of City of Menifee Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance No. 17-232 Riverside County Ordinance No. 659. At the County’s City’s option, a portion of these fess may be utilized by the County City to provide additional library facilities and staff. School District and Perris Union High School District and Menifee Community Development Department Not applicable Riverside County Building and Safety Department Menifee Community Development Department issuance of Building Permits Not applicable Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits PS-5 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 88. Impacts to health services were found to be less than significant at both the programmatic and Project level; therefore, no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure MM PS-6 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 98. SECTION 3.15- RECREATION Development of the Specific Plan will preclude future use of the site for dryland agricultural use and will eliminate the rural open space atmosphere on-site. A total of 402.0 acres or 26 percent of the project site will be set aside for open space and recreational uses, as presented in Section II.A.4, Open Space and Recreation Plan. The plan provides a variety of recreational opportunities which all residents of the MENIFEE VALLEY RANCH community may enjoy. The project proposes areas for active and passive recreational opportunities, including an 18-hole golf course, four Impacts determined not to be significant 64. The proposed Menifee Valley Ranch project will not result in significant impacts to open space and conservation. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable Not applicable Impacts were determined to be less than significant at the programmatic and Project levels; thus, mitigation is not required. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-56 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY neighborhood parks, a lake, landscaped greenbelts, detention areas and open space. Development of the Menifee Valley Ranch project is estimated to generate a population of approximately 10,879 persons. This project proposes a variety of recreational amenities to serve residents of both the project and surrounding communities. The Quimby Act requirements for the project will be met by the 48.8 acres of parkland that will be provided. Impacts determined not to be significant 89. The proposed Menifee Valley Ranch project will not result in significant impacts to open space and conservation. No mitigation measures are required. Not applicable Not applicable Impacts were determined to be less than significant at the programmatic and Project levels; thus, mitigation is not required. SECTION 3.16- TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The proposed project is projected to generate a total of 66,801 daily vehicle trips at build-out. Of this total, approximately 5,710 vehicles per hour are expected to be generated during the morning peak hour and 6,628 vehicles per hour shall be generated during the evening peak hour. Significant. With proposed project traffic, the following intersections will not meet Level of Service “C” for Year 2020 traffic, even with the proposed infrastructure improvements: Sherman Road (NS) at Ethanac Road (EW); Antelope Road (NS) at Ethanac Road (EW); Antelope Road (NS) at Newport Road (EW); Menifee Road (NS) at SR-74 (EW); and Briggs Road (NS) at SR-74 (EW). 67. The project proponent shall contribute to the installation of off-site traffic signals when warranted through the payment of County of Riverside City of Menifee traffic signal mitigation fees. Prior to approval of the first tentative tract map or use case associated with the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan, an additional funding mechanism for the following project-related traffic signals shall be prepared by the project proponent and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Department City of Menifee Planning Division. a. Menifee Road (NS) at: • Planning Area 6 (EW) • McLaughlin Road (EW) • Rouse Road (EW) • Menifee Loop Road North (EW) • Grand Avenue (EW) • Planning Area 40 (EW) b. Malaga Road (NS) at: State Route 74 (EW) c. Lindenberger Road at: Simpson Road (EW) d. Briggs Road (NS) at: • Planning Area 12 (EW) • Planning Area 18 (EW) County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to the tentative map approvalissuance of occupancy permits Mitigation Measure MM TR-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 67. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-57 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the unmitigable traffic impacts. • Grand Avenue (EW) • Planning Areas 31/32 (EW) e. Planning Areas 25/20 (NS) at: • McCall Boulevard (EW) f. Menifee Loop East (NS) at: • McCall Boulevard (EW) 68. Improvements to achieve the minimum level of service, as required by the City of Menifee General Plan, shall be evaluated at each phase of project development. To ensure that off-site roadway improvements are provided in conjunction with each development phase, the following development monitoring requirements shall be required: a. A traffic impact study report shall be submitted concurrently with the submittal of each tentative tract map or plot plan as required by the City of Menifee. b. Each traffic impact study report shall be prepared in a format as required by the City of Menifee. The required format shall include an evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impacted by each phase of development. c. If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed City service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for County staff review. d. All improvements necessary to maintain the City service level standards shall be in place or fully funded and scheduled for construction prior to occupancy of the County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Concurrently with submittal of tentative tract map or plot plan release of occupancy (for installation of improvements). Mitigation Measure MM TR-2 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 68. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-58 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY relevant development plans. 69. Because off-site improvements are generally needed to serve area wide growth, all areas of the project shall participate in benefit district and/or other fee programs to implement General Plan roadway segments. Given the regional nature of key corridors which serve the project, two new road and bridge benefit districts are recommended for the study area (See Figure V.C-12 of the EIR). 70. Traffic Demand Management Programs. The project shall incorporate such traffic demand management programs as may be appropriate to comply with the goals of the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall consult with and obtain clearance from the following agencies to assure compliance and coordinate with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plans: a. Caltrans, District 8; b. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); c. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and d. The Riverside Transportation Commission (RCTC). Confirmation of such contact and coordination shall be provided to the Riverside County Transportation Department. 71. Construction of Roadways. Construct SR-74 from the west project boundary to Briggs Road at its ultimate half-section width as a Limited Access Eight Lane Highway (Expressway 184-foot right-of-way) in County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and Community Development Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department and Community Development Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Prior to issuance of building permits. Concurrent with submittal of tentative tract map or plot planPrior to issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure MM TR-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 69. Mitigation Measure MM TR-4 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 70. EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 71 applies to development within the portions of the City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-59 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY conjunction with development. Traditionally, development is required to build roads to their ultimate half-width along project frontages, as well as making downstream improvements to mitigate impacts. 72. Construct Menifee Road from the north project boundary to Simpson Road at its ultimate half- section as an Urban Arterial highway (152-foot right- of-way) in conjunction with development. 73. Construct Simpson Road from Menifee Road to Briggs Road at its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary highway (100-foot right-of- way) in conjunction with development. 74. Construct Briggs Road from SR-74 to Simpson Road at its ultimate half-section width as a Major highway (118-foot right-of-way) in conjunction with Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department; Caltrans District 8, SCAQMD, RTA and RCTC County of Riverside Transportation Prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits Specific Plan that abut SR-74 and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Half-width improvements to Menifee Road have been completed for the portion of the Specific Plan area located south of Case Road. The remaining portions of this roadway would be improved in conjunction with future development in the portion of the Specific Plan located north of Case Road. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 72 is not applicable to the proposed Project. Improvements to this segment of Simpson Road were completed in conjunction with buildout of the southern portions of the Specific Plan area. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 73 is not applicable to the proposed Project. Improvements to the portion of Briggs Road south of Case Road, City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-60 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY development. At the Briggs Road/McCall intersections, additional right-of-way may be needed to provide augmented north-south capacity for cumulative future conditions. 75. Construct Malaga Road from SR-74 to McLaughlin Road at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (100-foot right-of- way) in conjunction with development. 76. Construct McLaughlin Road from Menifee Road to Briggs Road at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (100-foot right- of-way) in conjunction with development. 77. Construct McCall Boulevard from Menifee Road to Briggs Road at its ultimate cross-section width as an Urban Arterial highway (152-foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits including along the Project’s frontage, have been completed. Improvements to the segment of Briggs Road north of Case Road would be completed in conjunction with buildout of the northern portions of the Specific Plan area. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 74 is not applicable to the proposed Project. Malaga Road occurs in the northern portion of the Specific Plan, and Project traffic would not utilize this roadway. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 75 is not applicable to the Project. McLaughlin Road occurs in the northern portion of the Specific Plan, and Project traffic would not utilize this roadway. Thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 76 is not applicable to the Project. The segment of McCall Boulevard between Menifee Road and Briggs Road has been improved to its ultimate City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-61 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 78. Required General Plan Circulation Element Changes. The following changes are recommended for incorporation into the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element: a. Upgrade SR-74 between Palomar Road and Briggs Road as a limited access eight lane highway (Expressway Corridor). b. Upgrade Menifee Road to an Urban Arterial highway between Simpson Road and SR-74 within the development area north of Newport Road, the six-lane improvements may ultimately be accommodated within the existing right- of-way. c. Add McLaughlin Road between Menifee Road and Briggs Road as a Secondary highway. d. Eliminate Matthews Road between Menifee Road and Briggs Road as a Secondary highway. e. Upgrade McCall Boulevard (Chambers Avenue) between Menifee Road and Briggs Road to an Urban Arterial highway. f. Eliminate Malaga Road between McLaughlin Road and Matthews Road as a Secondary highway. g. Eliminate Lindenberger Road between Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to the issuance of building permits cross section width; thus, EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 77 does not apply to the Project. Subsequent to certification of EIR No. 423, the City of Menifee was incorporated. In 2013, the City of Menifee adopted its General Plan, which identified the required roadway improvements ultimately needed to serve buildout of the General Plan, including the proposed Project. Thus, the recommendations included in EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 78 are no longer applicable. Thus, this mitigation measure would not apply to the proposed Project. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-62 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY McCall Boulevard and Simpson Road as a Secondary highway. 79. Traffic impact study reports shall be provided to the City County concurrently with submittal of tentative tract maps or plot plans as required by the City of Menifee County of Riverside. 80. The required format for each traffic impact study report shall be determined by the County of Riverside City of Menifee. The required format will include evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impacted by each phase of development. County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits In conformance with EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 79, a Project- specific Trip Generation Evaluation was prepared and demonstrates that the Project would result in substantially less traffic as compared to buildout of the site with commercial uses. Thus, the Project complies with this mitigation measure. Because the Project would result in substantially less traffic than was assumed for the site by EIR No. 423, and because all improvements needed to serve the portion of the Specific Plan located south of Case Road, including the Project site, have been completed, the City determined that the Project only would require a Trip Generation Evaluation to confirm the anticipated reduction in traffic, and thus, traffic- related impacts, that would result from City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-63 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY 81. If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed City County service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for City County staff review. 82. The improvements needed to maintain the City County service level standards shall be in place or fully funded and scheduled for construction prior to occupancy of the relevant development phases. County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department County of Riverside Transportation Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits Project implementation. As such, the Project complies with EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 80. The Project is not anticipated to result in any new impacts to intersections. Improvements needed to serve the southern portions of the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, have been completed as part of prior development. As such, the Project complies with EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure No. 81. The Project is not anticipated to degrade the level of service along any study area facilities below the City’s level of service standard. Improvements needed to serve the southern portions of the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, have been completed, and the Project would not result in or require additional improvements. As such, the Project complies with EIR No. 423 MMRP City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-64 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY Measure No. 81. SECTION 3.17- UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS On-site natural gas demand for the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan is estimated at 3,392,800 therms per year (therms/year). Onsite electricity for the proposed project is estimated at 32,167,636 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr). The average annual water demand for the proposed project is estimated to be 2.4 million gallons per day (mgd). The demand for reclaimed water is 1.5 million gallons per day. The proposed Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan project will have a calculated wastewater discharge flow of 1.37 million gallons per day. Menifee Valley Ranch will create a demand for electricity and will require the extension of electrical and natural gas facilities to serve project development. The electrical demand of Menifee Valley Ranch at buildout is estimated be 32,167,636 kilowatt hours per year (kwh/yr) and 3,392,800 therms per year (therms/year.) for natural gas. Telephone, cable and other services will be provided as required. Ultimate project development, as well as the construction phase of the proposed project, will increase the amount of Significant impacts will not occur, and no mitigation is required. Impacts determined to not be significant. Impacts determined not to be significant Impacts determined not 63. The project will be required to adhere to all applicable State codes regarding energy conservation. 83. The project will provide the necessary water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. In addition, the project will incorporate reclaimed water for irrigation purposes if reclaimed water is available at the time of project implementation. As Table V.C-7 shows, the EMWD will have sufficient water to meet its customer’s needs through 2020. The Menifee Valley Ranch project will also be served by two sewage reclamation facilities, Hemet/San Jacinto and Perris Valley Reclamation Facilities, which will be able to support the projects wastewater flows. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts to water, wastewater, or reclaimed water facilities, and no mitigation measures are required beyond the standards set forth by the County. 90. No mitigation measures are required. 91. The developer(s) of implementing projects will make every effort to reduce and/or divert from Not applicable Eastern Municipal Water District will be responsible for assuring standard conditions. Not Applicable Menifee Engineering and Not applicable Not applicable Not Applicable Prior to occupancy permits Impacts due to energy demand were determined to be less than significant at the programmatic and Project level; therefore, mitigation is not required. Mitigation Measure MM UTIL-1 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 83. Impacts to utilities were determined to be less than significant at both the programmatic and Project level; thus, no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure MM UTIL-2 in Subsection 5.1 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-65 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY solid waste generated in the area; in turn, shortening the life span of the affected landfills, as well as increasing the demand upon waste haulers. The proposed Menifee Valley Ranch project site would generate approximately 16 tons per day (tons/day) or 5,964 tons per year (tons/year). to be significant landfill disposal construction and demolition waste by the use of onsite grinders or by directing the materials to recycling facilities. 92. The developer(s) of implementing projects will make every effort to reduce and/or divert from landfill disposal construction and demolition waste by the use of on-site grinders or by directing the materials to recycling facilities. 93. The developer shall participate in any established County-wide program to reduce solid waste generation. The elements of such a program may include: a. Developing and distributing brochures on residential recycling, residential source reduction, waste management issues, the importance of using recycled goods, and litter control. b. Ensuring that all newly constructed single family residences are provided with durable recycling containers for curbside pickup of recyclable materials. c. Development of curriculum guides and kits in cooperation with the Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District. d. Production of video programs which can be shown Public Works DepartmentRiv erside County Waste Management Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works DepartmentRiv erside County Waste Management Department Menifee Engineering and Public Works DepartmentRiv erside County Waste Management Department Prior to occupancy permits Prior to occupancy permits implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 91. Mitigation Measure MM UTIL-3 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 92. Mitigation Measure MM UTIL-4 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 93. City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-66 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY on local cable television stations in the project area. e. Pursue an environmental labeling program at local grocery stores, liquor stores, etc. which would educate consumers in recycling of packaging and consumer goods. f. Pursue a recycled products awareness campaign which would commend businesses which use recycled products. This program could issue stickers to businesses that use recycled products to display in their windows. g. Develop a library of media production on recycling and source reduction which can be borrowed by various citizen groups, agencies, and schools within the County. 94. All public facilities, commercial establishments and multi-family residential developments within the Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan area shall comply with the Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 for the provision of adequate recyclables storage and loading spaces in. All proposed on-site commercial development, as well as the golf course and schools are the subject to this state recycling requirement. 95. The developer(s) of implementing projects is encouraged to keep green waste generated by the project separate from other waste types in order that it can be recycled through the practice of grass recycling (where lawn clippings from a mulching type mower are left on the lawn) or onsite composting or directed to local wood grinding and/or composting operations. 96. The developer(s) of implementing projects is encouraged to use mulch and/or compost in the Local Solid Waste Management Enforcement Agency Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department Riverside County Waste Management Department Menifee Engineering and Prior to issuance of occupancy permits During Project construction During Project construction and EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 94 applies to public facilities, commercial establishments, and multi-family residential developments, and is not applicable to the proposed Project. Mitigation Measure MM UTIL-5 in Subsection 5.1 implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 95. Mitigation Measure MM UTIL-6 in Subsection 5.1 City of Menifee-Specific Plan No. 301, Amendment No. 3 Addendum to Specific Plan EIR No. 423 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM T&B Planning, Inc. PAGE 5-67 EIR NO. 423 IMPACT SUMMARY LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION EIR NO. 423 MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY/ MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE APPLICABILITY TO PROJECT/ PROJECT CONSISTENCY development and maintenance of landscape areas. Public Works Department and Community Development DepartmentRiv erside County Waste Management Department throughout the duration of the Project implements EIR No. 423 MMRP Measure 96. SECTION 18 - DISASTER PREPAREDNESS Fire Hazards Mitigated to below a level of significance See Fire Services, above. Seismic Hazards Less than significant No impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Slopes and Erosion Mitigated to below a level of significance See Landform and Topography/Slopes and ErosionGeology and Soils, above. Wind Erosion Effects found not to be significant No impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Flooding Mitigated to below a level of significance See Hydrology and Water Quality, Flooding and Drainage, above.