The URL can be used to link to this page

PC23-601RESOLUTION NO. PC 23-601 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37450 (PLN21- 0361) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GARBANI ROAD AND SHERMAN ROAD (APNS: 360-350-004 AND 360-350-005). WHEREAS, on November 5, 2021, the applicant, Jordan Bursch of Menifee 18 Holdings LLC, filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Tract Map No. 37450 (PLN21-0361) subdivision for a residential community consisting of 33 detached single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet on a 10.27 gross -acre (8.52 net -acres) site with a density of approximately 3.87 dwelling units per acre. The project includes a 0.59 acre open space lot on the south west corner of the project and a 0.24 acre water quality basin on the north east corner; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study ("IS") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") have been prepared to analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. WHEREAS, the twenty -day public review period for the IS/MND occurred between June 15, 2023 to July 5, 2023, which was publicly noticed by a publication in a newspaper of general circulation, notice to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries, on -site posting and notice to related agencies and government agencies. The project was also transmitted to the State Clearinghouse. WHEREAS, on July 12, 2023, the project was continued to July 26, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing, to grant additional time for the City and the Applicant to coordinate on project conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in the newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, onsite sign postings, and notice to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site boundaries, related agencies and government agencies, and to persons requesting public notice; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/MND is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City; and WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts or increased severity of environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the draft IS/MND which would require re- circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee makes the following findings as established by the CEQA: Section 1. The Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the Draft IS/MND, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and any comments received, that there is no IS/MND for TTM 37450 July 26, 2023 substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which is attached hereto as an appendix to Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, will assure compliance during project implementation. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of the IS/MND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. Section 4. The IS/MND, all documents referenced in the MND, and the record of proceedings on which the Planning Commission's decision is based, are located at City of Menifee City Hall at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 and the custodian of record of proceedings is the City of Menifee City Clerk. Section 5. The Planning Commission adopts an IS/MND for the project including but not limited to the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan as attached to the IS/MND. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th of July, 2023. Je L ue, Chairman i Attest: R Sah Manwarin , City Clem Approved as to form: Thai Phan, Assistant City Attorney INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for Development Plan Application DEV2021-009 for Tentative Tract Map No. 37450 — TTM 37450 Lead Agency: City of Menifee 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 951.672.6777 Point of Contact: Brandon Cleary, Associate Planner bcleary@cityofmenifee.us Project Proponent., Menifee 18 Holdings, LLC 32823 Temecula Parkway Temecula, CA 92592 951.491.6018 Point of Contact: Jordan Bursch jordan@Cormanleigh.com Prepared by: Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, Inc. 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera Temecula, CA 92591 951.265.5428 Point of Contact: Matthew Fagan, Owner matthewfagan@roadrunner.com June 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CEQA Environmental Checklist Form.................................................................. 1 II. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 13 III. Determination........................................................................................................ 14 IV. Environmental Issues Assessment...................................................................... 15 1. Aesthetics..............................................................................................................15 2. Agriculture & Forestry Resources.......................................................................21 3. Air Quality..............................................................................................................24 4. Biological Resources........................................................ 5. Cultural Resources...............................................................................................42 6. Energy....................................................................................................................50 7. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................55 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................63 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................68 10. Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................80 11. Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................90 12. Mineral Resources..............................................................................................92 13. Noise....................................................................................................................95 14. Population and Housing.....................................................................................104 15. Public Services...................................................................................................106 16. Recreation...........................................................................................................113 17. Transportation.....................................................................................................115 18. Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................123 19. Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................126 20. Wildfire .................................................................................................................135 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................141 V. Earlier Analysis.........................................................................................................144 VI. Sources/References.............................................................................................. 144 Figures Figure 1 Regional Location Map....................................................................................... 3 Figure2 Vicinity Map........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3 General Plan Land Use Designations................................................................. 5 Figure 4 Zoning Classifications......................................................................................... 6 Figure5 Site Plan............................................................................................................. 8 Figure6 Aerial Photo........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 7-1 Surrounding Topography................................................................................. 59 Figure9-1 GEOTRACKER............................................................................................... 73 Figure 9-2 ENVIROSTOR................................................................................................. 74 Figure 9-3 Fuel Modification Zones.................................................................................. 79 Figure 13-1 Onsite Noise Mitigation.................................................................................. 101 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page i Tables Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses....................................................................................... 10 Table 3-1 Regional Construction Impacts......................................................................... 27 Table 3-2 Regional Operational Emissions....................................................................... 28 Table 3-3 Localized Construction Emissions.................................................................... 29 Table 6-1 Total Project Energy Consumption.................................................................. 53 Table 8-1 SCAQMD Tier GHG Screening Values.......................................................... 64 Table 8-2 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................ 65 Table 8-3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................... 66 Table 9-1 Existing Schools Closest to Project Site............................................................ 71 Table 10-1 Downstream Receiving Bodies....................................................................... 81 Table 13-1 Typical Construction Noise Levels.................................................................. 98 Table 13-2 Estimated Project Construction Noise Levels .................................................. 98 Table 13-3 Roadway Noise Impacts from Project Traffic .................................................. 99 Table 17-1 Circulation Element Consistency Analysis ................................................. ... 118 Table 17-2 VMT Screening Analysis................................................................................. 120 DEV2021-009 I TTM 37450 Page H APPENDICES (Provided Electronically) Appendix A Map My County Appendix B TTM 37450 Garbani Road Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Technical Memorandum, prepared by Roma Environmental, 9-27-2022 Appendix C General Biological Assessment Report for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 360-350-004 and 005, City of Menifee, prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services, 8-2022 Appendix D Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 360-350- 004 and -005, City of Menifee, prepared by CRM TECH, 7-26-2022 Appendix E1 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development Tract Map No. 31831, Menifee, California, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 12-12-2017 Appendix E2 Geotechnical Update, Proposed Residential Development Tract Map No. 31831, Menifee, California, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 8-17-2022 Appendix F Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residential Development SWC Sherman Road and Garbani Road, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 9-15-2022 Appendix G1 Preliminary Hydrology Report, Garbani South (TTM 37450) DEV2021-009), prepared by Ventura Engineering Inland Inc., 8-16-2022 Appendix G2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Garbani South (TTM 37450) DEV2021- 009), prepared by Ventura Engineering Inland Inc., 8-16-2022 Appendix H Noise Impact Analysis, Garbani 1- Project, City of Menifee, California, prepared by Roma Environmental, 12-6-2022 Appendix 11 Tract 37450 Garbani South Trip Generation Memorandum City of Menifee, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. 5-12-2022 Appendix 12 Tract 37450 Garbani South Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis, City of Menifee, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. 6-14-2022 Appendix J Site Photos, prepared by MFCS, Inc. Appendix K SAN 53 — Will Serve — WS 20210001479 - APN: 360-350-004 & 360-350-005, prepared by EMWD, 12-14-2021 Appendix L Project Plans Appendix M Fire Protection Technical Memorandum, Garbani Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Dudek, 5-10-2023 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page iii Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill AC Acre A.C. Asphalt Concrete ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ADT Average Daily Traffic of Acre -Feet Afu Undocumented Artificial Fill AFY Acre -Feet Per Year AM Morning AMSL Above Mean Sea Level APN Assessor's Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plans ARB Air Resources Board ARB Handbook ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook BACMs Best Available Control Measures BMPs Best Management Practices Btu British thermal units BUOW Burrowing Owl CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEEModTM California Emissions Estimator ModelTM Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Climate Action Plan CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHa Methane CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent COA Conditions of Approval CY Cubic Yards dB Decibel dBA A -Weighted Decibel dBA CNEL A -weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA Leq A -weighted decibel equivalent noise level DPM Diesel particulate matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative EIA United States Energy Information Administration EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPD Environmental Programs Department FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page iv FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program g/m3 Micrograms Per Cubic Meter GMZs Groundwater Management Zones gpd/ac Gallons -Per -Day Per Acre HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants HFCs Hydroflourocarbons HRA Health Risk Assessment ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers kW Kilowatt KWh Kilowatt Hours Leq Equivalent Energy Level LID Low Impact Development LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance Thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MGD Million Gallons Per Day MLD Most Likely Descendent MM Mitigation Measure MMT Million Metric Tons MPH Miles Per Hour MTCOze Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MWh Megawatt -Hour N20 Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Os Ozone Pb Lead PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter PPV Peak Particle Velocity PRC Public Resources Code PVC Polyvinyl Chloride PV Photovoltaic ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROW Right -of -Way RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCG Southern California Gas Company SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SO2 Sulfur Dioxide sox Oxides of Sulfur S02 Sulphur Dioxide SOX Sulphur Oxides Sq. Ft. Square Feet SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board TCP Traffic Control Plan TCR Tribal Cultural Resource DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page v UBC Uniform Building Code U.S. United States USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page vi CITY OF MENIFEE NIF I. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Development Plan Application DEV2021-009 for Tentative Tract Map No. 37450 — TTM 37450 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Menifee, Community Development Department, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brandon Cleary, Associate Planner, 951.672.6777 4. Project Location: The Project site is bordered on the north by Garbani Road, beyond which is an existing residential development which is designated Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) [7,200 square foot (s.f.) minimum lot size], on the south by a house on a large residential lot zoned LDR-2, on the west by undeveloped properties designated as LDR-2 and Rural Residential, 5-acre minimum lot size (RR5), and on the east by undeveloped lands designated for Economic Development Corridor -Community Core (EDC-CC). The Project site is located on the southwest corner of Sherman Road and Garbani Road in the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California. Reference Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. A. Total Project Area: approximately 10.27 acres B. Assessor's Parcel Number: 360-350-004 and 360-350-005 C. Section, Township & Range: Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 3 West D. Latitude: ±33065'52.04" E. Longitude: ±117018'09.18" F. Elevation: 1,488 — 1,584 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) 5.A. Project Applicant/Owners: Menifee 18 Holdings, LLC 32823 Temecula Parkway Temecula, CA 92592 5.13. Engineer/Representative: BM Samilin and Associates 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Ste C Temecula, CA 92590 6. General Plan Land Use Designation(s): • Existing: 2.1-5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R) and Rural Residential 5-acre min (RR5) • Proposed: No Change to the General Plan Land Use Designation is proposed. Reference Figure 3, General Plan Land Use Designations. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 1 7. Zoning District(s): Existing: LDR-2 and RR5 Proposed: No Change to the zoning classification is proposed. Reference Figure 4, Zoning Classifications. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 2 J sp�� { a, 1-14 fR L m pep '4�•Cj,•i•1 I—1 1� k moo- �� per U a o o �-a mod. P" OJ O Ln Cl) N O a IT X C Gl Q d Q C f0 d u V aJ O d 6 u :3 7 O N i 0) 0 0 0 O W 0 0 Z O Q /Z _V N W 0 M W W N Z LL J Z Q J a a W 'W V I m C d aw aci l7 N w 0i 2 O U N 0 V) U o w LL O` coo '� t 0 0 U N C O N E U m o m (— O N Q c a � m N U cc a� c_ o co W Q U 11�1 LLLO LL N m LL u1 cliO N N N — d � N tt IO N E E E E m N U U 2 1 1 N � � ao E c,i ui a0 � f0 l9 N C c c N U U l9 � l9 f0 N L] a0 7 W N N O E C C C Cp m E E E m m m 7 m y c c c c f0 (D lD f0 A J a O Cl) H rn O O N O N W 0 Ln ca a � . / 2 / § § ! \ $ ( 0 \ ) k \ E \ k L� J 6 6 o c t j\ j k \ k f) E E E E ) \ f f f > \ \) \ ) k k ! ! E E E E ] }\ \ f/ §Lujjj3) \ \ ƒ E § ( 2 $ — \ / 0 ) \) k E E) k « ! f § E @ ; @ ` ; ! R # { a k J § -.E] | ] k ƒ f 7)) § ) ) (k � E r E \ 7 ` ® E 5 § / /) E k § I f i | \ § — e ` § E) k k ) $ \ ] ! ! _ _ # f B 12 ƒ! J J k k r_ < £ + of ! 'E- 0 \ tD 8. Project Description Overview The Project includes the following applications: • Development Plan Application DEV2021-009 • Tentative Tract Map No. 37450 These applications collectively comprise the "Project." The following discussion provides more detail: Tentative Tract Mao No. 374 TTM 37450 proposes a residential subdivision with a tentative tract map of 10.27 gross acres into thirty-three (33) residential lots, one (1) drainage basin lot, and six (6) open space lots. Access/Circulation Site access is provided from Garbani Road, and new improvements to Sherman Road. The Project will have an internal loop street that connects to Sherman Road in two locations. Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the site. Reference Figure 5, Site Plan. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 7 9£ NdV 9£ NdV , LOa1 w J 9£ NdV I I d I w _ �I H 9£ NdV X NdV � � I )£ NdV I I I r I I I i $_ I 1 Q J All. a a ,/ C I evn islnj 1 v ca c CC v a a L I 1 c ro a a� u N O d u u 3 O V) O LO V co co 2 H O) O O N O N w 0 Landscaping All Project landscaping is subject to the requirements of the City of Menifee Municipal Code. The total area of the Project is 10.27 acres and includes 8,610 s. f. of City - maintained landscaping along Garbani Road (including 31 street trees) plus 27,010 s.f. of open space in the southwest corner to be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The Project will also have 33 private single family lots with front and back yard landscaping. All trees, shrubs, and ground cover are of low to moderate water demand. Grading Grading for the Project will require approximately 29,790 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 29,790 cy of fill, which will result in balanced earthwork onsite. Drainage and Water Quality In the existing condition, the site consists of undeveloped lands. Ruderal habitat covers the majority of the site (7.9 acres), followed by 1.4 acres of coastal sage scrub, and less than an acre of disturbed habitat. The site generally flows from southwest to northeast via natural topography. In the ultimate proposed condition, the Project site will be a residential development. The proposed drainage conditions will include a 0.25-acre water quality basin in the northeast corner of the site (Lot B), and the installation of onsite storm drain facilities that will eventually drain into a dirt channel along the south side of Garbani Road. No increase in off -site flows is expected from the development of this Project. Water/ Sewer The Project site is located within the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) water and sewer service boundary. EMWD has issued a Will Serve Letter to the Project applicant acknowledging they will provide service. There is an existing water main at the Project site extending east -west Garbani Road and will be extended southerly along Sherman Road. Sewer system improvements would need to be constructed by the property owner/developer in accordance with EMWD's standards, specifications, and master plan. 9. Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems All utilities and public services are currently available on, or adjacent to, the proposed Project site. Utility and Service System providers are as follows: Electricity: Southern California Edison Water: Eastern Municipal Water District Sewer: Eastern Municipal Water District Cable: AT&T / Frontier Gas: Southern California Gas Telephone: AT&T / Frontier School: Menifee Union and Perris Union High School District Police: City of Menifee Police Department Fire: Riverside County Fire Department DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 9 10. Surrounding Land Uses & Environmental Setting The Project site is bordered on the north by Garbani Road, beyond which is an existing residential development which is designated Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) (7,200 s.f. minimum lot size), on the south by house on a large residential lot zoned LDR-2, on the west by undeveloped properties designated as LDR-2 and Rural Residential, 5 acre minimum lot size (RR5), and on the east by undeveloped lands designated for Economic Development Corridor -Community Core (EDC-CC). The Project site is located on the southwest corner of Sherman Road and Garbani Road in the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California. Reference Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The elevation of the subject property is approximately 1,488 feet AMSL with a gentle topographic gradient to the southwest (highest elevation 1,742 feet AMSL), with a steep rise in the southwest corner of the site which will remain as open space. Reference Figure 6, Aerial Photo. Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses, lists the different uses that are located immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site. Also, please reference Figure 3, General Plan Land Use Designations and Figure 4, Zoning Classifications. Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses Direction General Plan Land Zoning Existing Land Use Use Designation Classification Project Site 2.1-5 R and RR5 LDR-2 and RR-5 Undeveloped North 2.1-5 R LDR-2 Existing residential subdivision One existing residence, South 2.1-5 R and RR5 LDR-2 and RR-5 otherwise undeveloped lands East EDC-CC EDC-CC Undeveloped lands West 2.1-5 R and RR5 LDR-2 and RR-5 Undeveloped lands Sources: City of Menifee General Plan — Land Use Map. City of Menifee Zoning Map, and Google Maps DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 10 0 v v 9 0 0 00 I v a 11. Project Approvals Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary and ministerial project approvals from the City of Menifee. Discretionary Approvals Requested • Tentative Map Subdivision • Public Works/Engineering (grading permit) • Public Works/Engineering (general state water quality permit) • Building Permit • Encroachment Permit Other Agency Actions • Riverside County Fire Department (for emergency site access review) • Eastern Municipal Water District (offsite sewer connection) DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 12 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 either a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture & Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources El Noise ❑ Population and Housing ® Public Services (fire only) ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ® Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 13 III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® 1 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, described in this document, have been made 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. A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED ❑ 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 ❑ 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. ❑ I find that at least one of the following conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, exist and a SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required: (1) 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. r _ Signature Date Brandon Cleary, Associate Planner Printed Name 6-5-2023 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 14 IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Sources : Public Resources Code Section 21099; City of Menifee General Plan (General Plan); City of Menifee General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) (Chapter 5.1, Aesthetics); Map My County (Appendix A); Site Photos, prepared by MFCS, Inc. (Appendix J); Project Plans (Appendix L); Figure 1, Regional Location Map; Figure 2, Vicinity Map; Figure 3, General Plan Land Use Designations; Figure 4, Zoning Classifications; Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses; and Figure 6, Aerial Photo, all provided in Section I. of this Initial Study. Applicable General Plan Policies: • 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-3.6: Locate site entries and storage bays to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Policy CD-3.8: Design retention/detention basins to be visually attractive and well integrated with any associated project and with adjacent land uses. • Policy CD-3.9: Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety. • Policy CD-3.10: Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence. • Policy CD-3.14: Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences. • 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. • Goal CD-4: Recognize, preserve, and enhance the aesthetic value of the City's enhanced landscape corridors and scenic corridors. • Policy CD-4.1: Create unifying streetscape elements for enhanced landscape streets, including coordinated streetlights, landscaping, public signage, street furniture, and hardscaping. • Policy CD-4.2: Design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 15 community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance. Public Resources Code Section 21099 pertains to "Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit -Oriented Infill Projects." The Project does not meet any of the criteria of a transit -oriented development. Therefore, the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21099 are not applicable. Less Than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section Potentially Significant Less Than 21099, would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (e.g., development on a scenic hillside). The natural mountainous setting of the Menifee area is critical to its overall visual character and provides a variety of scenic vistas for the community. Topography and a lack of dense vegetation or urban development offer scenic views throughout the City of Menifee (City), including to and from hillside areas. Scenic features include gently sloping alluvial fans, rugged mountains and steep slopes, mountain peaks and ridges, rounded hills with boulder outcrops, farmland and open space. Scenic vistas provide views of these features from public spaces. Many of the scenic resources are outside the City limits. Scenic views from Menifee include the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. Within the Project area, onsite slopes rise toward an isolated hill to the southwest. The highest point of this hill is 1,742 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Project site is relatively flat with an average elevation of 1,488 feet AMSL although slopes begin to rise in the southern portion of the site toward the offsite hill. The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California. Reference Figure 1, Regional Location Map, Figure 2, Vicinity Map, Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses, and Figure 6, Aerial Photo, provided in Section I. of this Initial Study. Also see Site Photos. The Project site is currently vacant except for one rural residence in the southern portion of the property. The site is bordered on the north by a single-family residential neighborhood while the rest of the surrounding land to the east, south, and west is vacant land. This portion of the City is still relatively rural with scattered mixed land uses interspersed with residential subdivisions. The land to the north is an existing lower density suburban residential subdivision (2.1-5 R) and the upland to the southwest is planned as rural residential (RR5). Similar to the land to the north, the land south and further southwest of the site are also planned for lower density residential (2.1-5 R). The R DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 16 land to the east is planned as an Economic Development Corridor -Community Core (EDC-CC) for the City which will eventually result in the addition of commercial uses east of the Project site along the 1-215 Freeway. The proposed Project will incrementally change the visual character of the Project site by adding single family residences which will generally be consistent with the residential subdivision to the north. The proposed Project is located within a rural but slowly suburbanizing area of the City comprised of a mixture of residential, commercial, institutional and light industrial uses, vacant land, and paved surface streets. The site is 0.4-mile west of the 1-214 Freeway and a quarter mile west of Hana Road. The Project site and surrounding land uses have views of various mountains and foothills in all directions. The Project proposes one- and two-story residential buildings that will not substantially block views of surrounding uplands and distant mountains, especially as future residential and commercial land uses are introduced around the Project site. This Project site is not considered to be within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista. Development of the vacant site with the proposed development, parking features, landscaping elements, and temporary drainage facility will have no effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in any impacts to a view of a scenic vista and no mitigation is required. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact Less Than i Potentially Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact There are no officially designated scenic highways in or near the City. State Route 74 (SR-74) passes through the northern part of the City and is considered an "Eligible State Scenic Highway — Not Officially Designated" by the California Department of Transportation. The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City. The nearest designated state scenic highway to the City is a portion of SR-74 in the San Jacinto Mountains about 17 miles east of the City. The Project site is currently vacant except for one rural residence in the southern portion of the property. The site also contains a number of mature trees and landscaping near the existing residence as well as a few trees in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Garbani Road. The site is bordered by a lower density single-family residential neighborhood on the north while the surrounding land to the east, south, and west is vacant. The only prominent visual feature in the immediate area is a low hill that rises offsite to the southwest. There are no rock outcroppings or other visual resources on the Project site although the southwestern portion of the site rises toward a low hill offsite to the southwest. The lower slopes of the hill covered with disturbed native vegetation and the Project site does currently support a number of landscaped trees. According to the GPEIR, implementation of the proposed General Plan would not result in damage to any significant rock outcroppings within a state Scenic highway. The same conclusions would apply to the Project site as well. In addition, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) indicates there are no historic buildings on the Project site. X� DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 17 Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway will occur and no mitigation is required. Less Than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Potentially Significant Significant with Section 21099, would the Project? Impact Mitigation Incorporates c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations _governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact According to Section 5.1.3 of the GPEIR (p. 5.1-10): Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X "Implementation of the proposed General Plan is not expected to degrade views of scenic resources in the City. At full General Plan buildout, development in many parts of the City would intensify urban development in currently undeveloped areas. Portions of the City that are currently vacant land or farmland would be developed with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses." The Project area does have views of uplands outside of the City. Scenic views from Menifee include the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. The Project site is relatively flat although slopes in the southern portion of the site start to rise toward the offsite hill to the southwest. The Project site is currently vacant except for one rural residence in the southern portion of the property. The site also contains a number of mature trees and landscaping near the existing residence as well as a few trees in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Garbani Road. The site is bordered by a lower density single-family residential neighborhood on the north, across Garbani Road, while the surrounding land to the east, south, and west is vacant. Construction of the proposed Project will result in short-term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the area. Construction activities will require the use of equipment and storage of materials within the Project site. However, construction activities are temporary and will cease when construction is finished, so they will not result in any permanent visual impacts. The proposed Project will incrementally change the visual character of the Project site by adding a number of residences, related structures, and landscaping in an area planned for low density residential uses. Views of the Project site are shown in Site Photos. The proposed residential structures will be consistent with the City's design guidelines for the Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) zoning designation (with minimum 7.200 square foot lots) and compatible with neighboring residences to the north across Garbani Road. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 18 The Project is consistent with the General Plan which anticipated residential development of this scale and character in this area. All buildings will be consistent with City design and building height requirements and limitations. The proposed Project will slowly change the visual character of the Project site by adding residential structures and landscaping, however, the development will blend with the characteristics of the adjacent development (both existing to the north and planned to the south and southwest). With incorporation of standard residential design features, the Project will have less than significant impacts on the visual character of the site and its surroundings, will not degrade public views, and will not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. — - — Less Than �— Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section Potentially Significant Less Than No 21099, would the Project? Significant with Significant i Impact Impact Mitigation Impact j Incorporated 1_— d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or ni htg time views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). Construction Currently, the Project site is largely vacant except for the rural residence in the southern portion of the site. This residence and supporting structures have security lighting and there are existing streetlights and vehicle headlights along Garbani Road to the north. A general glow from headlights of traffic along the 1-215 Freeway is also visible to the east. SR-74 to the south and Palomar Road to the east. The residential neighborhood to the north has lighting typical of suburban communities, but there are no residences or lighting adjacent to the site to the east, south, or west. It is anticipated that future residential development will be adjacent to the site to the south while commercial development will eventually be adjacent to the east of the site. The proposed residential use will require additional temporary sources of light and glare during construction activities. These additional artificial light sources are typically associated with security lighting since all exterior construction activities are limited to daylight hours in the City. Workers either arriving to the site before dawn, or leaving the site after dusk, will generate additional construction light sources. These impacts will be temporary, of short -duration, and will cease when Project construction is completed. For these reasons, and because there are limited numbers of construction workers, these impacts are considered less than significant. Occupancy Once residences are constructed there will be lighting sources onsite including free- standing streetlights, light fixtures on residences, vehicle headlights, traffic lights and streetlights. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 19 The proposed Project will require additional outdoor lighting associated with the new residences, streets, and parking areas. The City Municipal Code requires that lighting associated with new development not be directed towards any surrounding uses. Chapter 6.01 of the Menifee Municipal Code (Dark Sky; Light Pollution) indicates that low-pressure sodium lamps are the preferred illuminating source, and all non-exempt outdoor light fixtures shall be shielded. A maximum of 8,100 total lumens per acre or parcel if less than one acre shall be allowed. When lighting is "allowed", it must be fully shielded if feasible and partially shielded in all other cases and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night sky and onto adjacent properties (Section 6.01.040). The Project will be conditioned that, prior to the issuance of building permits, all new construction which introduces light sources be required to have shielding or other light pollution -limiting characteristics such as hood or lumen restrictions. This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The General Plan Community Design Element includes goals that encourage attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community (Goal CD-6) and that limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory (Goal CD-6.5). According to Section 5.1.3 of the GPEIR (p. 5.1-13): "Additionally, all future development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed General Plan would be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations), which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaires. Adherence to County and City regulations and implementation of the policies of the proposed General Plan would ensure that light and glare from new development and redevelopment projects accommodated by the General Plan would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur." The Project site is located approximately 26 miles from the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Lighting for the Project will be required to comply with Menifee Municipal Code Section 6.01 and General Plan goals. Accordingly, the Project will have a less than significant impact on interfering with the nighttime use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. The requirements of GP Goal CD-6.5 would apply to the Project, therefore, the same conclusions reached in the GPEIR would apply to the Project. The Project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Any impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 20 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Source(s): GPEIR (Chapter 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources); Map My County (Appendix A); General Plan; Public Resources Code Section 12220(g); City of Menifee Zoning Map; and City of Menifee Municipal Code. Applicable General Plan Policies: N/A Analysis of Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Would the Project? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Aaencv. to non-aaricultural use? No Impact Potentially Less Than Significant Significant — Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X The California Department of Conservation's (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to track changes in agricultural land use and to help preserve areas of Important Farmland. It divides the state's land into eight categories based on soil quality and existing agricultural uses to produce maps and statistical data. These are used to help preserve productive farmland and to analyze impacts on farmland. Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance are all Important Farmland and are collectively referred to as Important Farmland in this DEIR. The highest rated Important Farmland is Prime Farmland. Farmland maps are updated and released every two years. The Project site has the farmland designations of Local Importance and Other Lands. Therefore, there are no lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance that would be affected by this Project. The existing zoning on the site is Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2), which has a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. The zoning classification was anticipated and analyzed in the GPEIR. The City is focusing on developing land in an economically productive way that will serve the growing population. Thus, Menifee's future development emphasizes mixed -use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable. The residential Project will be economically productive and serve the growing population. No impacts will occur. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 21 Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the Project? Significant Significantwith Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated I Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact No Williamson Act contracts are active for the proposed Project site. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. No impacts will occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the Project? Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact 9 Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10- percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The Project site and surrounding properties are not currently being defined, managed, or used as forest land as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). No impacts will occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the Project? Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion X of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact As discussed in Threshold 2.b, there is no forest land on the Project site. Therefore, there will be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use as a result of the Project. No impacts will occur. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 22 Would the Project? 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? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially I Less Than Less Than Significant SignificantWith Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact R No Impact The proposed Project is residential in nature, the Project site is currently zoned for residential uses, and the site is bounded on the north by developed residential land, on the south by a large residential lot, vacant low -density residential properties to the west, and agricultural land zoned Economic Development Corridor — Community Core (EDC-CC) to the east. The City is focusing on developing land in an economically productive way that will serve the growing population. Thus, Menifee's future development emphasizes mixed -use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable. Therefore, impacts to Farmland will be less than significant. There is no forest land on the Project site. Therefore, the Project will not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 23 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Sources : General Plan; and TTM 37450 Garbani Road Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Technical Memorandum, prepared by Roma Environmental, 9-27-2022 (AQ/GHG Analysis, Appendix B). Applicable General Plan Policies: • Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at.the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter. • Policy OSC-9.1: Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions from construction activities. • Policy OSC-9.2: Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses. • Policy OSC-9.3: Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source. • Policy OSC-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the AQ/GHG Analysis, unless otherwise noted. Would the Project? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant with Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1 Impact U No Impact The Project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and air quality within the Basin in monitored and managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management Agency (SCAQMD). The management of air quality in the Basin is outlined in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQM P) which describes air pollution control strategies to be taken by lead agencies located within region classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with Federal and State air quality standards. CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the most current AQMP (2016). The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 24 (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in the AQ/GHG Analysis, the short- term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. This analysis also found that long-term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Further documentation of these impacts is presented in Threshold 3.b below. Therefore, the proposed Project does not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prepared by SCAG, 2020, includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for ourfuture, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The general plan land use designation for the site is Hillside RR5/R2.1-5 DU/AC. The Project proposes to develop the property (10.27 gross acres and 8.52 net acres) with 33 single-family detached residential dwelling units. This equals 3.2 units/gross acre and 3.9 units/net acre. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would not result in an inconsistency with the land use designation in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project does not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? i b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? � Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant I No Impact Impact X DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 25 Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project is the development of 10.27 gross acres or 8.52 net acres with 33 single-family detached residential dwelling units. The Project is anticipated to be built out in one phase with construction anticipated to begin no sooner than March 2023 and be completed by approximately June 2024. The Project is anticipated to be completely occupied and operational in 2024. Even if construction was to occur any time after the respective dates, the analysis represents "worst -case" since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent The Project will generate air pollutants during both construction (short-term impacts) and occupancy (long-term and cumulative impacts). The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CaIEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air pollutants from the Project. CaIEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria air pollutant emissions. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as emissions from off -site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also helps identify mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. Regional Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO,), sulfur oxides (SOX), large particulate matter —10 micrometers or less (PM,o), and small particulate matter — 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.e). Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities: • Site Preparation; • Grading; • Building Construction; • Paving; • Architectural Coating; and • Construction Workers Commuting. The construction -related maximum criteria pollutant emissions for the construction of the proposed residential project are shown below in Table 3-1, Regional Construction Impacts, which demonstrates that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the SCAQMD's regional emissions thresholds. However, it should be noted the City will require the Project to comply with standard conditions of approval regarding applicable SCAQMD Rules such as Rule 403 which limits fugitive dust (e.g., watering the site twice a day) and Rule 1113 which limits architectural coatings applied to buildings to 50g/L VOC content. These conditions are considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, regional air quality impacts from Project construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 26 Table 3-1 Regional Construction Emissions Construction Activity Maximum Daily Emissions (lbsJday)' _T VOC NOx CO S02 1 PMto PM2.6 Maximum' 27.20 37.40 33.20 0.06 5.45 2.95 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No On -site emissions from equipment operated on -site that is not operated on public roads. On -site grading PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions include watering twice a day for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 fugitive dust. Paving and painting phase may overlap with construction phase. Regional Operational Emissions Occupancy or operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of VOC, NO,, CO, SO, PM1o, and PM25. The operating emissions were based on the year 2024, which is the anticipated opening year for the proposed Project. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: • Mobile Source Emissions; • Area Source Emissions; and • Energy Source Emissions. Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project. The trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (2017) for single family residences. The program then applied the emission factors for each trip provided by the most current Emission Factor (EMFAC2021) model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. Area sources include emissions from hearths, consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on -site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters. The worst -case summer or winter VOC, NO, CO, S02, PM,o, and PM2.5 emissions generated by the proposed Project's long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 3-2, Regional Operational Emissions, which shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, the long-term regional air quality impacts of proposed Project occupancy or operation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 27 Table 3-2 Regional Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)' Activity vOC NO, CO SOz PM10 PMz.s Total 3.15 2.13 13.00 0.03 0.88 0.23 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No Maximum daily emissions during either summer or winter were used; includes both on -site and off -site Project emissions. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact Overview Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, and schools (etc.) . Construction -related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from construction -related fugitive dust and construction equipment/vehicle emissions. As part of the SCAQMD's environmental justice program, attention has been focused on the more localized effects of air quality on sensitive receptors instead of regional impacts on the Basin -wide population. To this end the SCAQMD developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) methodology that can be used by public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts (both short - and long-term) to sensitive receptors. SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the state ambient air quality standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). The Project is located in SRA 24 — Perris Valley. Localized Construction Emissions Localized air quality emissions are analyzed using the SCAQMD's Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold (LST) Look -up Tables which are used to determine whether a project DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 28 may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. To be conservative a disturbance area of 2 acres per day was used for comparison to SCAQMD LSTs. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family detached residential dwelling unit located adjacent to the southern property line of the proposed Project, therefore, the SCAQMD Look- up Tables for 25 meters were used. As shown in Table 3-3, Localized Construction Emissions, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, construction of the Project would have less than significant localized air quality impacts and no mitigation is required. Table 3-3 Localized Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbsJday)' Construction Activity NOx CO i PM10 PM2.5 Grading 37.30 31.40 5.18 2.89 Building Construction 11.80 13.20 0.55 0.51 Paving 7.81 10.00 0.39 0.36 Architectural Coatings 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03 Maximum' 37.30 31.40 5.18 2.89 SCAQMD Construction Threshold' 170 883 7 4 Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No Ualcwated trom UaIEEMod and SCAQMD's Mass Rate Look -up Tables for 2 acres at a distance of 25 meters in SRA 24 Perris Valley. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project include: a single-family detached residential dwelling unit located adjacent to the southern property line of the proposed project. Localized Operational Emissions According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs could apply to the operational phase of a project if it included stationary sources (e.g., flares and turbines) and/or on -site mobile equipment or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods of time idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. However, the proposed Project is residential and does not include such uses. Due to the lack of stationary source emissions or on -site heavy-duty mobile equipment, the SCAQMD LST methodology indicates that no long-term LST analysis for the Project is needed. There would be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. Health Risks from Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are often associated with heavy industrial projects or projects that use a large number of diesel trucks (e.g., warehouses). The proposed Project is entirely residential and does not contain any uses or facilities that would generate TACs or represent DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 29 any significant health risks to residents either on the Project site or in the surrounding area. There would be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The Project is located in Riverside County, CA, which is not among the California counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos during Project construction is small. However, in the event asbestos is found on the site, the Project will be required to comply with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Asbestos Program. An Asbestos NESHAP Notification Form shall be completed and submitted to the California Air Resources Board immediately upon discovery of the contaminant. The Project will be required to follow NESHAP standards for emissions control during site renovation, waste transport and waste disposal. A person or firm certified in asbestos removal procedures will be required to supervise on -site activities. By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the Project impact is less than significant. These regulatory compliance protocols are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Carbon Monoxide "Hot Spots' The significance of localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the Project are above or below federal or state standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of the AAQS. If ambient levels already exceed State or federal standards, project emissions are considered significant if they increase 1- hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. Current CO levels in the SCAB are in attainment of both federal and state standards, and local air quality monitoring data indicates there have not been any localized exceedances of CO over the past three years. Therefore, the Project must not contribute to an exceedance of a federal or state ambient air quality standard. A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above the state one - hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time of the publishing of the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAB was designated nonattainment, and projects were required to perform hot spot analyses to ensure they did not exacerbate an existing problem. Since this time, the SCAB has achieved attainment status and the potential for hot spots caused by vehicular traffic congestion has been greatly reduced. In fact, the SCAQMD AQMP found that peak CO concentrations were primarily the result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not traffic congestion and the 2003 SCAQMD AQMP found that, at four of the busiest intersections in Los Angeles, there were no CO hot spots concentrations. Additionally, based on the results of the traffic study prepared for the City's General Plan Circulation Element, all nearby intersections were shown to operate at level of service D or better so traffic in the Project area would not significantly contribute to the formation of CO Hot Spots in the project vicinity. A project of this size would not generate a significant amount of new traffic so the Project's contributions to CO Hot Spots impacts would be less than significant. For the reasons outlined above, the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Project must follow all SCAQMD rules and requirements with DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 30 regards to fugitive dust control and architectural coatings which are included in the City's standard conditions of approval. Implementation of these conditions is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, localized impacts on sensitive receptors will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? Less Than Significant Impact d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number X of people? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially L Than Significant Significant Impact i With Mitigation No Impact Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are of short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed Project. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the Project and their odors are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the Project site and therefore should not reach objectionable levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. Short- term impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Potential sources that may emit odors during the on -going operations or occupancy of the proposed Project would include odor emissions from the vehicular and equipment emissions, and trash storage areas. The Project will be required to comply with City regulations regarding odor control. Furthermore, due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project site and through compliance with SCAQMD's Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors are anticipated to occur during the on -going operations (i.e., occupancy) of the proposed Project. Considering the low intensity of potential odor and other emissions and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, the Project's construction and occupancy/operational activities would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. No other short- or long-term sources of objectionable odors or other emissions have been identified for the proposed Project. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 31 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Source(s): General Biological Assessment Report for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 360-350- 004 and 005, City of Menifee, prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services, 8-2022 (GBAR, Appendix C); GPEIR (Chapter 5.4, Biological Resources); General Plan; Map My County (Appendix A); Site Photos (Appendix J); Figure 1, Regional Location Map, Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 6, Aerial Photo, all provided in Section I. of this Initial Study; Section 9.200.030 of the Menifee Municipal Code (Tree Preservation Regulations); and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Interactive Maps. Applicable General Plan Policies: • Goal OSC-8: Protected biological resources, especially sensitive and special status wildlife species and their natural habitats. Policy OSC-8.1: Work to implement the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in coordination with the Regional Conservation Authority. • Policy OSC-8.2: Support local and regional efforts to evaluate, acquire, and protect natural habitats for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species occurring in and around the City. • Policy OSC-8.4: Identify and inventory existing natural resources in the City of Menifee. • Policy OSC-8.5: Recognize the impacts new development will have on the City's natural resources and identify ways to reduce these impacts. • Policy OSC-8.8: Implement and follow MSHCP goals and policies when making discretionary actions pursuant to Section 13 of the Implementing Agreement. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special X status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site slopes up to the south with elevations ranging from 1,450 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the north up to 1,542 AMSL in the southwest. The site is vacant and bounded by existing residential uses to the north and vacant lands to the south, east, and west. The Project site is within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted June 17, 2003. According to the GBAR, the Project site is not located within a Cell, a Cell Group, or Sub -Unit of the MSHCP. In addition, the Project site is not located within or along the boundaries of Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) Conserved Lands or MSHCP Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands of the MSHCP. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 32 The Project site consists of approximately 7.6 acres of ruderal or weedy habitat and 0.6 acre of disturbed land, with 1.40 acres of coastal sage scrub in the southwest corner of the site on the upland areas. The GBAR indicated the site contained no biological resources and there was no visible evidence of natural drainage features, vernal pools, or other wetland features on Project site now or in the recent past, based on site reconnaissance and a review of historical aerial photographs. No standing water or other sign of areas that pond water (e.g., depressions, mud cracks, tire ruts, drainages, etc.) were observed on the Project site and there are no features present that would support fairy shrimp or other plant or animal species typical of vernal pools. The surrounding areas (except to the north and immediate southwest) have been under agricultural use for many years and also do not support native vegetation or demonstrable biological resources. No perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were also not found on the Project site (e.g., rivers, open waters, swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, etc.) or in the immediate surrounding area. The GBAR found a total of 53 sensitive species of plants and 61 sensitive wildlife species that have the potential to be present on, or in the vicinity, of the Project site. This includes those listed, or candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). All habitats with the potential to be used by sensitive species were evaluated and a determination was made on the presence or probability of presence of each potential species. The following analysis includes those species listed as Candidate, Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under the state and federal endangered species laws. Sensitive Plants. A total of 19 plant species that are listed as state and/or federally Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species or are 1 B.1 listed plants on the CNPS Rare Plan Inventory have a potential to inhabit the general Project area. After review, the GBAR concluded only the following 3 listed or otherwise sensitive plants had the potential to be present on the site: Jaeger's milk -vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri); Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parry►); and Bottle liverwort (Sphaerocarpos drewei). The GBAR concluded that the site contained no suitable habitat for the remaining 16 plant species. The Jaeger's milk -vetch and Parry's spineflower are covered under the MSHCP so any impacts to these species will be reduced to less than significant levels by payment of the MSHCP impact fee. Payment of this fee is considered regulatory compliance rather than unique mitigation under CEQA. The GBAR originally recommended that a qualified biologist complete a pre- construction survey for the bottle liverwort. However, the habitat for Bottle liverwort is exclusively coastal sage scrub which is only found on the slopes in the southwestern corner of the site. This area was subsequently designated as permanent open space, as shown in TTM 37450, so there will be no impacts to this species and no mitigation is required. Sensitive Wildlife. A total of 15 animal species that are listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species under state and federal Endangered Species laws have a potential to inhabit the general Project area. This includes CDFW California Species of Special Concern. After review, the GBAR concluded only the following 3 listed or otherwise sensitive animals had the potential to be present on the site: Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi); Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas Editha DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 33 quino); and Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica). The GBAR determined that the remaining 12 species was not present and there was no suitable habitat for these species on the site, including several listed species of fairy shrimp and burrowing owl. However, the GBAR did indicate suitable habitat for burrowing owl did exist on adjacent properties. The Stephens' kangaroo rat, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Coastal California gnatcatcher are covered under the MSHCP so any impacts to these species will be reduced to less than significant levels by payment of the MSHCP impact fee. Payment of this fee is considered regulatory compliance rather than unique mitigation under CEQA. The GBAR also concluded the Project site was not within or adjacent to any federal critical habitat for endangered species. The closest critical habitat is spreading navarretia critical habitat located approximately 1.57 miles to the east. There will be no impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. Nesting bird species are protected by California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711), which make it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any migratory bird or bird of prey. The Project site contains shrubs and trees that can support nesting songbirds or raptors during the nesting bird season of February 1 through September 15. Potential impacts to nesting birds may occur if ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal occur during the bird nesting season. Raptors also may occasionally utilize the tress for perching as there is vacant land adjacent to the east, south, and west. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-1 requires a nesting bird survey be conducted prior to any grading or disturbance of the site. Although they were not found onsite at the time of survey, it is also possible that burrowing owl could be present by the time the site is graded since it can rapidly inhabit disturbed sites. The Project site is located within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, so a 30-day preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of project activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding these activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-3 require a burrowing owl survey be conducted prior to any grading or disturbance of the site and specifies what procedures to follow if the species is found onsite at that time. Lastly, the Project site does not contain vernal pools or riparian habitat and would not affect any resources under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so no mitigation is required, and no subsequent jurisdictional permitting is needed. Based on available information, the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 34 Potentially Would the Project? Significant Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact Less Than Significant Less Than with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated X There is no visible evidence of natural drainage features, vernal pools, or other wetland features on Project site now or in the recent past, based on site reconnaissance and a review of historical aerial photographs. There are no other kinds of perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act present on the Project site (e.g., rivers, open waters, swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, etc.). As a result, there is no riparian vegetation or other sensitive habitat either on or adjacent to the site. In addition, the GBAR did not identify any sensitive plant community, sensitive habitat type, or critical habitat on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No impacts will occur, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through X direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States." These waters include wetlands and non -wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria, including a connection to interstate or foreign commerce. This connection may be direct (through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional navigable waters used in interstate or foreign commerce) or it may be indirect (through a connection identified in USACE regulations). The USACE typically regulates as non -wetland waters of the U.S. any body of water displaying an ordinary high-water mark. In order to be considered a jurisdictional wetland under Section 404, an area must possess hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The CDFW, under Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code, regulates alterations to lakes, rivers, and streams. A stream is defined by the presence DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 35 of a channel bed and banks, and at least an occasional flow of water. The CDFW also regulates habitat associated with the streambed, such as wetland, riparian shrub, and woodlands. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for the administration of Section 401 of the CWA, through water quality certification of any activity that may result in a discharge to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The RWQCB may also regulate discharges to "waters of the State," including wetlands, under the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. There is no visible evidence of natural drainage features, vernal pools, or other wetland features on Project site now or in the recent past, based on site reconnaissance and a review of historical aerial photographs. Other kinds of perennial or seasonal aquatic features that could be classified as federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are also not present on the Project site (e.g., rivers, open waters, swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, etc.). Therefore, implementation of the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impacts will occur, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed previously, the Project site contains no drainage or water features, so it supports no fish species. According to the GBAR and the MSHCP, the site also does not contain any wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites, nor does the immediate surrounding area. Nesting bird species are protected by California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and by the MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703-711), which make it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any migratory bird or bird of prey. The Project site, and areas in the immediate vicinity of the Project contains trees, shrubs, and grasslands that provide suitable nesting habitat for a number of migratory bird species known to nest in the general Project area. Impacts to nesting bird species must be avoided at all times. The period from approximately 15 February to 31 August is the expected breeding season for bird species occurring in the Project area, including raptors. Under Mitigation Measure MM- BI0-1, if Project activity or vegetation removal must be initiated during the breeding season, a qualified biologist must check for nesting birds within three days prior to such activity. If active bird nests are found, avoidance buffers of 1,000 feet for large birds of prey, 500 feet for small birds of prey, and 250 feet for songbirds, decided by CDFW on DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 36 a case -by -case basis, will need to be observed and implemented. In addition, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-2 and MM-13I0-3 are recommended to conduct a 30-day pre - construction survey for burrowing owl. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation, impacts to nesting birds will be less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree X reservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site contains no oak or native trees although there are a number of landscaped trees in the southern pare located on the Project site. To reduce any potential impacts from tree removal to less than significant, the Project shall comply with the Tree Preservation Regulations found in Section 9.200.030 of the Menifee Municipal Code as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-4. Therefore, the proposed Project will comply with, and not conflict with, any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incoraorated f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated According to the final Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP adopted June 17, 2003), the Project site is not located within a Cell, a Cell Group, or Sub -Unit of the MSHCP. In addition, the Project site is not located within or along the boundaries of the Western Riverside County RCA Conserved Lands or MSHCP Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands. The discussion under sub -section 4.a above, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the MSHCP and does not require any special studies. The Project site is not located within an area that has been identified in the MSHCP where conservation potentially needs to occur. A Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) Application will not be required by the City of Menifee Community Development Department pursuant to the MSHCP and the City's General Plan. Conservation has not been described for the Project site. The Project is consistent with Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP. In addition, the Project site contains no drainage features, jurisdictional drainages, vernal pools, riparian/riverine areas, wetlands, ponds or other features that DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 37 would fall under MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools). The site has been disturbed for many years and there is no potential for listed or otherwise sensitive or protected plant species to be present as discussed in Section 11.a. Therefore, the Project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species) and is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area. The Project site is also not located at an Urban/Wldlands Interface, so MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wldlands Interface) does not apply to this site. The Project will implement standard measures to reduce the potential of adverse effects from drainage, toxics, etc. with the implementation of the SWPPP, and WQMP. These standard conditions are applicable to all development; therefore, they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Section 11.a concluded pre -construction nesting bird and burrowing owl surveys were necessary to assure there would be no impacts to these species (Mitigation Measures MM-1131O-1 through MM-113I0-3). Based on Figures 6-2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Areas), 6-3 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas), 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas), and 6-5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas) of the MSHCP, the Project site is not located in an area where any other additional surveys are needed for certain species in conjunction with MSHCP implementation in order to achieve coverage for these species. Also, the Project site is not located in a Special Linkage Area. As outlined in Section 6 of the MSHCP, "Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 are intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP pursuant to agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP." The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee has been established to provide mitigation for biological impacts from projects within the MSHCP area. All building permit applicants may pay their Western Riverside County MSHCP mitigation fees at any time after having an approved land development permit for the City of Menifee Planning Division (ex: conditional use permit, public use permit, plot plan) and have also paid for building permit plan review or permit fees. Payment of this fee is a standard condition and considered regulatory compliance, so it is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The proposed Project is located within the boundary of the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the endangered Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) implemented by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The SKR HCP mitigates impacts from development on the SKR by establishing a network of preserves and a system for managing and monitoring them. The proposed Project is located within the SKR HCP area and will be required to comply with applicable provisions of this plan, specifically, payment of fees. Payment of this fee is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. In conclusion, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable sections of the MSHCP. Adherence to standard conditions and implementation of Mitigation Measures DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 38 MM-13I0-1 through MM-13I0-3, ensure consistency with the MSHCP. Thus, the proposed Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with adherence to standard conditions and mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds. Any development activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) within the project site shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through February 15). This will avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. The nest surveys shall include the project site and adjacent areas where project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February through August for raptors and March through August for songbirds), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey results shall be provided to the City's Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following: Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization efforts. 2. Pre -activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are found to be present, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Menifee and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Measures shall include immediate establishment of an appropriate buffer zone to be established by a qualified biologist, and approved by the City of Menifee, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines nesting species have fledged and the nest is no longer active, or the nest has failed. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 39 project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., juveniles are surviving independent of the nest). The onsite qualified biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting avoidance buffers and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. MM-BIO-2 Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl: To avoid project -related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the project site, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to determine the presence of own or sign thereof. The results shall be submitted to the City Planning Department. If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If burrowing owls are found to be present, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Menifee and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sign is present that the burrows are being used by adult or juvenile owls or following CDFW approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan as described below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The onsite qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (March 2012) and the MSHCP. The qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan to be approved by the City, CDFW and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available for nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 40 shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. If burrowing owls are observed within Project Site(s) during project implementation and construction, the Project Applicant shall notify CDFW immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activity shall continue within 1,000 feet of the burrowing owls until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan. If ground -disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted and submitted to the City for review. If a burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above shall be necessary. A final letter report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation. The letter shall be submitted to CSFW prior to the start of Project activities. MM-13I0-3 Owl Monitoring. If BUOW and/or active nests are detected in areas within the Project area where Project -related construction activities could have an indirect impact, a qualified biological monitor shall be onsite during construction activities to monitor bird behavior to ensure no negative effects occur from Project -related construction activities, and to ensure that construction activities do not enter the no disturbance buffer(s). The biological monitor will have the authority to cease Project - related construction activities if indirect impacts are observed. MM-BIO-4 Tree Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any site disturbance or demolition, the applicant shall retain a certified arborist to conduct a tree survey of the Project site and comply with the "Tree Preservation Regulations" found in Section 9.200.030 of the Menifee Municipal Code. The applicant shall preserve in place or relocate appropriately healthy native species to the extent practical (i.e., the larger the tree, the more preservation in place shall be considered). Existing healthy trees with a 6-inch or larger trunk diameter measured at 4 feet from the surrounding grade shall be replaced at a three -to -one ratio if removed, in addition to any other new tree installation required. Existing healthy trees with a 6- inch or larger trunk diameter measure at 4 feet from the surrounding grade which are retained onsite can be credited toward the Projects tree installation requirements at a one -to -two ratio (one tree saved equals a two -tree credit toward the required installation of new trees). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 41 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Sources : Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 360-350-004 and -005, City of Menifee, prepared by CRM TECH, 7-26-2022 (HARS, Appendix D): Map My County (Appendix A). 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 archaeological, 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 archaeological, historic, and cultural sites, following CEQA and NEPA procedure. Please note that this Section primarily addresses historical, archaeological, and cultural resources not associated with tribal cultural resources. For a comprehensive discussion on tribal cultural resources, please refer to Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study. Analysis of Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Less Than T Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to X 15064.5? No Impact The "historic period" in California began in 1769 when a Spanish expedition from Mexico founded Mission San Diego. The first European explorers in the Project area were Pedro Fages and Juan Bautista de Anza who traveled through the Perris and San Jacinto Valleys as early as 1772-1774. Due to its isolation, Europeans did not settle in the Perris Valley until the beginning of the 19th century. The valley was under the control of Mission San Luis Rey which was established in 1798 near Oceanside. After secularization of the missions in the 1830s, the Mexican government failed to issue any large land grants in southwestern Riverside County and the area remained public land when the U.S. annexed California in 1848. Around 1880, S. Menifee Wilson located a gold quartz mine about eight miles south of present-day Perris and named it the Menifee Quartz Lode. The area around the mine thus came to be known as the Menifee Valley. By the time Riverside County was created in 1893, Menifee had become an important grain- and hay -growing area. Menifee continued as a farming and mining community well into the 20th century. In recent DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 42 decades residential and commercial development has become the driving force in regional growth. In October 2008, Menifee incorporated as the 26th city in Riverside County. According to Eastern Information Center (EIC) records, the Project area had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and no resources had been recorded on or adjacent to the property. Outside the Project boundaries but within a one -mile radius of the site, EIC records show more than 60 previous cultural resources studies on various tracts of land and linear features, including an adjacent parcel to the east and other nearby properties to the north. Approximately 70 percent of the land within the one -mile radius has been surveyed. The EIC search identified 28 historical/archaeological sites and two isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts) in this area. Twenty-two of the known sites and both of the isolates were of prehistoric (i.e., Native American) origin. The other six previously recorded sites dated to the historic period and included residential buildings, structural remains, and refuse scatters. The HARS indicated that none of these known cultural resources were located in the immediate vicinity of the Project area and thus none of them required any specific treatment related to development of this site. Although the land to the north has been developed as a residential subdivision, the Project site and much of the surrounding flatter land was used for agriculture or grazing throughout much of the 20th century. Between 1967 and 1978, four buildings were built on the western and southern edges of the property evidently as part of a ranch complex. Over the next three decades a number of corrals, other small structures, and terraces on the hillside to the southwest were added on the property. By 2009, most of these features had been removed, leaving only the four original buildings. In 2012-2013, these buildings were also removed, and the entire site has remained vacant since that time. According to Public Resources Code (PRC) §5020.10), "`historical resource" includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term "historical resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)- (3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that "generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be `historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 43 According to the HARS, the site currently contains no buildings or facilities that would satisfy any of the criteria for a historic resource defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project site is also not listed with the State Office of Historic Preservation or the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the proposed significance of a historical no mitigation is required. Would the Project? Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the resource pursuant to § 15064.5. No impacts will occur and b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated X Human occupation in what is now the State of California began 8,000 to 12,000 years ago and long predated European contact, including in the Project area. The Perris Valley has long been a part of the homelands of the Luiseno Indians, a Takic-speaking people whose territory extended from present-day Riverside to Escondido and Oceanside. The name of the group derives from Mission San Luis Rey which held jurisdiction over most of the traditional Luiseno territory during the Spanish mission period. Luiseno history, as recorded in traditional songs, tells the creation story from the birth of the first people, the kaamalam, to the sickness, death, and cremation of Wiyoot, the most powerful and wise one, at Lake Elsinore. According to available research, each Luiseno lineage possessed a permanent base camp or village on the valley floor and another in the mountain regions for acorn collection. Luiseno villages were made up of family members and relatives, where chiefs of the village inherited their rank, and each village owned its own land. Villages were usually located in sheltered canyons or near year-round sources of freshwater, always near subsistence resources. When Spanish colonization of Alta California began in 1769, the Luiseno had approximately 50 active villages with an average population of 200 each. Some of the villages were forcefully moved to the Spanish missions, while others were largely left intact. Ultimately, Luiseno population declined rapidly after European contact because of diseases and harsh living conditions at the missions. After the American annexation of Alta California, almost all of the remaining Luiseno villages were displaced and their occupants eventually removed to the various reservations. Today, the nearest Native American groups of Luiseno heritage live on the Soboba, Pechanga, and Pala Indian Reservations. According to EIC records, the Project area had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and no resources had been recorded on or adjacent to the property. Outside the Project boundaries but within a one -mile radius of the site, EIC records show more than 60 previous cultural resources studies on various tracts of land and linear features, including an adjacent parcel to the east and other nearby properties to the north. Approximately 70 percent of the land within the one -mile radius has been surveyed. The EIC search identified 28 historical/archaeological sites and two isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts) in this area. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 44 Twenty-two of the known sites and both of the isolates were of prehistoric (i.e., Native American) origin. The majority of the sites, numbering 16 in total, consisted primarily of bedrock milling features, the most common type of prehistoric sites in western Riverside County. Other sites included various habitation remains, ranging from apparent village sites to a temporary campsite and a possible house pit. The nearest of these sites were located roughly 0.5-mile in all four directions from the project site, including a group of habitation sites clustered around another hill to the north. The two isolates, consisting of a mano, a mano fragment, and crystal quartz lithic tool, were located much closer to the Project location, both found a few hundred feet to the northwest. The HARS concluded there is no evidence to suggest any potential "historical resources" or "tribal cultural resources" are located within or adjacent to the Project site. The ground surface in the entire Project area has been disturbed in the past by various human activities including farming, ranching, and vehicles. Some modern refuse was observed on the property, but none of the items was of any cultural interest. Although the HARS indicated no archaeological resources were observed onsite, there is evidence of prehistoric activities in the surrounding area. Local Native American tribal representatives have also indicated they consider the entire region to be sensitive for finding tribal resources or archaeological artifacts. The following standard City Conditions of Approval (COAs) are applied to all projects to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources that may be accidentally encountered during Project implementation to a less than significant level: COA - Inadvertent Archaeological Finds. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). i. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. ii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources. iii. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed. iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 45 re -burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non -Disclosure of Reburial Condition. v. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. vi. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archaeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council." COA - Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department: i. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. COA - Archaeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 46 The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include: a. Project grading and development scheduling; b. The Project archaeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as -needed basis; c. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. COA - Native American Monitoring (Soboba). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on - site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above -mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 47 COA - Archaeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archaeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre -grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s). Furthermore, General Plan policies are in place to preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulations or policies which may be adopted by the City (OCS- 5.1). For these reasons, the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5. With implementation of the standard City COA, impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact _ Incorporated X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact Because the Project site has been previously disturbed, no human remains, or cemeteries, are anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed Project. However, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains located below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction excavations associated with the proposed Project. It is also possible to encounter buried human remains during construction given the proven prehistoric occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological resources within one mile of the Project site, and the favorable natural conditions that would have attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the area. The following City Standard COAs are applied to all projects to reduce potential impacts to previously unknown human remains that may be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation to a less than significant level: COA - Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 48 the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. COA - Non -Disclosure of Reburials Location. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). These COAs are supported by Health and Safety Code § 7050.5. These COAs are considered regulatory compliance and not project -specific mitigation under CEQA. With compliance with the above -referenced state law and standard conditions, potential impacts related to the discovery of human remains will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 49 6. ENERGY. Source(s): General Plan; GPEIR (Chapter 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems); TTM 37450 Garbani Road Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Technical Memorandum, prepared by Roma Environmental, 9-27- 2022 (AQ/GHG Analysis, Appendix B). 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. • Policy OSC-4.3: Advocate for cost-effective and reliable production and delivery of electrical power to residents and businesses throughout the community. • 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. Analysis of Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the AQ/GHG Analysis, unless otherwise noted. Less Than Potentially Significant Would the Project? Significant with Impact Mitigation a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, durina oroiect construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact Overview Less Than Significant No Impact Impact There are many different types and sources of energy produced and consumed in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) categorizes energy by primary DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 50 and secondary sources, renewable and nonrenewable sources, and by the different types of fossil fuels. Primary energy is captured directly from natural resources and includes fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewable sources of energy. Electricity is a secondary energy source that results from the transformation of primary energy sources. A renewable energy source includes solar energy from the sun, geothermal energy from heat inside the earth, wind energy, biomass from plants, and hydropower from flowing water. Nonrenewable energy sources include petroleum products, hydrocarbon gas liquids, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources formed by organic matter over millions of years and include oil, coal and natural gas. The EIA defines the five energy consuming sectors within the United States as follows: • Industrial Sector: Includes facilities and equipment used for manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and construction. • Transportation Sector: Includes vehicles that transport people or goods, such as cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, trains, aircraft, boats, barges, and ships. • Residential Sector: Includes homes and apartments. • Commercial Sector: Includes offices, malls, stores, schools, hospitals, hotels, warehouses, restaurants, and places of worship and public assembly. • Electric Power Sector: Consumes primary energy to generate most of the electricity the other four sectors consume. Energy sources are measured in different physical units: liquid fuels are measured in barrels or gallons, natural gas in cubic feet, coal in short tons, and electricity in kilowatts and kilowatt- hours. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is commonly used for comparing different types of energy to each other. According to the EIA, the three (3) main types of energy expected to be consumed by the Project include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. Energy usage for the proposed Project was calculated as part of the AQ/GHG Analysis. The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CaIEEMod) was used to calculate energy usage from Project construction and operational activities. Electricity Consumption The Project will use electricity for many different operational activities including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, electronics, mechanical equipment, electric vehicle charging, and parking lot lighting. Indirect electricity usage is also required to supply, distribute, and treat water and wastewater for the Project. Electricity will be provided through Southern California Edison. According to the AQ/GHG Analysis, the Project's estimated annual operational electricity consumption is 308,195 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year). In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 8,015 million kWh of electricity. Temporary electricity usage for construction activities may include lighting, electric equipment and mobile office uses. According to the AQ/GHG Analysis, the Project's estimated electricity consumption during construction is 18,164 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year). Natural Gas Consumption The Project will use natural gas for building heating and cooling, cooking and kitchen appliances and water heating. Natural gas is not expected to be used during construction DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 51 in any significant quantities and is not included in the overall calculation of the Project's natural gas consumption. According to the AQ/GHG Analysis, the Project's estimated annual operational natural gas consumption is 1,173,622 thousand British Thermal Units per year (kBtu/year). The estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 1,173,622 kBTU per year. In 2020, the non-residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 135 million therms of gas so the increase in natural gas demand from the proposed Project is insignificant compared to the County's 2020 non- residential sector demand. Petroleum Consumption The Project's energy consumption from petroleum products is primarily associated with transportation related activities. This includes gasoline and diesel fuel used for auto and truck trips and off -road equipment during construction and operation and off -road equipment usage during construction. 1. Construction Construction of the Project is estimated last approximately 16 months and includes site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Construction activities will consume energy in the form of motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel) for off -road construction equipment and on -road vehicle trips. Vehicle trips include workers and vendors traveling to and from the job -site. Onsite grading is expected to be balanced onsite so no hauling of soil on or off the site is anticipated. The AQ/GHG Analysis estimates the Project's energy consumption for all off -road equipment during construction is 43,704 gallons of diesel fuel while worker trips to and from the site during construction would consume an additional 3,289 gallons of fuel (mainly gasoline). The worker travel estimate is based on a total of 83,664 vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Finally, the AQ/GHG Analysis estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and application of architectural coatings would be 1,548 gallons of fuel based on an estimated 10,802 VMT. 2. Operation The Project is expected to consume energy from the generation of operational auto and truck trips based on the proposed residential land use. Vehicle trips are associated with workers, customers and vendors/non-workers (i.e., delivery, service and maintenance vehicles, etc.) traveling to and from the site. The AQ/GHG Analysis indicate the Project will generate a total of 5,470 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Based on an overall average fleet fuel consumption rate of 18.5 miles per gallon, the Project would consume a total of 76,680 gallons of vehicle fuel per year (both gasoline and diesel). This amount of vehicular fuel represents a total of 38,612.34 million Btu per year consumed during Project operation. This estimate assumes the Project "fleet" would be comprised of 10 percent vehicles that consume diesel fuel and 90 percent vehicles that consume gasoline fuel. It also assumes one gallon of gasoline fuel equals 120,429 Btu and one gallon of diesel fuel equals 137,381 Btu. Total Project EnerpV Consumption The Project's total energy consumption is calculated at approximately 40,900 MBtu and shown in Table 6-1, Total Project Energy Consumption. Total Project energy consumption includes electricity, natural gas and petroleum usage during both construction and operation. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 52 Table 6-1 Total Project Energy Consumption Activity Initial Energy Estimate Total Annual Energy Consumption (MBtu)' Construction 6,004.10 Off -Road Equipment 43,704 gal diesel On -Road Vehicle Trips 3,289 gal gasoline 396.09 Vender Hauling Trips 1,548 gal gasoline 186.42 Electricity Use 18,164 kWh 61.98 Operational Electricity 308,195 kWh/year 1,051.56 Natural Gas 1,173,622 kBtu/year 1,173.60 Petroleum 76,680 gal diesel and gasoline 32,025.73 TOTAL 40,899.48 MBtu = Millions of Btu kWh = kilo -Watt hours k = thousand gal = gallons Gasoline = 120,429 Btu/gal Diesel = 137,381 Btu/gal Electricity = 3,412 Btu/kWh Assumes all construction activity will occur within a one-year timespan. The AQ/GHG Analysis observed that trip generation and VMT generated by the proposed Project are consistent with other similar residential uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected respectively in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. That demonstrates the proposed Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Furthermore, the State of California consumed approximately 4.2 billion gallons of diesel and 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015. Therefore, the increase in fuel consumption from the proposed Project is insignificant in comparison to the State's overall energy demand. Therefore, Project's transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. The Project will be required to comply with the mandatory requirements of California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and Green Building Standards (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11). California's building energy efficiency standards are some of the strictest in the nation and the Project's compliance with California's building code will ensure that wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy is minimized. The building standards code is designed to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat or cool a building, reduce energy usage for lighting and appliances and promote usage of energy from renewable sources. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with standard conditions and will not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Potentially Would the Project? Significant Impact b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Less Than with Significant Mitigation Impact Q No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 53 Less Than Significant Impact Regarding federal transportation regulations, the Project site is located in an already developed area and access to/from the Project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place so the Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed in the Project area. Regarding the State's Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the Project developer will be required to comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy efficient buildings and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company. Regarding Pavley (AB 1493) regulations, an individual project does not have the ability to comply or conflict with these regulations because they are intended for agencies and their adoption of procedures and protocols for reporting and certifying GHG emission reductions from mobile sources. However, the vehicles associated with the proposed Project would be required to comply with federal and state fuel efficiency standards. Regarding the State's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CALGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant -emitting finish materials. Additionally, the 2022 solar mandate requires installation of solar panels on new single-family homes and multi -family homes up to three stories high. The Project will purchase electricity through Southern California Edison which is subject to the requirements of California Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) which is the most stringent and current energy legislation in California; requiring that renewable energy resources and zero - carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end -use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Any impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitiaation Measur No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 54 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Sources : Map My County (Appendix A); Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development Tract Map No. 31831, Menifee, California, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 12-12-2017 (2017 Geo Report, Appendix E1); Geotechnical Update, Proposed Residential Development Tract Map No. 31831, Menifee, California, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 8-17-2022 (2022 Geo Report, Appendix E2); General Plan; and GPEIR (Chapter 5.6, Geology and Soils). 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 Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact p Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact p No Impact a.i) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault X Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the or based on other substantial evidence of a ,area known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact Although the Project site is located in seismically active Southern California, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Table 1 in the 2017 Geo Report indicates the nearest active faults are the Temecula Branch of the Elsinore Fault (7.3 miles southwest) and the San Jacinto fault (15 miles northeast) of the Project site. Based on this information, implementation of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Any impacts associated with rupture of a fault would be less than significant. DEV2021-009 I TTM 37450 Page 55 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p a.ii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of X loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project would be subject to ground shaking impacts should a major earthquake in the area occur. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage. The Project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking as are virtually all properties in Southern California. The 2022 Geo Report indicated the site would have a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.594 from regional faulting (MCEG) and is in seismic design category D. The Project shall be subject to the seismic design criteria of the most recent edition of the California Building Code (CBC) as adopted by the City of Menifee. This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The 2016 CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volume 2) contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. A design earthquake is one with a two percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, or an average return period of 2,475 years. Adherence to these requirements would reduce the potential of the structure from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements would minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Relevant CBC seismic design parameters for the Project site are set forth in the Geo Report and the Project shall comply with recommendations listed in the Geo Report to address strong seismic ground shaking and how it will reduce exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With adherence to standard conditions, implementation of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a.iii) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of X loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 56 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in -situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. The current standard of practice, as outlined in the "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" and "Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California" requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium -grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction. According to Map My County, the Project site is in a "low" liquefaction hazard zone. This indicates that the area has not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions do not indicate potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code § 2693(c) would be required. Furthermore, the 2022 Geo Report concluded the proposed structures will be supported by compacted fill and competent alluvium. Finally, page 3 of the 2017 Geo Report stated that "groundwater was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of 16 feet below ground surface." Due to the presence of shallow seated bedrock, they concluded that "groundwater will not be a factor in the construction of the proposed project'. As such, the potential for earthquake -induced liquefaction and lateral spreading beneath the proposed structures is considered very low to remote due to the underlying geologic conditions, recommended compacted fill, lack of underlying groundwater, and the dense nature of the onsite earth materials. Based on the above, implementation of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Any impacts would be less than significant. Would the Project? a.iv) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of I� oss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p X The Project site is located along the south side of Garbani Road at Sherman Road in the southern portion of the City of Menifee, California. The Project site slopes down to the north with a minimum elevation of approximately 1,488 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and a maximum elevation of approximately 1,584 feet AMSL. There is a relatively steep slope in the southwest corner of the site at the foot of a prominent local knoll southwest of the Project site. The slope area on the Project site occupies 0.6-acre and will be set aside as permanent open space (Lot A, see Figure 5, Site Plan, provided DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 57 in Section I of this IS). Therefore, landslides are not a design consideration. As depicted on Figure 7-1, Surrounding Topography, there are no other steep slopes within a one - quarter mile radius of the Project site. Therefore, implementation the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Based on the proposed design of the Project, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 58 rn LO aD rn m a O LO v M M H C) 0 0 N O W 0 Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province (Province). Geologic units within the Province consist of granitic and metamorphic bedrock highlands and deep and broad alluvium filled valleys. Specifically, the site is located on an old alluvial fan emanating from the surrounding Lakeview Mountains. The 2017 Geo Report indicates the site is underlain by old alluvial fan deposits (Qof) and monzogranite to granodiorite (Kpvg) bedrock. The old alluvial fan deposits were found beneath undocumented artificial to the full depth of the onsite exploration. These alluvial materials were predominately interlayered reddish brown to dark brown, fine to coarse grained clayey sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and occasional poorly graded sand. The 2017 Geo Report stated these deposits were in a dry to moist, medium dense to very dense state. The Project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion will be minimized through mandated soil stabilization measures by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion will be prevented through the City's standard, mandated, erosion control practices required pursuant to the CBC and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, or sandbags. Following the proposed Project construction phase, the Project site would be covered completely by paving, structures, and landscaping. These requirements are standard conditions and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and standard conditions. Would the Project? 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? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact _ f, Incorporated l Impact X No Impact Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed in Thresholds 7.a.iii, and 7.a.iv. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 60 to generally take place toward a free face (i.e., retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope. It should be noted that Map My County indicates the site is susceptible to subsidence. However, the 2017 and 2022 Geo Reports indicate that onsite geologic and soil limitations can be accommodated by the construction techniques recommended in the reports. As discussed in 7.a.ii, the Project would be required to comply with standard conditions and the recommendations of the 2017 and 2022 Geo Reports in terms of soil constraints. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Any impacts would be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1997), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact The 2017 Geo Report stated that because of the presence of relatively loose and potentially expansive near surface soil and shallow bedrock, remedial grading within the proposed building areas was recommended that included over -excavation and/or re - compaction of the artificial fill soil and the primary foundation bearing soil and/or bedrock. The 2017 and 2022 Geo Reports set forth special design considerations to minimize potential impacts from the onsite soils that have expansion potential. These recommendations include but are not limited to, replacing the existing undocumented fill materials with engineered fill, specifications for depth and extent of the engineered fill, and specifications for engineered/import fill materials. The site preparation methods recommended in the 2017 and 2022 Geo Reports adequately address potential impacts related to expansive soils and no mitigation measures are required. With adherence to the recommendations of the Geo Reports, any impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the Project? Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water X disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 61 The Project proposes to connect to the existing Eastern Municipal Water District sewer system and will not require the use of septic tanks or leach fields. This threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. There would be no impact. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the Project? Significant Significant with Mitigation Significant li No Impact � Impact Impact Incorporated f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact X The Project site is mapped as a "High B" sensitivity area which means it has a high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Map My County states the site's "sensitivity is equivalent to High A but is 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". Areas classified as high sensitivity may contain buried paleontological deposits at or below 4 feet of depth and may be impacted during construction. It is possible that potentially significant prehistoric remains could be found, since buried fossils often go undetected during a walkover survey. Prehistoric remains may have been buried by erosional sediments accumulating in this area and masked by existing pavement. A Project -specific Paleontological Resources Assessment Report (PRAP) has not been submitted for review as of the date of this Initial Study. Since the Project site is mapped in the County's General Plan as having a high potential for paleontological resources (fossils), the proposed Project site grading/earthmoving activities would need to be monitored for potential impacts to this resource and, therefore, the Project will include a standard condition to prepare a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prior to grading permit issuance and a monitoring program prior to issuance of the final grading permit. The Project shall be required to retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City. The paleontologist will participate in a pre -construction Project meeting and monitor earthmoving activities as well as provide guidance for instances where fossil remains are found and requires that the paleontologist prepare a report of findings during all site grading activity with an appended itemized list of fossil specimens recovered during grading (if any). This is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. With implementation of standard conditions including preparation and implementation of a PRIMP, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 62 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Sources : General Plan; and TTM 37450 Garbani Road Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Analysis Technical Memorandum, prepared by Roma Environmental, 9-27-2022(AQ/GHG Analysis, Appendix B). 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. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the AQ/GHG Analysis, unless otherwise noted. Would the Project? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact Overview and Thresholds Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated - I - X No Impact Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for the Project were analyzed in the AQ/GHG Analysis to determine if the Project could have an impact related to GHG emissions. These impacts are analyzed on a cumulative basis, utilizing Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), measured in metric tons (MT) or MTCO2e. They were analyzed for both the construction and operational phases of the Project. The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CaIEEMod) was used to calculate GHG pollutants from the Project. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria and GHG air pollutant emissions. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as emissions from off -site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 63 and/or removal, and water use. The model also helps identify mitigation measures to reduce criteria and GHG pollutant emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) describes a five -tiered approach for determining GHG Significance Thresholds. The City of Menifee utilizes the Tier 3 Thresholds which consist of screening values that are intended to capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from projects. If a project's emissions are under the screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant. SCAQMD has presented two options that lead agencies could choose for screening values. Option #1 sets the thresholds for residential projects to 3,500 MTCO2e/year, commercial projects to 1,400 MTCO2e/year), and the mixed use to 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Option #2 sets a single numerical threshold for all non -industrial projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. The current staff recommendation is to use option #2 but allows lead agencies to choose option #1 if they prefer. Regardless of which option a lead agency chooses to follow, it is recommended that the same option is consistently uses for all projects. Table 8-1, SCAQMD Tier 3 GHG Screening Values, shows the screening levels described in option #2, which has been used previously in the City of Menifee. The City of Menifee uses Option #2 (3,000 MTCO2/year for all non -industrial projects). Table 8-1 SCAQMD Tier 3 GHG Screening Values Land Use Screening Value Industrial Projects 10,000 MTCO2eNear Residential/Commercial Projects 3,000 MTCO2eNear If its GHG emissions are less than the SCAQMD GHG thresholds of significance, a project is considered to have less than significant GHG emissions under CEQA and is in compliance with the applicable State GHG legislation. The City of Menifee has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to GHG emissions. A screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e 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 City of Menifee and numerous cities in the South Coast Air Basin and is based on the SCAQMD staffs 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. The SCAQMD's draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. Construction GHG Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on -site and off -site construction activity using the most current version of the California Emissions Estimator Model® (CaIEEMod 2022.1). Table 8-2, Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions, shows the construction greenhouse gas emissions, including equipment and worker vehicle emissions for all phases DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 64 of construction. Construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and added to the long- term operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations. Table 8-2 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2021 Emissions (MTCOze)' Total COz Total CH, Total N20 T Total 15.80 0.16 0.02 15.87 M I UU2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydroflurocarbons). The emissions are averaged over 30 years and added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations. Evaluation of the table above indicates that an estimated 15.87 MTCO2E will occur from Project construction equipment over the course of the estimated construction period. The SCAQMD GHG Threshold Guidance document recommends that construction emissions be amortized for a project lifetime of 30 years to ensure that GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational reduction strategies. Therefore, the total GHG emissions from Project construction were amortized and are included in Table 8- 3, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Operational GHG Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on -site and off -site operational activity using CalEEMod. Operational emissions associated with the Project would include GHG emissions from the following sources: • Mobile sources (transportation); • Energy (electricity and natural gas); • Water use and treatment; and • Solid Waste disposal. Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed Project. The vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed based on CalEEMod defaults. The CalEEMod program then applies the emission factors for each trip which is provided by the EMFAC2021 model to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on - site. Water use and treatment includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. Solid waste disposal includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the proposed Project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on -site and off -site operational activity using CalEEMod. Greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, area sources and energy sources are shown in Table 8-3, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 65 Table 8-3 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)l All Sources 522.00 15.87 537.87 Construction (amortized over 30 years) Total Annual Emissions SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening Threshold2 3,000.00 Exceed Tier 3 Threshold? No ' MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 2 Per South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008 The analysis compares the Project's GHG emissions to the SCAQMD's Tier 3 approach, which limits GHG emissions to 3,000 MTCO2e. As shown in Table 8-3, Project GHG emissions are expected to 537.87 MTCO2e which is well below the 3,000 MTCO2e SCAQMD threshold. In addition, the Project must follow all standard SCAQMD rules and requirements which are standard conditions. Compliance with these conditions is considered a standard requirement and included as part of the Project's design features, not unique mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, the Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required Would the Project? Potentially Significant Impact b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Significant Less Than with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact ncoroorated Q The Project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning requirements for this site. Additionally, the Project will comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 1 of the California Building Standards Code and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project will be consistent with all the applicable plans, policies and regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG gases. In addition, the SCAQMD's Tier 3 thresholds used Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening levels outlined in Threshold 8.a above. The California Governor issued Executive Order S-3-05, GHG Emission, in June 2005, which established the following reduction targets: • 2010: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels • 2020: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels • 2050: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 66 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which was phased in starting in 2012. Therefore, as the Project's emissions meet the threshold for compliance with Executive Order S-3-05, the project's emissions also comply with the goals of AB 32. Additionally, as the project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD, the Project would also be on track to meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB 32. Furthermore, the majority of post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the Project will be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 67 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Sources : Map My County (Appendix A); Figure 3, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Figure 6, Aerial Photo, provided in Section I of this Initial Study; Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Residential Development SWC Sherman Road and Garbani Road, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 9-15-2022 (Phase 1 ESA, Appendix F); General Plan; GPEIR (Chapter 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials); Menifee Union School District website; Perris Union High School District website; Fire Protection Technical Memorandum, Garbani Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Dudek, 5-10-2023 (Fire Memo, Appendix M); and Google Maps. Applicable General Plan Policies: • Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. • Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. • Policy S-4.2: Ensure to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the city. • Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. • Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials contamination. • 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 Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Would the Project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or dis osal of hazardous materials? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated X DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 68 Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project could result in a significant hazard to the public if the Project includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The Project consists of the development of 33 single-family residential homes. The operation of such uses would not involve the use of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Household cleaning supplies would be used in small quantities to support the townhouses. Compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations governing the storage and use of hazardous materials is required and will ensure that the Project operates in a manner that poses no substantial hazards to the public or the environment. The Project site is situated approximately a half -mile to the west of Interstate-215 (1-215). The Project site is located at the southwest corner of Garbani Road and the southern extension of Montague Court / Sherman Road in the south-central portion of the City of Menifee. The Project site consists of two Assessor's parcels comprised of 10.3 acres of land area. The Project site is bordered on the north by Garbani Road, beyond which is an existing residential development which is designated Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) (7,200 s.f. minimum lot size), on the south by house on a large residential lot zoned LDR-2, on the west by undeveloped properties designated as LDR-2 and Rural Residential, 5 acre minimum lot size (RR5), and on the east by undeveloped lands designated for Economic Development Corridor -Community Core (EDC- CC). The proposed Project would not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications. The Project does not propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as part of the planned commercial use. During construction, there would be the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, based on the above, because the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials pertaining to the proposed Project would be relatively minor and subject to extensive regulatory oversight, the impact would be less than significant. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport and use of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. I T Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated i b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 69 Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. The Project site is currently undeveloped. There would be no impacts related to the demolition of structures with asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. Therefore, the potential for the Project to 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 would be relatively low. According to the Phase I ESA, the Project site and surrounding area were historically used for agricultural (dry -farming) purposes from the late-1930's to the mid 2010's. By 1978, a farmhouse and related outbuildings (barns, storage sheds, etc.) were constructed. All of these structures were removed by 2016. Currently, the property is regularly maintained through weed abatement. Environmentally persistent pesticides commonly applied prior to the 1980s can linger in the soil for many years. It is not known if environmentally persistent pesticides were applied at the Project site. However, dry farming activities typically use the least amount and variety of agricultural chemicals compared to more intensive farming activities. Based upon the length of time that has elapsed since agricultural usage has occurred, it is unlikely the potential former usage of pesticides has significantly impaired the Project site or would require remedial actions. As such, any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The potential still exists for an unseen event to occur during both the construction and operation phases. Please reference the discussion set forth in Threshold 9.a, as it pertains to gas stations. With adherence to existing local, state and federal regulations, as they pertain to the treatment of hazardous materials, 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. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I ncoroorated 1� X The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Menifee Union School District (MUSD) for elementary and middle school, and Perris Unified High School District (PUHSD) for high school. Existing schools closest to the Project site are shown in Table 9-1, Existing Schools Closest to Project Site. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 70 Table 9-1 Existing Schools Closest to Project Site School Facility Proximity to Project Site _ Chester Morrison Elementary School t1.7 miles west-northwest Evans Ranch Elementary School t1.7 miles northwest Oak Meadows Elementary School t2.1 mile east Menifee Valley Middle School t1 mile west Paloma Valley High School t.7 miles northwest Source: Google Maps As shown above, Paloma Valley High School is the closest school facility, situated approximately 0.7 mile to the northwest of the Project site. No other elementary, middle, or high schools exist, or are proposed, within one -quarter mile of the Project site. As discussed in Thresholds 9.a and Threshold 9.b, the potential exists for the proposed Project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; and/or, 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 during both construction and operations. However, routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be employed in conjunction with implementation of the proposed Project. With adherence to existing local, state and federal regulations, as they pertain to the treatment of hazardous materials, 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. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 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? No Impact The proposed Project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. According to information compiled from governmental databases, the Project site is not: Listed as a hazardous waste and Control (DTSC); Listed as a leaking underground Control Board (SWRCB); substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources R DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 71 • Listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB; • Currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB; or • Developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC. Reference Figure 9-1, GeoTracker and Figure 9-2, EnviroStor. Based on the above information, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 72 � ) t { A , �z � ! .—e .! O 4> O�- G . Z/ 'a ! . !, k O� / k �■ O / ) § O � \ � k 'oloaq.. 0' � Cl) CL Z a L T XQ� _ 2 F 4 3 4NY9aMrO Ave N N San JxInlo Ave 1 0 6 A c � rQ g " 3 c . v sl.le st N stme St Sv"n RTg F u ?y: S 3 0 � i I � 0 v a u N N r U oUo Z I li in > in W' rn o as z W��' ®®� ®� ❑ ' 00O O.L. �I C T Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact _ Incorporated 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, X would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact The entire Project site is not located in any airport compatibility zone for any local airport. The closest airport to the Project site is the French Valley Airport 5.6 miles to the southeast. There would be no impact from airport hazards or noise. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact The Project proposes to develop a residential community. Primary and secondary access to the Project site would be provided along a proposed loop internal street connecting to Sherman Road. A limited potential exists for the Project to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Construction work in the street associated with the Project would be minimal. It is noted that utility lateral connections are already in -place. The minimal impact is associated with the proposed plan to widen the main intersection of Garbani Road with the future Sherman Road, which would have a nominal potential traffic diversion. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan. The traffic control plan (TCP) is designed to alleviate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as was prior to the proposed Project. All Project elements, including landscaping, will be located with sufficient clearance from the proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. The proposed Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Menifee Municipal Code. The proposed Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 75 Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. r Would the Project? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incor orated X Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The proposed Project is located within a small isolated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone and a Local Responsibility Area mainly due to the vegetated knoll to the southwest of the site. A Fire Protection Technical Memorandum (Fire Memo) was prepared for the Project in May 2023 which identifies a series of Fire Safety Zones that generally cover the area south of Garbani Road, west of Sherman Road, north of Wickerd Road, and east of Evans Road. The Fire Memo addresses the increased fire risk represented by the vegetated hill with steep slopes on the west side of the Project. The Project will incorporate the various physical and operational design items recommended in the Fire Memo to protect future Project residents and residences. For example, the Project has incorporated a variable width irrigated fuel modification zone (FMZ 1) up to 100 feet wide on its south, west and southwest boundaries. All FMZs will be irrigated and managed/maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The Fire Memo requires a number of design features such as: • Six -foot -tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) "fire" walls along the entire property line; • Windows on exposed sides of structures with less than 100 feet of Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) shall be dual tempered panes exceeding Chapter 7A requirements of dual pane, one pane tempered; Walls will have added treatment for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19 that are adjacent to off -site areas with unmaintained fuels (southwest and west); and • Irrigated landscaping in the rear yards of lots 7 through 19. Additionally, all new housing associated with this subdivision shall be required to comply with Section 701.A.3 of the California Building Code, which governs building materials, and systems and/or assemblies used in exterior design of buildings located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Chapter 7A of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), the 2022 edition of the California Residential Code (CRC) Section R337, and those standards specifically amended by the City of Menifee. Mitigation Measures MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 (from Section 20.b of this Initial Study) are proposed to assure the Project implements the design recommendations of the Fire Memo. Reference Figure 9-3, Fuel Modification Zones. The proposed Project has been reviewed, and conditions of approval have been issued to address any potential impacts to Fire Resources, consistent with the Fire Hazards section of the Safety Element of the General Plan. As part of the Project approval(s), standard conditions are assessed on the proposed Project to reduce impacts from the proposed Project to fire services. Prior to final map recordation, prior to grading permit issuance, prior to building permit issuance, and prior to building final inspection, the Project will need to demonstrate compliance with the General Plan as well as with the current building code. Adherence to the other fire protection regulatory compliance are typically standard conditions of approval and are not considered unique mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Wth the incorporation of the recommendations of the Fire Memo as incorporated into Mitigation Measures MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 and DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 76 application of the appropriate sections of the Building Code, potential impacts from wildland fire hazards are less than significant. Mitigation Measures (repeated from Section 20, Wildfire) MM-WILD-1: Site Plan Requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate the site plan includes the following design requirements consistent with the Fire Memo review of the Project site plan: • The site has two points of access with adequate separation to Sherman Road. • Sherman Road shall be upgraded to CFC fire apparatus access standards including surface, width, and load bearing capabilities. • All on -site roads comply with fire apparatus access requirements. • Roadway widths/turn radii shall meet fire department minimum requirements with no dead-end roadways. • Six -foot -tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) "fire" walls along the entire perimeter property line; • Windows on exposed sides of structures with less than 100 feet of Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) shall be dual tempered panes exceeding Chapter 7A requirements of dual pane, one pane tempered; • Walls will have added treatment for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19 that are adjacent to off -site areas with unmaintained fuels (i.e., southwest and west); • Irrigated landscaping in the rear yards of lots 7 through 19; and • An NFPA 13D sprinkler system shall be installed in all homes with water to be supplied by EMWD. • Access roads (including weight support and Opticom signalization), driveways, gates, Knox boxes will all be installed to comply with current codes/standards. MM-WILD-2: Fire Protection Design. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable design and operational recommendations presented in the approved Fire Protection Technical Memorandum, Garbani Project, City ofMenifee, prepared by Dudek and dated 5-10-2023 with any subsequent revisions and additions adopted by the City. Required measures include but are not limited to the following: The site shall have a series of irrigated fuel modification zones (FMZ) in the rear yards of residential lots along the west and south sides of the Project, the side yards of residential lots along Sherman Road, and the common Lot D. The FMZs shall consist of irrigated, low fuel plant materials with regular maintenance. See Attachment 1 (Fuel Modification Plan) in the Fire Memo for FMZ details. • The FMZs shall be delineated in a The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) that shall be submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department (RVCFD) for review and approval. The FMZs shall include: DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 77 o Zone 0 - The area within five feet of structures to be maintained as an ember resistant zone and include gravel, pavers, concrete or other noncombustible materials (no combustible bark or mulch). 0 20 to 36-foot-wide onsite irrigated FMZ is proposed in the rear yards on the western boundary (future ROW to include paved roadway); a 30-foot wide offsite equivalent FMZ (existing condition) occurs adjacent to these lots; a 6-foot-tall masonry wall will be provided around the entire project; it will provide mitigation for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19. 0 56 to 58-foot-wide onsite irrigated FMZ is proposed in the rear yards on the southern boundary. 0 100-foot-wide combination onsite FMZ and adjacent paved ROW FMZ equivalent on the eastern boundary (47- to-49-foot wide onsite FMZ and paved roadway; 44-foot-wide existing dirt road offsite (future paved street). MM-WILD-3: Homeowners Association (HOA) Requirements. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate that the developer covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&R) contain the following requirements. • Up to 100-foot wide maintained FMZ proposed on common Lot D; HOA maintenance shall be provided. • Common area vegetation management conducted by the HOA is identified on the Fuel Modification Plan; area shall be maintained and irrigated. • Fuel Modification areas maintained by individual homeowners are identified on the Fuel Modification Plan. Mulch shall not be placed in backyards unless irrigated and no closer than 5 inches from the house. • Fuel modification areas must be maintained at least once annually and additionally as needed to ensure compliance with maintenance requirements. All fuel modification areas are to be kept free of invasive plants and any volunteer native shrubs. Weeds are to be maintained less than four inches in height. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Development Director or their designee. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 78 N C C G C L �V E 'dp6� O t y g' y c :% a �n O T. o T aEi cf" — ro y Q_ O N T ;(� Q t c ru ro 0 ip U3 oy ai 52 A c ._ ._ G41 o Or O O 'g o aci E cOi 5 0 w a — 8+ c O '.. N 1 W N -� 1 ar IL C Y O G m N Es 5 Q d t a A c A - c y — A a m m A a '� P: a,3 w 0 LZ pC w C!) .Q] $ m '� L� y E. E r� r nVi Q y v >` 0> O n A o 3 5 o to c VZ c c' .o N g w O O w a d O I L O O E ►L u- c0 -i w p-q 5 J u 0 ? ® 13 0 I LL- nr t�7 J �L W Z O N M Z � o LLl Q LPL LL F3 O J LLl n LL :APA .. 5 x 0 c a) n n Q 0 E m m LL ai U 7 0 rn rl- 0) m IL O In M rn O O N O CN LU 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Sources : Preliminary Hydrology Report, Garbani South (TTM 37450) DEV2021-009), prepared by Ventura Engineering Inland Inc., 8-16-2022 (Drainage Report, Appendix G1); Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Garbani South (TTM 37450) DEV2021- 009), prepared by Ventura Engineering Inland Inc., 8-16-2022 (WQMP, Appendix G2); SAN 53 — Will Serve — WS 20210001479 - APN. 360-350-004 & 360-350-005, prepared by EMWD, 12-14-2021 (Will Serve Appendix K); Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Tract Map No. 31831, City of Menifee, prepared by Sladden Engineering, 12-12-2017 (Geotech Report, Appendix Ell); 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Eastern Municipal Water District; Metropolitan Water District 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP); 2019 Sewer System Management Plan, EMWD; and Project Plans (Appendix L). Applicable General Plan Policies: Safety Element • Goal S-3: A community that is minimally disrupted by flooding and inundation hazards. Open Space and Conservation (OSC) Element • Policy OSC-7.9: Ensure that high quality potable water resources continue to be available by managing stormwater runoff, wellhead protection, and other sources of pollutants. Policy OSC-7.10: Preserve natural floodplains, including Salt Creek, Ethanac Wash, Paloma Wash, and Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate water percolation, replenishment of the natural aquifer, proper drainage, and prevention of flood damage. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Less Than Potentially Significant ess Than FS Would the Project? Significant with ignificant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially X degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the framework for regulating municipal storm water discharges (construction and operational impacts) via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A project would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the Project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable NPDES storm water permit or Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body. Relative to this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the Project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharge into storm water drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the Project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Water Quality DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 80 Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce potential post -construction water quality impacts. A WQMP and a Drainage Report were prepared for the proposed Project. On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) issued the 4th-term area wide NPDES and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit) to the City of Menifee and other applicable Permittees. All new development in the City is required to comply with provisions of the NPDES program, including Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and the City's Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4), Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES Permit No. CAS618036, as enforced by the SARWQCB. All design submittals and construction projects are required to conform to the permit requirements. Furthermore, all projects are required to install Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the 2010 SARWQCB permit. According to the WQMP, the Project site and the City of Menifee is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed. The watershed covers approximately 2,800 square miles with about 700 miles of rivers and major tributaries. More specifically, the Project site is located within Reach 4 of the Santa Ana River Watershed and the San Jacinto Valley Sub -Watershed. Runoff from the Project site would flow into Canyon Lake (Railroad Canyon Reservoir) and finally Lake Elsinore far downstream of the site. During flooding and heavy storms, Lake Elsinore drainage overflows into the Temescal Wash via Temescal Creek (portion of the Elsinore Sub -Watershed) which extends north/northwest to its confluence with the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam. Table 10-1, Downstream Receiving Bodies, shows the three water bodies downstream of the Project site and their water quality restrictions under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303 (d) — Impaired Receiving Waters. The designated beneficial uses of these waterways are part of the Santa Ana River Basin Plan which protects regional water quality. Table 10-1 Downstream Receiving Bodies Receiving Waters U.S. EPA Approved CWA 303 d List Impairments Designated' Beneficial Uses Canyon Lake Pathogens, Nutrients MUN-AGR-GWR-REC1- REC2-WARM-WILD Lake Elsinore Nutrients, PCBs, Organic REC-1-REC2-WARM-WILD Enrichment/ Dissolved Oxygen, Sediment Toxicity, Unknown Toxicity AuK=agncunure, uvvK=groundwater recnarge, Mule=municipal water supply, KEG-1=contact recreation, REC-2=non-contact recreation, WARM --warm freshwater habitat, WILD=wildlife The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan), last updated in February 2016, establishes water quality standards for groundwater and surface water in the basin, and standards for both beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the water quality levels that must be maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing actions by the Santa Ana RWQCB and others needed to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The Santa Ana RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region's groundwater and surface waters. The Basin Plan lists water quality problems for the region along with their causes where they are known. Plans for improving water quality are included for water bodies with quality below the levels needed to enable all the beneficial uses of the water. At present, the Project site is vacant and possesses a 100 percent pervious earthen surface. There are no on -site drainage improvements, and the existing site drainage pattern is to the west and northwest. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 81 The proposed Project is the development of 10.27 gross acres with 33 single-family detached residential dwelling units. The site is located at the southwest corner of Garbani Road and Sherman Road. The Project is anticipated to be built out in one phase and to be completely occupied in 2024. The site has been designed to drain to the northeast corner of the property into an infiltration basin ("Lot B") that will provide water quality and storm water management for the development. The basin has been designed based on the site -specific infiltration testing results outlined in the Drainage Report. The infiltration basin has been sized to accommodate surface runoff within the Project site under post -development conditions as outlined in the Project Drainage Report and WQMP. Construction Impacts The Project site clearing and grading phases would disturb surface soils along with a modest amount of low lying vegetation, potentially resulting in erosion and sedimentation. If left exposed and with no vegetative cover, the Project site's bare soil would be subject to wind and water erosion. Three general sources of potential short-term, construction -related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth -moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or disturbance by mechanical equipment. Since the Project involves more than one acre of ground disturbance, it is subject to NPDES permit requirements for the preparation and implementation of a project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to NPDES permit requirements and the measures established in the SWPPP are routine actions conditioned by the City and would ensure applicable water quality standards are appropriately maintained during construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. The WQMP also indicates the Project will be covered by the Statewide Construction General Permit. Based on Project design and regulatory compliance, construction -related water quality impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operational Impacts Development of the proposed residential Project would substantially increase the impervious area of the 10.6-acre site by replacing vacant land with associated residences, paved streets, driveways, landscaping, and an onsite infiltration basin as the primary Best Management Practice (BMP) recommended in the WQMP. Landscaping of front and back yards will contain various trees, shrubs, and ground covers. The site currently has 98% pervious surfaces and the WQMP indicates the site will have approximately 50% pervious (5.3 acres) and 50% impervious (5.3 acres) surfaces when completed. Based on Project design and regulatory compliance, water quality impacts related to Project operation are less than significant and no mitigation is required Conclusion The proposed Project development plan has been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Menifee Engineering Department and Building & Safety Department, among others, to reduce any potential impacts as listed above through site design. Since the Project involves more than one acre of ground disturbance, it is subject to NPDES permit requirements for the preparation and implementation of a project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to NPDES permit requirements and the measures established in the DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 82 SWPPP are routine actions conditioned by the City and will ensure applicable water quality standards are appropriately maintained during construction of the proposed Project. In addition, the Project has prepared a WQMP pursuant to the requirements of the NPDES. The SWPPP and WQMP are standard conditions of the City and are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. At Project completion, the Project site will be covered mainly by private residences and streets an onsite infiltration basin, and landscaping. The Drainage Report and WQMP demonstrate that the Project will not contribute to erosion, siltation, or other water pollutants to downstream drainages. Therefore, the proposed Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required Would the Project? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) provides water to the Project site. EMWD is a public water agency formed in 1950 and annexed into the service area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) in 1951. It is currently one of MWD's 26 member agencies and presently operates its water supply system under a system permit issued by the California Department of Public Health. Presently, EMWD has four sources of water supply: 1) Potable groundwater; 2) Desalinated groundwater; 3) Recycled water; and 4) Imported water from MWD. According to 2020 figures, imported water accounts for approximately 46% of the total water supply, while local potable groundwater accounts for approximately 12%, desalted groundwater was approximately 6%, and recycled water is approximately 36%. There is no direct evidence of depth to groundwater on the site or in the surrounding area, although the original Geotech Report indicates that groundwater was not found to a depth of 16 feet during onsite borings. The Project would be supplied with water by EMWD which uses imported water from MWD, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet its customer demands. Using imported surface water helps prevent overdraft of local groundwater basins. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site (medium density residential). The EMWD's 2020 UWMP was based on the land uses of the City's General Plan, so the UWMP accounts for future growth like the proposed Project. The anticipated available water supply within EMWD's retail service area is anticipated to be greater than the demand for water in the future, which indicates that EMWD has available capacity to serve the proposed Project without significant adverse impacts on area groundwater basins. A groundwater recharge/storage program within the San Jacinto Basin has been developed by EMWD. It was concluded that the average percolation rate in these basins is 6.30 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 83 feet/day and it was determined that imported water can be successfully stored seasonally. As stated above, local potable groundwater accounted for approximately 12% of the EMWD water supply in 2020, desalted groundwater was approximately 6%, and recycled water was approximately 36%. Most of the remaining water demands are met with imported water purchased from MWD. According to the 2020 RUWMP, over 90% of the groundwater used in Metropolitan's service area is produced from adjudicated or managed groundwater basins. The Project proposes to change the runoff characteristics of the site from 98% pervious to 50% pervious surfaces so less natural runoff would percolate back into the ground. However, the Project includes an infiltration basin which will allow onsite runoff to percolate back into the ground. Thus, no component of the proposed Project will deplete groundwater supplies beyond identified and planned capacities. The Project design, as depicted on the Project plans and Project -specific WQMP, will allow for water to percolate back into the ground and allow for continued local groundwater recharge. This will offset any impacts from the other non -pervious elements contained in the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Any impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. j Less Than Potentially I Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c.i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of X impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact Please reference the discussion set forth in Threshold 10.b, relative to the Project design which will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area. The existing onsite drainage is via sheetflow to the north and northeast and the Project will install an infiltration basin in the northeast corner of the site to collect runoff and provide passive water quality treatment and detention/infiltration. There are no natural streams, rivers or discernable drainage features within, contiguous to, or adjacent to the Project site although there is a man-made shallow drainage channel along the south side of Garbani Road just east of the northeast corner of the Project site that would allow for overflow of the onsite basin if needed. Development of the proposed residential Project would substantially increase the impervious area of the 10.6-acre site by replacing vacant land with associated residences, paved streets, driveways, landscaping, and an onsite infiltration basin. Landscaping of front and back yards will contain various trees, shrubs, and ground covers. The site currently has 980% pervious surfaces and the WQMP indicates the site will have approximately 50% pervious (5.3 acres) and 50% impervious (5.3 acres) surfaces when completed. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 84 As set forth in the Project Drainage Report, the ten-year storm runoff (Q10) for the existing site is estimated to be 48.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the post -development Q,o runoff would be 37.5 cfs (-10.6 cfs). Similarly, the 100-year storm runoff (Q,00) for the existing site is estimated to be 74.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the post -development Q,00 runoff would be 58.0 cfs (-16.5 cfs). The post -development runoff will be accommodated in the onsite infiltration basin (Lot B in the northeast corner of the site) so there will be no net increase in offsite downstream runoff as a result of the proposed Project. The SWPPP and the WQMP will address and control potential erosion both in the short-term during construction and over the long-term during Project occupancy. The proposed Project is not anticipated to significantly change the volume of flows downstream of the Project site and would not be anticipated to change the amount of surface water in any water body in an amount that could initiate a new cycle of erosion or sedimentation downstream of the Project site. Surface runoff will be discharged in conformance with Riverside County and City of Menifee requirements. The downstream drainage system will not need to be altered given the control of future surface runoff from the Project site. Implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP will ensure that the post -Project development of the site will not cause or result in substantial on- or off -site erosion or siltation. Any impacts will be less than significant, and with regulatory compliance, no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c.ii) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would X substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? Less Than Significant Impact The Drainage Report estimates the ten-year storm runoff (Q,o) for the existing site is 48.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the post -development Q,o runoff would be 37.5 cfs (-10.6 cfs). Similarly, the 100-year storm runoff (Q,00) for the existing site is estimated to be 74.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) while the post -development Q,00 runoff would be 58.0 cfs (-16.5 cfs). The post development runoff will be accommodated in the onsite underground infiltration chambers so there will be no net increase in offsite downstream runoff as a result of the proposed Project. Also, according to the WQMP, the design capture volume of the proposed infiltration basin is 10,786 cubic feet with a depth of 0.6 inches and the proposed volume of the basin is 36,000 cubic feet. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) program and FIRMETTE' website, the Project site and immediate surrounding area are designated as FEMA Flood Zone X (FIRM Map Panel 06065C2070H dated 8/18/2014. This zone is defined as "Areas of 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas I https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=city%20of°/`20menifee%2C%20CA DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 85 of 1-percent-annual-chance (base flood) sheet flow flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot, areas of base flood stream flooding with a contributing drainage area of less than 1 square mile or areas protected from the base flood by levees." This zone is considered to have a low to moderate risk of flooding. The proposed Project will not alter the existing drainage pattern onsite (i.e., to the north- northeast) but will maintain the existing offsite downstream drainage system through control of future discharges from the site through the infiltration basin which would prevent flooding onsite or offsite from occurring. The onsite drainage system will capture the incremental increase in runoff from the Project site associated with Project development. Surface runoff will be discharged in conformance with Riverside County and City of Menifee requirements and as described in the WQMP. Thus, the implementation of onsite drainage improvements and applicable requirements included in the WQMP, and the Drainage Report will ensure that stormwater runoff will not substantially increase the rate or volume of runoff in a manner that would result in substantial flooding on- or off -site. Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant with no mitigation required. With implementation of the infiltration basin as part of the Project design, impacts related to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in on- or off -site flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c.iii) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create X or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed Project will alter the site such that stormwater runoff will be increased but will not impact the existing off -site downstream drainage system through control of future discharges from the site. The planned system of drainage improvements and the infiltration basin will prevent runoff from the site from exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and from providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Drainage Report and WQMP determined the planned infiltration basin will capture and pre -treat all runoff from the site. This system is designed to capture the flows above the peak 100-year flow runoff from the Project site without development or otherwise be detained on site and discharged in conformance with Riverside County requirements. Without improvements, Project runoff may contain varying amounts of urban pollutants such as motor oil, antifreeze, gasoline, pesticides, detergents, trash, animal wastes, and fertilizers, could be introduced into downstream stormwater. However, the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate discharges that would require pollution controls beyond those already designed into the DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 86 Project and/or required by the City as a standard operating procedure to meet water quality management requirements from the RWQCB. The City and County have adopted stringent best management practices designed to control discharge of non -point source pollution that could result in a significant adverse impact to surface water quality. The City has identified BMPs that when implemented, can ensure that neither significant erosion and sedimentation, nor other water quality degrading impacts will occur as a result of developing the Project. Compliance will also be ensured through fulfilling the requirements of a SWPPP and WQMP monitored by the City and the RWQCB. The SWPPP and WQMP must incorporate the BMPs that meet the City's performance standards for both construction and occupancy stages of the Project. Thus, the implementation of onsite drainage improvements and applicable requirements will ensure that that drainage and stormwater will not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned offsite stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Any impacts would be less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c.iv) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact R, According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) program and FIRMETTE2 website, the Project site and immediate surrounding area are designated as FEMA Flood Zone X (FIRM Map Panel 06065C2070H dated 8/18/2014. This zone is defined as "Areas of 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance (base flood) sheet flow flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot, areas of base flood stream flooding with a contributing drainage area of less than 1 square mile or areas protected from the base flood by levees." This zone is considered to have a low to moderate risk of flooding. Due to the small size of the site (10.6 acres) and scale of the planned improvements (1- and 2-story residences), development of this site is not anticipated to redirect or impede flood flows across the Project site, particularly given that surface flows on site will be directed to the onsite drainage features which will be capable of intercepting the peak 100-year flow 2 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=city%20of%2Omenifee%2C°/o20CA DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 87 rate from the Project site or otherwise be detained on site and discharged in conformance with City and Riverside County requirements. With adherence to the Project WQMP, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 1 No Impact X As discussed above, the Project site is located within Zone X which represents an area not subject to flooding under 100-year project storm conditions. The Project site is located over 40 miles from the nearest coastline (Pacific Ocean) and at an elevation of 1,496 feet above sea level. Therefore, the risk to the site associated with tsunamis is minimal. Similarly, the Project site is not located adjacent to or downstream of an impounded body of water that could fail and result in flooding of the Project site. Therefore, the site would not be subject to impacts by dam failure or seiches (standing waves in enclosed water bodies), therefore, the risk of seiche impacting the proposed Project is minimal. Based on the above, the risk of pollutant release, due to Project inundation caused by a flood, tsunami, or seiche is minimal and less than significant impacts are anticipated. Would the Project? I e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact X The Project WQMP has been prepared specifically to comply with the requirements of the City of Menifee and the County of Riverside for Ordinance No. 754.2 which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a project -specific WQMP to address long-term water quality impacts. The Project must also provide a SWPPP to address potential surface water impacts during construction. The Project site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed, within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, where discharges from Riverside County's Phase I MS4s are regulated through the Riverside County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033 NPDES No. CAS618033, as amended by Order No. R8-2013-0024) pursuant to section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water Act. No Impact No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 88 The proposed residential Project site overlies the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin3 which is considered high priority by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and Department of Water Resources (DWR). However, the basin is not considered to be critically overdrafted and is currently being managed by the Hemet -San Jacinto Watermaster which was formed in 2013. A Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is required to be developed for this basin by 2022 and implemented by 2042. The GSP will document basin conditions and basin management will be based on measurable objectives and minimum thresholds defined to prevent significant and unreasonable impacts to the sustainability indicators defined in the GSP. Water consumption and effects in nearby basins indicate that the proposed Project's water demand is considered to be less than significant. By controlling water quality during construction and operations through implementation of both short- (SWPPP) and long- (WQMP) term best management practices at the site, no potential for conflict or obstruction of the Regional Board's water quality control plan has been identified. The Project WQMP has been prepared specifically to comply with the requirements of the City and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a WQMP. Implementation of the provisions of the WQMP will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with Riverside County's Municipal Storm Water Management Program and the intent of the NPDES Permit for Riverside County and the incorporated cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana Region. The Project site is located in the Santa Ana Region Watershed, within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Board, where discharges from the City of Menifee/Riverside County's Phase I MS4s are regulated through the MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036 NPDES Permit No. CAS618036), pursuant to Section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water Act. With adherence to, and implementation of the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the WQMP, the Project site development plan will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 3 https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 89 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Sources : Map My County, (Appendix A); Project Plans (Appendix L); Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses, and Figure 6, Aerial Photo; Figure 3, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Figure 4, Zoning Classifications, provided in Section I. of this Initial Study; and General 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. • 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-1.9: Allow for flexible development standards provided that the potential benefits and merit of projects can be balanced with potential impacts. • 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-3: A mix of land uses that generates a fiscal balance to support and enhance the community's quality of life. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Would the Project? a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact The Project site is relatively flat although elevations begin to rise toward a prominent knoll to the southwest. The surrounding land to the south and east and further to the west is also relatively flat. An existing residential subdivision is located to the north across Garbani Road. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site (see Section 11.b). In addition, the Project does not propose construction of any roadway, permanent flood control channel, or other structure that will physically divide any portion of the community. No impacts will occur. X DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 90 WOL �b)C a cc or rE Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than dd the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated :ause a significant environmental impact due to inflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, :gulation of an agency with jurisdiction adopted X for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact The Project site is located on the southwest corner of Sherman Road and Garbani Road and is currently vacant. The site is bordered on the north by Garbani Road and an existing residential development which is designated Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) which as a minimum 7,200 square foot lot size. The site is bordered on the south by a house on a large residential lot zoned LDR-2, on the west by undeveloped properties designated as LDR-2 and Rural Residential, 5-acre minimum lot size (RR5), and on the east by undeveloped lands designated for Economic Development Corridor -Community Core (EDC-CC). The existing General Plan land use designation for almost the entire site is 2.1-5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R) although the far southwest corner of the site is designated Rural Residential 5-acre min (RR5). The existing zoning on the site is LDR-2 and RR5 similar to the areas described for the General Plan designations. The Project proposes no changes to the General Plan or zoning designations on the site and the southwest corner of the site designated as RR5 will remain as permanent open space. The Project proposes TTM 37450 which is a Schedule `A' Residential Subdivision with 33 residential lots on 10.27 gross acres or 3.2 units per gross acre with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. The overall land use and lot sizes are consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations. As proposed, the Project is consistent with the land use development limits of the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning as well as the General Plan goals and policies applicable to residential development. Other elements of the City's General Plan also contain goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed Project which are evaluated in the individual sections of this Initial Study where applicable. The City, through exercising its independent review, has determined that the proposed Project would be consistent with these applicable policies in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Project will not result in a land use significant environmental and use impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 91 12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Sources : General Plan; GPEIR (Chapter 5.11, Mineral Resources); and Map My County (Appendix A). 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. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Would the Project? Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? No Impact The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project provides information about California's non -fuel mineral resources. The Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the state that contain regionally significant mineral resources, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. Non -fuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt and dimension stone, and construction aggregate, including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. Development generally results in a demand for minerals, especially construction aggregate. Urban preemption of prime deposits and conflicts between mining and other uses throughout California led to passage of the SMARA, which requires all cities and counties to incorporate in their general plans the mapped designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. The classification process involves the determination of Production -Consumption (P-C) Region boundaries, based on identification of active aggregate operations (Production) and the market area served (Consumption). The P-C regional boundaries are modified to include only those portions of the region that are urbanized or urbanizing and are classified for their aggregate content. An aggregate appraisal further evaluates the presence or absence of significant sand, gravel, or stone deposits that are suitable sources of aggregate. The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the state and the local governments. It is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources area as one of the four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs), Scientific Resource Zones (SZ), or Identified Resource Areas (IRAs), described below: MRZ-1: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. MRZ-2: A Mineral Resource Zone where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or a likelihood of their presence and development should be controlled. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 92 • MRZ-3: A Mineral Resource Zone where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. • MRZ-4: A Mineral Resource Zone where there is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation. • SZ Areas: Containing unique or rare occurrences of rocks, minerals, or fossils that are of outstanding scientific significance shall be classified in this zone. • IRA Areas: County or State Division of Mines and Geology Identified Areas where adequate production and information indicates that significant minerals are present. As part of the classification process, an analysis of site -specific conditions is utilized to calculate the total volume of aggregates within individually identified Resource Sectors. Resource Sectors are those MRZ-2 areas identified as having regional or statewide significance. Anticipated aggregate demand in the P-C Regions for the next 50 years is then estimated and compared to the total volume of aggregate reserves identified within the P-C Region. The City of Menifee is in the San Bernardino P-C Region, in which aggregate mineral resource zones were last mapped by the California Geological Survey in 2008. The following MRZs are mapped in the City of Menifee (reference Figure 5.11-1, Mineral Resource Zones of the GPEIR). MRZ-1: 308 acres in northwest part of City near the northwest corner of Sun City. MRZ-3: 22,017 acres, almost three-quarters of the City. Most of the eastern, southern, and northwestern parts of the City are designated MRZ-3. Urban Area: 7,488 acres consisting of most of the central and north -central and parts of the western portion of the City. Urban areas are not defined as mineral resource zones because mining in these areas is already precluded by urban development. As stated in the GPEIR, no known significant mineral resources have been designated in the City of Menifee. The Project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3. The Project site is located on the southwest corner of Sherman Road and Garbani Road in the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California. The Project site is bordered on the north by Garbani Road, beyond which is an existing residential development which is designated Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) (7,200 s.f. minimum lot size), on the south by house on a large residential lot zoned LDR-2, on the west by undeveloped properties designated as LDR-2 and Rural Residential, 5 acre minimum lot size (RR5), and on the east by undeveloped lands designated for Economic Development Corridor -Community Core (EDC-CC). There are no mineral extraction or process facilities on or near the site. No mineral resources are known to exist within the vicinity. No impacts will occur. Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Would the Project.' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 93 Please reference the discussion in Threshold 12.a. There are no mineral extraction or process facilities on or near the site. No mineral resources are known to exist within the vicinity. No impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 94 13. NOISE. Sources : Noise Impact Analysis, Garbani 10 Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Roma Environmental, 12-6-2022 (Noise Study, Appendix H); General Plan; City of Menifee Municipal Code; and Map My County, (Appendix A). Applicable General Plan Policies: • Goal N-1: Noise -sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure. o Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications. o Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes. o Policy N-1.1 Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. o Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors: Stationary Noise Standards Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 Leq (10 minute) 45 Leq (10 minute) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute) o Policy N-1.8: Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses. Consider federal, state, and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review. o Policy N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise -producing uses adjacent to noise - sensitive receptors and require that new noise -producing land be are designed with adequate noise abatement measures. o Policy N-1.11: Discourage the siting of noise -sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL without appropriate mitigation. o Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. • Goal N-2: Minimal Noise Spillover. Minimal noise spillover from noise -generating uses, such as agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses into adjoining noise -sensitive uses. City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.09.050: The Project site is within the City of Menifee and bounded by future residential properties to the east, north, and south. The City of Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.09.050 (Noise Control Regulations) establishes the permissible noise level that may intrude into a neighbor's property. The Municipal Code establishes the exterior noise level criteria for residential properties affected by stationary noise sources. For residential properties, the exterior noise level shall not exceed 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and shall not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). In addition, the City's General Plan references the state Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments that indicates noise levels at residential uses are normally acceptable up to 60 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL and at DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 95 commercial uses are normally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 77.5 dBA CNEL. Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise: Sound consists of energy waves that people receive and interpret while noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure, squared. These units are called bets. In order to provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into ten decibels, abbreviated dB. To account for the range of sound that human hearing perceives, a modified scale is utilized known as the A -weighted decibel (dBA). Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. A 3 dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible. Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring noise have been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements, the following are common metrics for measuring noise: • Le4 (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying signal over given sample periods. LEQ is typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample periods. • CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. • LDN (Day -Night Average Level): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00pm and before 7:00 a.m. CNEL and LDN are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to noise during the night. Leq is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because of the shorter reference period. Existing Noise Conditions The State of California defines "sensitive receptors" as those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, single and multiple -family residential, including transient lodging, motels and hotel uses make up the majority of these areas. The Project site is bounded by Garbani Road to the north and vacant land to the east, west and south. There are nearby single-family residential dwelling units to the north, west, and south. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family detached DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 96 residential dwelling unit located just south of the Project site and the single-family detached residential dwelling units located approximately 70 feet north of the Project site (across Garbani Road). The Noise Study found the dominant source of noise in the Project area was from aircraft as well as traffic on the 1-215 Freeway and distant gardening equipment. Leq noise levels ranged from 42.3 to 51.1 dBA while Lmax levels ranged from 51.4 to 66.4 dBA. Analysis of Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the Noise Study, unless otherwise noted. Would the Project result in? Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Im act Mitigation P�......_...._..�.,.. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction Noise Less Than Significant Impact No Impact A detailed Noise Study was prepared for the Project in 2022. The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the Project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different phases of construction. Site grading and preparation is expected to produce the highest sustained construction noise levels. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 13-1, Typical Construction Noise Levels. Existing single-family detached residential dwelling units located north, south, and west of the Project site may be affected by short-term noise impacts associated with the transport of workers, the movement of construction materials to and from the site, ground clearing, excavation, grading, and building activities. The loudest construction noise level at each project property line is presented Table 13-2, Estimated Project Construction Noise Levels. The City of Menifee has not adopted a numerical threshold that defines a "substantial increase". For purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) criteria has been used to establish significance thresholds. Per the FTA, daytime construction noise levels should not exceed 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential uses and 85 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at commercial uses. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 97 Table 13-1 Typical Construction Noise Levels' Equipment Type I Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet Earth Moving Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76 Front Loaders 73 - 84 Backhoes 73 - 92 Tractors 75 - 95 Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92 Pavers 85 - 87 Trucks 81 - 94 Materials Handling Concrete Mixers 72 - 87 Concrete Pumps 81 - 83 Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86 Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87 Stationary Pumps 68 - 71 Generators 71 - 83 Compressors 75 - 86 Impact Equipment Saws 71 - 82 Vibrators 68 - 82 Referenced Noise Levels from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for equipment with internal combustion engines. Table 13-2 Estimated Project Construction Noise Levels Project Site Property Line Affected Land Use Loudest Construction Noise Level (dBA, Leq) North Residential 70.3 South Residential 72.3 East Residential 72.6 West Vacant 72.0 As shown in Table 13-2, the highest estimated noise level at the property line is 72.6 dBA, so construction noise levels will not exceed the FTA 8-hour criteria of 85 dBA Leq. Furthermore, Section 9.0215.060(C) of the City's Municipal Code allows a property developer to apply for a construction exemption to the City's Stationary Noise Standards. If approved, Project generated noise that complies with the following would be exempt from the Municipal Code noise level standards: Site preparation for Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. With this regulatory compliance, Project -related construction noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Offsite Traffic Noise DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 98 Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 11 th Edition, the project is expected to generate 311 average daily trips. Project vehicle trips were modeled on Garbani Road, using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Existing traffic volumes were taken from the Traffic Study prepared for the Millcreek Promenade project. Trip distribution was assumed to match the single family detached residential trip distribution -without Holland Overpass shown in the Millcreek Promenade traffic study as it is located directly east of the proposed Project. Table 13-3, Roadway Noise Impacts from Project Traffic, presents the change in traffic noise levels that would result from the proposed Project. In no case would Project -generated vehicle traffic cause an increase in ambient noise levels of 1 dB or greater. Since 3 dB or more is the threshold to notice an audible difference in sound levels, Project -generated vehicle traffic would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels on local roadways. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Table 13-3 Roadway Noise Impacts from Project Traffic Modeled Noise Levels dBA NEL ' I Change In Substantial Existin Existing Withou Increase? Roadway Segment Project t Plus Project Levu U6 at 50 feet Bradley Road North of Newport bd'y No Bradley Road Newport to Holland Road 72. IF - o Bradley Road Holland Road to Craig Avenue 69. u. o Bradley Road South of Craig Avenue 66.5 66.5 0.0 No Craig Avenue West of Bradley Road 59.7 59.7 0.0 No Garbani Road Sherman Road to Haun Road 66.2 66.3 0.1 No Haun Road Newport Road to Holland Road u.0 o aun Road Holland Road to Garbani Road ° Haun Road Garbani Road to Scott Road 13.1.1 0.00 Haun Road West of Bradley Road 72.5 72.5 0.0 No Menifee Road Newport Road to Holland Road 74.1 74.1 0.0 No Newport Road West of Bradley Road 77.5 77.5 0.0 No Newport Road Haun Road to 1-215 ° Newport Road 1-215 to Antelope 79. t 79.7 No Newport Road Antelope Road to Menifee Road 78.6 79.5 0.9 No Newport Road East of Menifee Road ° Scott RoadWest of Haun 73' 7 ' 1 ° Scott RoadHaun Road to 1-215 u tb u o Scott Road 1-215 to Antelope Road 79.7 79.7 0.0 No Scott Road Antelope Road to Menifee 77.2 77.2 0.0 No Road Sherman Road Tupelo Street to Garbani Road °b•u o Tupelo Street Bradley Road to Sherman Road 58.3 58.4° (1) Exterior noise levels calculated 5 feet above pad elevation, perpendicular to subject roadway. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 99 Onsite Traffic Noise Roadways adjacent to the proposed Project include Garbani Road and Sherman Road. Garbani Road is designated as a "Major' with four lanes and a right-of-way of 128- feet and Sherman Road is classified as a "Collector" with a right-of-way of 74 feet in the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element (2014). Future traffic noise associated with Garbani Road was modeled to assess potential noise impacts to the proposed project. Analysis of a roadway designated as a "Collector" is not required as they are not considered to be acoustically significant. The recently updated City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element provides future traffic noise contours for nearby Interstate 215. These contours show that the project site is not within a 60 CNEL or higher noise contour associated with the 1-215 Freeway. Future buildout noise associated with Garbani Road was modeled per Riverside Industrial Hygiene Guidelines for Determining and Mitigating Traffic Noise Impacts to Residential Structures and of City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment B "Roadway Segment Capacity Thresholds" dated August 2015. The projected Average Daily Trip (ADT) Level of Service "C" design capacity (also known as future build -out daily traffic volumes) for Garbani Road is 27,300 ADT. The Noise Study determined that a number of barriers were needed to maintain onsite noise levels at 65 dBA CNEL at the first -floor level and up to 74 CNEL at the second story level. The location and characteristics of the recommended barriers are shown in Figure 13-1, Onsite Noise Mitigation. It should be noted that normal residential construction methods, such as air conditioning and/or air circulation systems that allow windows to be closed, typically provide 20 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction. Under these conditions, interior noise levels of proposed single-family residential units that are not exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 dBA CNEL are not expected to exceed 45 CNEL. However, second floor windows and sliding glass doors of homes facing Garbani Road will need to have Sound Transmission STC levels of at least 32 (Lot 1), and 31 (Lots 2- 7). To assure these design requirements are met, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 is recommended to be implemented. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, onsite noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 100 bpi d O L 01 7 E O E Vl x C y (n E3 'E s� r° m E 0 c V1 o m M COM c cv O p c� m wai c e'o c L Y t p 01D u > .� i O._ N C 4 7 0 `'� 0 C v "D a)m L O e O m Uf c y E L° 0 a7 C 0 0- > m N a` C D t7 p C D L o O N � J a: o t^ m Lo. O o E� = 6 c u C o qq 3 L o a � » a ri IL o C.3 � ND cE c D D o My '� N C a) a) V a7 I o O+ w m M I- I -a ♦�_ V! O O to M H O) O O N O CV W 0 Would the Project result in? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or aroundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially I Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Significant Mitigation Impact ,.....,----�+ea Impact X No Impact A detailed Noise Study was prepared for the Project that included vibration impacts. The most vibratory pieces of equipment expected to be utilized on the Project site include a vibratory roller and a large bulldozer. The use of a vibratory roller and/or a large bulldozer may be used as close as 95 feet to the closest existing structures to the north (i.e., across Garbani Road), and as close as 35 feet to the nearest existing structure to the south. There are no existing structures on the parcels east and west of the Project site. Groundborne vibration levels associated with the use of a vibratory roller could reach up to 0.028 peak particle velocity (PPV) at the existing structures north of the Project site and up to 0.127 PPV at the nearest existing structure located south of the Project site. Groundborne vibration levels associated with the use of a large bulldozer could reach up to 0.012 PPV at the existing structures north of the Project site and up to 0.054 PPV at the nearest existing structure located south of the Project site. The threshold at which there is a risk to "architectural" damage to historic and some older buildings is a PPV of 0.25 in/sec, at older residential structures a PPV of 0.3 in/sec, and at new residential structures and modern commercial/industrial buildings a PPV of 0.5 in/sec. A vibratory roller generates a PPV of approximately 0.21 at a distance of 25 feet, which is the more conservative criteria for possible structural damage. Because there are no structures within 25 feet of the proposed Project site, impacts related to structural damage would not be significant and no mitigation is required. As stated previously, vibration is considered to be distinctly perceptible at a PPV of 0.04 in/second and strongly perceptible at 0.10 PV). The use of a vibratory roller within 41 feet of existing structures would be strongly perceptible and use of large bulldozer within 23 feet of an existing structure would be strongly perceptible. Use of a vibratory roller along the Project's southern boundary may result in annoyance to persons inside or in the vicinity of the existing structures to the south of the Project site. However, construction activities will be limited to daytime hours and the use of vibratory rollers would be limited to several hours per day at most. Therefore, impacts related to annoyance from construction vibration would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Significant Mitigation Signifi Impact Incorporated Imp c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact Than cant No Impact act X DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 102 The Project site is not located within two miles of any airports or airstrips. The closest airport is French Valley Airport 5.6 miles southeast of the site. Therefore, there will be no noise - related impacts from these sources and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1: Noise Barriers. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate that permanent noise barriers indicated in the Noise Impact Analysis, Garbani 10 Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Roma Environmental, 12-6-2022, have been installed. A barrier six feet in elevation higher than the adjacent road surface shall be constructed along the northern residential lot lines and the western boundary of Lot B (i.e., the detention basin in the northeast corner of the site), as shown in Figure 13-1 of the Initial Study (Figure 5 in the Noise Study). The barrier must be solid, extending from the ground surface, without holes or cracks. The barrier may be a combination of earthen berm and concrete wall. These requirements must be added as a note on the tentative map and construction plans. In addition, all windows and sliding glass doors facing Garbani Road shall have Sound Transmission Class (STC) upgraded windows installed as follows: Lot 1 = 32 STC, and Lots 2-7 = 31 STC. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Planning Staff. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 103 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Sources : General Plan; GPEIR (Chapter 5.13, Population and Housing); Google Maps; Map My County (Appendix A); Department of Finance Population Estimates; Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); Figure 6, Aerial Photo in Section I. of this Initial Study; and U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) QuickFacts, Menifee City, CA, 2020 US Census data. Applicable General Plan Policies: N/A Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Potentially Would the Project? Significant Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant No Impact with Mitigation i Impact Incorporated , The Project is proposing to construct 33 new detached single-family residences. The U.S. Census Bureau indicates the City has an average unit occupancy of 3.16 persons per household (USCB 2022). Therefore, the Project would generate 104 City residents at buildout. According to the Department of Finance Population Estimates, the City of Menifee had a population of 97,093 as of January 1, 2020. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Adopted Growth Forecast projects an estimated population of 132,101 persons by the year 2040. The projected new residents from the Project represents 0.3 percent of this anticipated growth 4. According to the SCAG RTP/SCS, Menifee had an employment base of 13,840 workers in 2016 and is projected to increase to 21,160 persons by the year 2040. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning classification for the site. Any direct increases in population as a result of the Project are insignificant as they are within the growth assumptions estimated by the City in its General Plan and by SCAG for the City of Menifee. No new expanded infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not already possible with existing infrastructure. Impacts will be less than significant. ° 132,101 — 97,093 = 35,008 persons added from 2020 to 2040 and 104 new residents is 0.3 percent of that growth DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 104 Would the Project? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Incoroorated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact R The Project site is currently vacant with one former residential/commercial structure in the southern portion of the site. There is no existing housing (or residents) on the Project site at present. The Project will add 33 new residences but will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 105 15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Sources : GPEIR (Chapter 5.14, Public Services); General Plan; Map My County (Appendix A); Google Maps; Menifee Ordinance No. 17-232 (Development Impact Fees); Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 (Fire Code); Menifee Union School District website; and Perris Union High School District website. Applicable General Plan Policies: • Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. • Policy S-4.1: Require fire:resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. • Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate. • Goal OSC-1: A comprehensive system of high quality parks and recreation programs that meets the diverse needs of the community. • Policy OSC-1.7: Ensure that parks and recreational facilities are well -maintained by the responsible agency. Analysis of Protect Effect and Determination of Significance: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact The City of Menifee contracts for fire services with the Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE, providing a full range of fire protection services including fires, rescues, traffic accidents, medical emergencies, and requests for general public assistance. The Menifee Station, Station #69, is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the Project site at 26020 Wickerd Road. The Project will have an incremental fire risk due to a small isolated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone and a Local Responsibility Area located immediately southwest and west of the site. This area is an isolated knoll with native vegetation. A Fire Protection Technical Memorandum (Fire Memo) was prepared for the Project in May 2023 which recommends a series of Fire Safety Zones that generally cover the area south of Garbani Road, west of Sherman Road, north of Wickerd Road, and east of Evans Road. The Fire DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 106 I Memo addresses the increased fire risk represented by the vegetated hill with steep slopes on the southwest side of the Project. The Project will incorporate the various physical and operational design items recommended in the Fire Memo to protect future Project residents and residences. For example, the Project has incorporated a variable width irrigated fuel modification zone (FMZ 1) up to 100 feet wide on its south, west and southwest boundaries. All FMZs will be irrigated and managed/maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The Fire Memo requires a number of design features including: • Six -foot -tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) "fire" walls along the entire property line; • Windows on exposed sides of structures with less than 100 feet of Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) shall be dual tempered panes exceeding Chapter 7A requirements of dual pane, one pane tempered; • Walls will have added treatment for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19 that are adjacent to off -site areas with unmaintained fuels (southwest and west); and • Irrigated landscaping in the rear yards of lots 7 through 19. Additionally, all new housing associated with this subdivision shall be required to comply with Section 701.A.3 of the California Building Code, which governs building materials, and systems and/or assemblies used in exterior design of buildings located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in Chapter 7A of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), the 2022 edition of the California Residential Code (CRC) Section R337, and those standards specifically amended by the City of Menifee. Mitigation Measures MM- WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 (repeated from Section 20 of this Initial Study) are also proposed for this section to assure implementation of the design recommendations of the Fire Memo. The proposed Project is anticipated to require additional fire protection; however, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and will implement the Fire Protection Technical Memorandum which will reduce potential fire service impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to the issuance of building permits all construction documents will be reviewed and approved by the City of Menifee's Fire Department as contracted through CalFire for consistency with the Uniform Fire Code. The development will be required to provide fully operational fire suppression equipment, including hydrants, prior to the arrival of any building material being delivered to the Project site. The proposed structures will have fire sprinklers throughout the buildings as well as a dedicated fire protection water line. The Project site is subject to Ordinance No. 17-232, Development Impact Fees (DIF). DIF shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever occurs first. However, the fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit. DIF is used to pay for Fire protection services. Payment of the DIF is •a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Additional commercial development into this area will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. Any impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 107 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or Potentially physically altered governmental facilities, Significant the construction of which could cause Impact significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Q No Impact On July 1, 2020, the Menifee Police Department (MPD) officially entered service with over 60 officers and 17 professional staff. Accordingly, the MPD is headquartered at 29714 Haun Road. The City of Menifee is divided into 4 "beats" for purposes of patrols, and this Project is in Beat 3. The proposed Project will require additional police services for the new residents. However, the Project itself is not expected to adversely affect police services as it is consistent with General Plan; therefore, it is consistent with Population Projections. The City development review process and building permit plan check process include review by the Police Department to ensure incorporation of defensible space concepts in site design and construction. All developments are required to incorporate defensible space concepts, and that the design of each site be reviewed with the Sheriff's Department prior to approval of conditional use permits or other entitlements. The Project site is subject to Ordinance No. 17-232, Development Impact Fees (DIF). DIF shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever occurs first. However, the fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit. DIF is used to pay for police protection services. Per Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.02 (DIF), new development is required to pay impact fees that can go toward purchasing land and construction of new police service facilities. Payment of the DIF is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under. Additional commercial development into this area will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Any impacts are considered less than significant impact. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 108 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: c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with g Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The proposed Project is located within the Menifee Union School District (MUSD) and Perris Union High School District (PUHSD). The proposed Project is subject to development fees for school facilities pursuant to Senate Bill 50. Payment of these fees are a standard condition and are not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. The commercial rate is lower than the residential rate, as commercial developments do not place a large demand on school facilities. With the payment of these development fees, less than significant impacts will occur. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or Potentially Less Than Less Than physically altered governmental facilities, Significant Significant with Significant No Impact the construction of which could cause Impact Mitigation Impact significant environmental impacts, in order Incorporated to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: d) Parks? X No Impact Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development because it generates new residents or population. Goal OCS-1.2 of the City of Menifee General Plan states that it is the City's requirement to achieve 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 city residents. According to the U.S. Census, the household size in the City of Menifee is 3.16 persons per household which translates to approximately 104 persons5 for this Project. Some of the residents of the Project may already live within the City and are simply relocating within the City. However, as a worst case condition, it is assumed all Project residents will be new residents to the City. These additional residents will use existing local and regional recreational facilities and programs. However, this increased use is considered incremental due to the small number of residents, and their impacts on existing parks are considered to be less than significant. The Project proposes residential uses that are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site. Therefore, the Project will not introduce more new 5 33 units times 3.16 persons/household = 104 persons DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 109 residents to the site than were anticipated under the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The addition of 104 new residents would generate a conceptual requirement for 0.52 acres of parklands or the need to pay the equivalent value to the City in developer park impact fees. The Project does not propose any onsite recreational facilities but will pay appropriate Quimby fees in lieu of the construction of new recreation facilities. Quimby fees are used by the City for the acquisition of new parkland. The construction of new parks in the future would require separate CEQA compliance processes and documentation. In addition, the payment of Quimby fees to the City is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities but the payment of Quimby fees will facilitate the development of new parkland and facilities in the future at the discretion of the City. With payment of Quimby fees, the Project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities to the degree that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Impacts will be less than significant. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or Potentially Less Than Less Than physically altered governmental facilities, Significant Significant with Significant No Impact the construction of which could cause Impact p Mitigation Impact p significant environmental impacts, in order Incorporated to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: e) Other public facilities? X Less Than Significant Impact The expansion of public services such as libraries or hospitals will not be required. The proposed development will result in an incremental, yet not significant, increase in the demand of such services. As the City's population grows, new medical facilities will be required to provide health and medical services for an expanded population. Since the Project as proposed is consistent with the existing City's General Plan Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential — 2 (LDR-2) the proposed Project would not impact the City/County- wide health and medical facilities to a greater degree than was anticipated in the General Plan. As the City's population grows, new library facilities will be required to provide services for an expanded population. Since the Project as proposed is consistent with the existing City's General Plan Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential — 2 (LDR-2) the proposed Project would not impact the library facilities to a greater degree than was anticipated in the General Plan. 6 104 residents divided by 1000 persons times 5 acres/1000 residents required by General Plan Goal OCS-1 2 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 110 A less than significant impact will occur to libraries and health services as a result of the Project. Mitigation Measures (repeated from Section 20, Wildfire) MM-WILD-1: Site Plan Requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate the site plan includes the following design requirements consistent with the Fire Memo review of the Project site plan: • The site has two points of access with adequate separation to Sherman Road. • Sherman Road shall be upgraded to CFC fire apparatus access standards including surface, width, and load bearing capabilities. • All on -site roads comply with fire apparatus access requirements. • Roadway widths/turn radii shall meet fire department minimum requirements with no dead-end roadways. • Six -foot -tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) "fire" walls along the entire perimeter property line; • Windows on exposed sides of structures with less than 100 feet of Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) shall be dual tempered panes exceeding Chapter 7A requirements of dual pane, one pane tempered; • Walls will have added treatment for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19 that are adjacent to off -site areas with unmaintained fuels (i.e., southwest and west); • Irrigated landscaping in the rear yards of lots 7 through 19; and • An NFPA 13D sprinkler system shall be installed in all homes with water to be supplied by EMWD. • Access roads (including weight support and Opticom signalization), driveways, gates, Knox boxes will all be installed to comply with current codes/standards. MM-WILD-2: Fire Protection Design. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable design and operational recommendations presented in the approved Fire Protection Technical Memorandum, Garbani Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Dudek and dated 5-10-2023 with any subsequent revisions and additions adopted by the City. Required measures include but are not limited to the following: The site shall have a series of irrigated fuel modification zones (FMZ) in the rear yards of residential lots along the west and south sides of the Project, the side yards of residential lots along Sherman Road, and the common Lot D. The FMZs shall consist of irrigated, low fuel plant materials with regular maintenance. See Attachment 1 (Fuel Modification Plan) in the Fire Memo for FMZ details. The FMZs shall be delineated in a The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) that shall be submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department (RVCFD) for review and approval. The FMZs shall include: DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 111 o Zone 0 - The area within five feet of structures to be maintained as an ember resistant zone and include gravel, pavers, concrete or other noncombustible materials (no combustible bark or mulch). 0 20 to 36-foot-wide onsite irrigated FMZ is proposed in the rear yards on the western boundary (future ROW to include paved roadway); a 30-foot wide offsite equivalent FMZ (existing condition) occurs adjacent to these lots; a 6-foot-tall masonry wall will be provided around the entire project; it will provide mitigation for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19. 0 56 to 58-foot-wide onsite irrigated FMZ is proposed in the rear yards on the southern boundary. 0 100-foot-wide combination onsite FMZ and adjacent paved ROW FMZ equivalent on the eastern boundary (47- to-49-foot wide onsite FMZ and paved roadway; 44-foot-wide existing dirt road offsite (future paved street). MM-WILD-3: Homeowners Association (HOA) Requirements. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate that the developer covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&R) contain the following requirements. • Up to 100-foot wide maintained FMZ proposed on common Lot D; HOA maintenance shall be provided. • Common area vegetation management conducted by the HOA is identified on the Fuel Modification Plan; area shall be maintained and irrigated. • Fuel Modification areas maintained by individual homeowners are identified on the Fuel Modification Plan. Mulch shall not be placed in backyards unless irrigated and no closer than 5 inches from the house. • Fuel modification areas must be maintained at least once annually and additionally as needed to ensure compliance with maintenance requirements. All fuel modification areas are to be kept free of invasive plants and any volunteer native shrubs. Weeds are to be maintained less than four inches in height. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Development Director or their designee. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 112 16. RECREATION. Sources : General Plan; GPEIR (Chapter 5.16, Recreation); Municipal Code Sections 9.55 and 9.56; and Development Impact Fees per Ordinance No. 17-232. Applicable General Plan Policies: N/A. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development because it generates new residents or population. Goal OCS-1.2 of the City of Menifee General Plan states that it is the City's requirement to achieve 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 city residents. According to the U.S. Census, the household size in the City of Menifee is 3.16 persons per household which translates to approximately 104 persons' for this Project. Some of the residents of the Project may already live within the City and are simply relocating within the City. However, as a worst - case condition, it is assumed all Project residents will be new residents to the City. These additional residents will use existing local and regional recreational facilities and programs. However, this increased use is considered incremental due to the small number of residents, and their impacts on existing parks are considered to be less than significant. The Project proposes residential uses that are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site. Therefore, the Project will not introduce more new residents to the site than were anticipated under the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The addition of 104 new residents would generate a conceptual requirement for 0.52 acres of parkland or the need to pay the equivalent value to the City in developer park impact fees. The Project does not propose onsite recreational facilities but will pay appropriate Quimby fees in lieu of the construction of new recreation facilities. Quimby fees are used by the City for the acquisition of new parkland. The construction of new parks in the future would require separate CEQA compliance processes and documentation. In addition, the payment of Quimby fees to the City is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities but the payment of Quimby 33 units times 3.16 persons/household = 104 persons 104 residents divided by 1000 persons times 5 acres/1000 residents required by General Plan Goal OCS-1.2 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 113 fees will facilitate the development of new parkland and facilities in the future at the discretion of the City. With payment of Quimby fees, the Project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities to the degree that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Impacts will be less than significant. Potentially Less ThanSignificant with less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in Threshold 12.a above, demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development because it generates new residents or population. Based on data from the U.S. Census, the Project would generate approximately 104 persons for this Project which would generate a conceptual requirement for 0.52 acres of parkland. Since the Project is not providing onsite recreational land or facilities, it will need to pay an appropriate park impact fee to the City. With payment of Quimby fees, impacts of the Project related to the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 114 17. TRANSPORTATION. Sources : Open Space and Conservation Element, Menifee General Plan, Exhibit OSC- B2, Proposed Recreational Trails and Class 1, ll, and 111 Bike Routes, GPEIR (Chapter 7.17 — Transportation and Traffic); General Plan; Development Impact Fees per Ordinance No. 17-232; Ordinance No. 2009-62 "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2009"; Tract 37450 Garbani South Trip Generation Memorandum City of Menifee, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. 5-12-2022 (TGM, Appendix 11); Tract 37450 Garbani South Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analysis, City of Menifee, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. 6-14-2022 (VMT Memo, Appendix 12); City of Menifee Citywide Trails Map; Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses in Section I. of this Initial Study; Figure 3, General Plan Land Use Designations, Figure 4, Zoning Classifications, and Figure 6, Aerial Photo, in Section I. of this Initial Study; and Riverside Transit Agency website. 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: o Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. o Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. o Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. o 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 1-215 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: o Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. o Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. o Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. o Be maintained in accordance with best practices. • Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on -street bike lanes as our primary paths of citywide travel, and explore the shared use of low speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe to do so. • Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points. • Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights -of -way and other potential options. • Goal C-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent. • Policy C-3.2: Require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 115 • 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. Note: Any tables or figures in this section are from the TGM or VMT Memo, unless otherwise noted. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Would the Project? Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, X including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact Overview. Pursuant to the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, a comprehensive traffic study was not required for this Project due to its small size and consistency with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. This section evaluates the Project relative to established circulation plans and programs, the primary one being the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. As required by the Circulation Element, new projects must meet the Level of Service (LOS) requirements of the County of Riverside, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the City of Menifee will be maintained within the Project study area, and if not, determine the mitigation measures that will be necessary in order to maintain the required LOS. In addition, this analysis must determine if safety and/or operational improvements are necessary to area intersections or roadways due to increased traffic from the proposed Project. Although traditional traffic analyses focused on LOS changes at local intersections and on local roadways as a result of project -generated traffic under a number of time -based scenarios (e.g., existing conditions, opening year, buildout, etc.). However, the CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation and traffic impacts have changed in recent years. In the past, the CEQA analysis focused on LOS which measures congestion at local intersections and roadway segments. The emphasis of these past studies was to ensure the street grid network functioned well and allowed for efficient movement of vehicles. The current focus is to encourage active transportation (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.) and transit, and to limit increases in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). An important part of this analysis is to determine if a proposed action is consistent with both the vehicular and non -vehicular aspects of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Transit. Bus service in western Riverside County is provided by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). However, the Project area is very rural and is not currently served by any RTA bus routes. The closest RTA route to the Project area is Route 61 but it runs along the 1-215 Freeway and on Menifee Road east of the 215 Freeway in the vicinity of the Project, so there are no bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the site (i.e., a half mile or less). The RTA makes changes to their routes and schedules as demand and land uses dictate so it is possible at some point in the future there may be RTA DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 116 routes closer to the Project site. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails. There is currently a meandering sidewalk along the north side of Garbani Road north of the Project site that also extends north up Haun Road from Garbani Road as part of the existing residential subdivision. This development also has a multi -use trail along the north side of Garbani Road north of the Project site. There are currently no sidewalks, trails, or bike lane improvements along the south side of Garbani Road in the general area of the Project site. General Plan Exhibit OSC-132 shows proposed recreational trails and bicycle routes in the City. It shows there will eventually be a regional trail along Garbani Avenue that connects to other community trails to the east and west. In addition, are community trails planned along Haun Road just east of the site and on Evans Road west of the site. Finally, a bicycle trail of unknown class (but located in an offroad area) will run along the southwest side of the prominent knoll southwest of the Project site. This bike trail will eventually connect to other community and regional multi -use trails in the surrounding area. TTM 37450 shows the Project will construct a sidewalk along the south side of Garbani Road adjacent to the site. It will eventually connect to sidewalks both east and west of the Project site when those properties are developed. The construction of future sidewalks, trails, and bicycle lanes will be governed by the pace of local development and as shown in the City's standard street cross sections for the involved roadways. Therefore, the Project will have less than significant impacts related to non -vehicular access. Roadways. Every county in California is required to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that looks at the links between land use, transportation, and air quality. In its role as Riverside County's Congestion Management Agency, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) prepares and periodically updates the County's CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System guidelines as well as state CMP legislation. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is required under federal planning regulations to determine that CMPs in the region are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan. The RCTC's current Congestion Management Program includes Winchester Road adjacent to the Project site in the CMP. The RCTC CMP does not require traffic impact assessments for development proposals. However, local agencies are required to maintain the minimum level of service (LOS) thresholds included in their respective general plans. If a street or highway segment included as part of the CMP falls below the adopted minimum level of service of E, a deficiency plan is required. The Project could conflict with the CMP if the Project were to cause the CMP facility to operate at an unacceptable LOS. The Project will also be required to pay the County's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF), and Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee assessed on all new development which collectively help reduce overall impacts to the transportation system (i.e., roads and intersections). The TGM estimates the Project will generate 23 AM peak hour trips, 31 PM peak hour trips, and 311 total daily trips or average daily traffic (ADT). The TGM demonstrates that the Project would meet the County's General Plan LOS standards with implementation of planned improvements, payment of TUMF, DIF and Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees, and fair share contributions to offsite incremental increased costs for area -wide road and intersection improvements. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 117 Some of the vehicle trips generated by the development on the Project site will connect to the CMP network. While the Project does represent an increase in trips to the CMP network, this increase is not considered cumulatively considerable due to the relatively small percentage increase in regional trips it represents, and all Project -level impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Consistency with Circulation Plans. Table 17-1, Circulation Element Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project relative to the City's Circulation Element goals and policies. The proposed Project is residential in nature so it will directly generate approximately 104 new residents9 who will be able to take advantage of these non -vehicular transportation options (i.e., sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or transit) as they are available in the future if they so choose. These options can help reduce or be a replacement for commuting. Based on available information, the proposed Project will not conflict with applicable program, plan, or ordinance on the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the Project will have less than significant impacts in this regard and no mitigation is required. Table 17-1 Circulation Element Consistency Analysis Circulation Element Goals and 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: o Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. o Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. o Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. o 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 1-215 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. Consistent. The Project will not cause significant impacts to the local circulation network with required traffic mitigation fee payments. Consistent. The City's development review process will assure the Project complies with applicable circulation design requirements, provides sidewalk connections as appropriate to adjacent (future) uses, and will be maintained consistent with City standards. Consistent. The Project will not conflict with established City, County, or Caltrans LOS standards with payment of identified DIF and TUMF fees for offsite improvements. Consistent. Air quality analysis indicates the Project will not have significant impacts related to onsite or offsite emissions, including those from idling vehicles, and the VMT analysis in Section 17.b demonstrates the Proiect will not have significant VMT impacts. Partially Consistent. The north side of Garbani Road includes a sidewalk in the vicinity of the Project site, and the Project will construct a sidewalk on the south side of Garbani Road. These sidewalks and associated multi -use trail on the north side of Garbani Road will allow for limited pedestrian circulation in the Project area. When the areas south, east, and west of the site develop, they will install sidewalks, trails, and bike ways as required to complete the pedestrian access network for this area. 9 33 units X 3.16 persons/household from U.S. Census Bureau = 104 new residents DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 118 Circulation Element Goals and Policies Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to: o Comply with federal, state and local design and safety standards. o Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. o Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. o Be maintained in accordance with best practices. Policy C-2.2: Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on -street bike lanes as our primary paths of citywide travel, and explore the shared use of low speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe to do so. Policy C-2.3: Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points. Policy C-2.4: Explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks; this includes consideration of utility easements, drainage corridors, road rights -of -way and other potential options. Goal C-3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent. Project Consistency Partially Consistent. There are no trails in the Project area at present but Exhibit OSC-B2 of the Open Space and Conservation Element shows there will eventually be pedestrian trails and bikeways along Garbani Road and Haun Road in the vicinity of the Project. The City's development review process will assure the Project complies with applicable design requirements, provides sidewalk connections as appropriate with future adjacent uses, and will be maintained consistent with City standards. Partially Consistent. The north side of Garbani Road includes a sidewalk adjacent to the Project site and to the northwest, allowing for limited pedestrian circulation in the Project area. When the areas south, east, and west of the site develop, they will install sidewalks as required to complete the pedestrian access network for this area. Partially Consistent. The north side of Garbani Road includes a sidewalk and a multi -use trail adjacent to the Project site and to the northwest, allowing for limited pedestrian circulation in the Project area. When the areas south, east, and west of the site develop, they will install sidewalks as required to complete the pedestrian access network for this area. Consistent. The City Circulation Element indicates that bicycle lanes/routes, trails, and other non - vehicular circulation access will eventually be provided in Menifee in general and in the Project area specifically as development occurs and can fund planned improvements. Consistent. The Riverside Transit Agency provides bus service to western Riverside County but currently has no service in the Project area due to its rural nature. As development occurs, the RTA may expand or modify its bus routes and schedules to accommodate new areas, including the Proiect area. Policy C-3.2: Require new development to Consistent. The Project will go through the City's provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, development review process and will install bus - transit bays, and turnouts, as necessary. related improvements if required plus a sidewalk along the south side of Garbani Road. Goal C-5: An efficient flow of goods through the Consistent. The Project is located west of the 1-215 City that maximizes economic benefits and Freeway with access to it along Newport Road to the minimizes negative impacts. north and Scott Road to the south. Policy C-5.3: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate Not Applicable. Project is residential and will not the negative environmental impacts of goods utilize trucks so it cannot have a demonstrable impact movement. on goods movement. The analysis and conclusions outlined so far in this sub -section are for operations of the Project at buildout. In addition to operational impacts, the Project will also have short- term, temporary traffic impacts that are not related to any adopted plan or program but should be disclosed in this document for transparency. In terms of construction traffic associated with soil movement, the grading plan indicates that earthwork will be balanced onsite with 29,790 cubic yards (CY) of cut and fill with no soil import. Therefore, there will be no offsite transport of soil either from or onto the site. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 119 To assure that Project impacts on local roads and intersections do not exceed City LOS standards and fair share requirements identified in the Circulation Element, the Project must pay County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and City Development Impact Fees (DIF). Compliance with these standard conditions is considered regulatory compliance and not separate mitigation under CEQA. Summary. Based on this information, the Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the County General Plan. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision ( Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant iion �..,. _ati Impact X No Impact In the fall of 2013, SB 743 was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. SIB 743 requires that delay -based metrics such as roadway capacity and level of service will no longer be the performance measures used for the determination of the transportation impacts of projects in studies conducted under CEQA. Instead, new performance measures such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will be used. Per the City's established procedures, a screening analysis of VMT was prepared to determine if a full VMT analysis was required for the proposed Project, which includes construction and operation of 33 single family homes and the Project site is currently vacant. VMT screening is required for CEQA purposes for all projects being considered after July 1, 2020. The City's adopted VMT guidelines (May 2020) were utilized to determine Project screening. According to the VMT Memo, the City's VMT Guidelines state that residential projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, and if the project would not significantly alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate of length of vehicle trips. To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the latest Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Impact Screening Tool was used. The results of the VMT screening analysis are summarized in Table 17- 2, VMT Screening Analysis. Table 17-2 VMT Screening Analysis Project Baseline VMT/Service TAZ Year Population 1068 2022 30.9 VMT Threshold of Significance (Count Future Buildout) 33.6 Potentiallv Sianificant Impact? No Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments VMT Screening Tool. Website: Accessed: June 2022 https://fehrandpeers.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index. html?id=4e34ad3196464c8O86c881189237b25c DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 120 Based on the results of WRCOG VMT Screening Tool, the proposed Project's Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) VMT is calculated to be 30.9 VMT per service population. Since the Project's TAZ VMT is less than the County of Riverside Future Buildout VMT per service population, the proposed project satisfies the Low VMT Area Screening procedure. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Thnt an Less Than Significawith Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated X T No Impact The Project site is located on the south side of Garbani Road and west of Haun Road in the southern portion of the City of Menifee. The roadway is linear within at least a quarter mile of the site to the east although Garbani Road does have a curvilinear alignment approximately 800 feet west of the northwest corner of Project site or about 1500 feet west of the proposed Project entry intersection. Land uses surrounding the site include residential uses to the north and vacant land to the east, west, and south. The lands to the west and south are planned for residential uses while the land to the east is within the Highway 215 economic corridor and will be largely commercial uses. Reference Table 1, Surrounding Land Uses, and Figure 6, Aerial Photo, provided in Section I of this IS. The Project has been reviewed by City Traffic Engineering Staff, and as designed, will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe. Adequate sight distance has been provided. Driveway widths will accommodate Project traffic, and traffic control devices (stop signs) are provided where necessary for entering and exiting the site. No incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) are located in proximity to the Project, although the surrounding vacant lands are regularly disked for weed abatement. In addition, street improvement plans will be subject to City review and approval which will ensure that Project intersections and internal circulation are safe, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs where necessary for entering and exiting the site. This will eliminate any Project impacts due to a design feature. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Less Than �— Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the Project? Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X Less Than Significant Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 121 The Project site is located on the south side of Garbani Road a quarter mile west of Haun Road and one mile east of Murrieta Road. Sherman Road also runs along the east side of the Project site and connects Garbani Road to Wckard Road to the south. Being located in the southern rural portion of the City limits emergency access to the Project area to some degree at present. A limited potential exists to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Construction work in the street associated with the project will be limited to lateral utility connections (i.e., sewer) that will be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is designed to mitigate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as it was prior to the proposed Project. Any impacts during construction are considered less than significant. The proposed Project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access. Project site access and circulation will provide adequate access and turning radius for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Fire Department's requirements. Any impacts during construction are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 122 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Sources : Assembly Bill (AB) 52; Public Resources Codes; and City Staff 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 archaeological, 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 archaeological, historic, and cultural sites, following CEQA and NEPA procedure. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Less Than Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, Potentially Significant cultural landscape that is geographically Significant with Mitigation defined in terms of the size and.scope of the Impact Incorporated landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: a.i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) may result in a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to a TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends Sections 5097.94 and adds Sections 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California PRC, relating to Native Americans. Based on the City's prior experience with and written request from potentially interested Tribes, AB 52 Notices were sent by Brandon Cleary, Associate Planner, to the following four (4) Tribes on November 11, 2021: • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 123 • Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians; • Rincon Cultural Resources Department; and • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Written responses were received from three (3) of the Tribes; Agua Caliente, Pechanga, and Soboba. The following is a summary of the correspondence and consultation with those Tribes: The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians sent a letter to the City on 11-16-2021 deferring to other local tribes. The City received a consultation request from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians on 1-19- 2022 indicating it wished to consult with the City on this Project. The City conducted formal consultation (virtual and/or in person) with Pechanga on 1-19-2022, 4-19-2022, and 10-3- 2022. Pechanga requested the City's standard conditions of approval including monitoring. They also requested to see the Draft MND before release to the public (per AB 52). The City received a formal consultation request from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and conducted formal consultation with Soboba (virtual and/or in person) on 1-6-2022, 4-25-2022, 7-25-2022, and 10-27-2022 (pending). They also requested to seethe Draft MND before release to the public (per AB 52). Upon request the City sent Pechanga and Soboba copies of the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Project site. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: a.ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Mitigation Impact Incorporated X Please reference the discussion in Threshold 18.a.i relative to potential impacts. No Impact Section 5.b and 5.c outline the following seven (7) City Standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) that address potential impacts to cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts and human remains if found during grading (see Section 5, Cultural Resources of this Initial Study for full text of COAs). • Inadvertent Archaeological Finds • Cultural Resource Deposition • Archaeologist Retained • Native American Monitoring (Soboba) DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 124 • Archaeological Report — Phases III and IV • Human Remains • Non -Disclosure of Reburials Location With implementation of these Standard COAs, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Impacts to tribal cultural resources will be less than significant. Mitiqation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 125 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Sources : Project Plans, (Appendix L); Preliminary Hydrology Report, Garbani South (TTM 37450) DEV2021-009), prepared by Ventura Engineering Inland Inc., 8- 16-2022 (Drainage Report, Appendix G1); Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Garbani South (TTM 37450) DEV2021-009), prepared by Ventura Engineering Inland Inc., 8-16-2022 (WQMP, Appendix G2); SAN 53 — Will Serve — WS 20210001479 - APN: 360-350-004 & 360-350-005,prepared by EMWD, 12-14-2021 (Will Serve Appendix K); 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Eastern Municipal Water District; Metropolitan Water District 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP); 2019 Sewer System Management Plan, EMWD; Assembly Bill (AB) 939 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR), Planning Section and Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan; CalRecycle; El Sobrante Landfill Fact Sheet, issued by Waste Management of California; and El Sobrante Landfill Annual Monitoring Report for 2020, by USA Waste of CA, Inc., 9-2021. Applicable General Plan Policies: Land Use Element • 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-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the project's ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated _ a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact The Project site is currently vacant and has no onsite utility services or facilities. The proposed Project will tie into existing water Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) facilities. A "Will Serve" letter from EMWD indicates they can provide water service to the Project site. There is an existing 12-inch water line is located along the south side of Garbani Road which will be extended south along Sherman Road as shown in the proposed tract map. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 126 Wastewater treatment will be also handled by EMWD which indicates in their "Will Serve" letter that their closest sewer line is located approximately 308 feet northwest of the subject property, 135 feet north of the intersection of Garbani Road/Garlington Street. The letter goes on to state that "sewer system improvements would need to be constructed by the property owner/developer in accordance to EMWD's standards, specifications and master plan". The Project rough grading will involve approximately 29,790 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 29.790 CY of fill. When graded, the Project site will range in elevation from a high of 1,584' at the southwest corner to a low elevation of 1,487' at the northeast corner. The proposed Project will install an infiltration basin in Lot "B" (northeast corner) of the site which will be used for both storm water detention and water quality protection. The County maintains a 36-inch storm drain line in Garbani Road and any overflow from the infiltration basin will flow east under Sherman Road into a dirt drainage channel on the south side of Garbani Road east of the Project site. All onsite runoff is anticipated to flow into the infiltration basin in the northeast corner of the site. Local storm drainage is handled by the City of Menifee while major or regional facilities are managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD). The Drainage Study concluded the Project would not increase offsite runoff from pre- to post -development conditions. As previously discussed in Section 10 of this Initial Study (Hydrology and Water Quality), all new development in the County of Riverside is required to comply with provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, including Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and for properties located within the Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4) Permit as enforced by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB). Additionally, there are no storm drains on the Project site or within the immediate vicinity. The Drainage Study and WQMP concluded that development of the additional structures will require the development of a detention basin that will comply with NPDES, WDR, MS4, and RWQCB requirements, the construction of which will have a less than significant impact on storm water drainage systems. Electricity and natural gas are supplied to the Project area by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas (SCG), respectively. SCE currently maintains overhead electrical transmission and service lines along Garbani Road which will be undergrounded adjacent to the site as part of Project development. SCG maintains a natural gas line in the adjacent Garbani Road, and the Project will connect to that line for natural gas service. Telephone and cable television services are provided by AT&T and Frontier — these companies maintain service lines in Garbani Road adjacent to the Project site. The local utility providers have adequate facilities in Garbani Road and the surrounding area to adequately serve the proposed Project. For additional information, see Thresholds 19.b through 19.d. The only offsite improvement required by the Project will be a connection to an existing sewer line approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 127 r Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future X development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact See also discussion under Threshold 10.a. The Project site's development plan proposes to connect to the EMWD water supply system. There is an existing 12-inch water line located along the south side of Garbani Road which will be extended south along Sherman Road as shown in the proposed tract map. EMWD is a public water agency formed in 1950 and annexed into the service area of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) in 1951. It is currently one of MWD's 26 member agencies. EMWD presently operates its water supply system under a system permit issued by the California Department of Public Health. EMWD provides potable water, recycled water, and wastewater services to an area of approximately 555 square miles in western Riverside County. EMWD is both a retail and wholesale agency, serving a retail population of 546,146 people and a wholesale population of 215,075 people. As noted in the 2020 UWMP, EMWD is located in one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, and with a growing population comes a growing demand for water. EMWD has three sources of water supply: 1) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), 2) local groundwater, and 3) recycled water. Roughly 75% of EMWD's potable water demand is supplied by imported water from MWD through its Colorado River Aqueduct and connections to the State Water Project. EMWD forecasts that it would provide water for future growth in its service area through imported water from MWD. EMWD procures water from MWD that has been treated at MWD's Skinner Filtration Plant in Winchester and the Mills Filtration Plant in Riverside. In 2010 EMWD obtained 75,000 acre-feet (af) of MWD water treated at MWD filtration plants before delivery, and 16,600 of of raw MWD water treated at EMWD water filtration plants. EMWD has two water filtration plants, one in Hemet and one in San Jacinto, with total existing capacity of 32 million gallons per day or about 35,840 of per year. Adequate water service can be provided for the Project using existing and planned EMWD facilities. The Project proposes the construction of an interior system of water lines along planned roadways within the community to service individual lots. The Project will connect to the existing 12-inch water line in Garbani Road. In order to provide a reliable source of water for firefighting purposes, potable water will also be delivered to all fire hydrants and fire sprinkler systems utilizing the potable water system. The piping has been designed to accommodate both the domestic demand and the fire -fighting demand. If or when available, the Project may incorporate recycled water for irrigation of common area landscaping, open space, parkways, and roadside landscaping adjacent to public roads. To provide recycled water, EMWD requires proof of permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Public Health at the Plot Plan stage of development. No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 128 Connections to local water mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on -site improvements. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with standard conditions (Water Connection Fees and EMWD Water Efficient Guidelines). It should be noted that the proposed Project is under the threshold for requiring a Water Supply Assessment (over 500 residential units) according to SB 610 and California Water Code Section 10910. Therefore, the following information was based on the Project plans, City website, EMWD website, and the 2020 EMWD Urban Water Management Plan. It is estimated the Project will have approximately 104 residents at buildout (33 units times 3.16 persons per household) based on current federal census data 10 for the City of Menifee. According to the EMWD websitelI, single family residential uses consume an average of approximately 55 gallons/person/day, therefore it is estimated the Project will consume 5,720 gallons per day or 2.09 million gallons (or about 16.6 acre-feet) of potable water each year. This additional amount of water represents 0.05 percent of the EMWDs existing treatment capacity (35,840 acre-feet)12 and so the Project is well within the overall service capacity of the EMWD as documented in its current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As identified in the 2020 UWMP, EMWD has the ability to meet its current and project water demands through 2040 during normal, historic single -dry and historic multiple - dry year periods using imported water from MWD with existing supply resources. It should be noted that EMWD's 2020 UWMP was based on land uses in the Menifee General Plan, and the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the future water needs of the Project are accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. The City has standard conditions of approval (COAs) for new residential development that require compliance with the water conservation guidelines of the latest California Green Building Code (CalGreen) as well as implementing the "low impact development" (i.e., water conservation) requirements of EMWD and the City. Implementation of these COAs is considered regulatory compliance and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Any impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 10 2020 Census data shows City had an average of 3.16 persons per household for 2016-2020 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/nienifeecitycalifornia " Residential water consumption rate from EMWD website https.//wwvv.emwd.org/post/residential-water-budgets-and-rates 12 One acre-foot of water equals approximately 126,000 gallons DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 129 Would the Project? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Refer also to Threshold 10.a. Wastewater collection services in the City of Menifee are provided by the City under contract to the EMWD. The Project site is not currently connected to the local wastewater/sewer system given its vacant, undeveloped condition, however, the City's "Will Serve" Letter indicates there is an existing sewer main line located approximately 300 feet northwest of the Project site. The Project will be required to construct an exterior connection to this line as well as an interior system of sewer lines along planned roadways to service the individual residential lots. The EMWD provides wastewater treatment services to approximately 239,000 customers within its service area and currently treats approximately 43 million gallons per day of wastewater at its five active regional water reclamation facilities through 1,813 miles of sewer pipelines. These reclamation plants include San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility; Moreno Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility; Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility; Sun City Regional Water Reclamation Facility; and Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Wastewater generated from the Project site would be treated at the Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (PVRWRF)4. The typical daily flow at the PVRWRF is currently 15.5 million gallons per day (MGD) with a current capacity of 22 MGD and has a current excess capacity of approximately 6.5 MGD. The EMWD indicates the PVRWRF has an ultimate capacity13 of 100 MGD. It is estimated the Project will have 104 residents at buildout (33 units times 3.16 persons per household) based on current federal census data14 for the City of Menifee. According to the EMWD website15, single family residential uses generate an average of approximately 50 gallons per person per day, therefore it is estimated the Project will consume 5,200 gallons per day or 1.9 MGD wastewater generated each year. This additional amount of wastewater represents 0.03 percent of the EMWD's existing PVRWRF daily flow rate (15.5 MGD)4 or less than 0.01 percent of its current maximum treatment capacity (15.5 MGD). Therefore, the Project is well within the overall sewer service and maintenance capacity of the EMWD as documented on the EMWD website4 and in its current 2019 Sewer System Management Plan16 13 EMWD Regional Water Reclamation Facility Factsheet, January 2021 https://www emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/sjvrwrffactsheet.pdf 14 2020 Census data shows City had an average of 3.16 persons per household for 2016-2020 hftps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/menifeecitycalifornia 15 Residential wastewater generation rate from EMWD website 16 EMWD 2019 Sewer System Management Plan, EMWD website https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2019_full_report_ssmp. pdf? 1576617293 DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 130 It should be noted that EMWD's 2020 UWMP and 2019 Sewer System Management Plan were based on land uses in the Menifee General Plan, and the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the future wastewater needs of the Project are accounted for by the EMWD in planning for future wastewater treatment services. The City has standard conditions of approval (COAs) for new residential development that require compliance with the water conservation guidelines of the latest California Green Building Code (CalGreen) as well as implementing the "low impact development" (i.e., water conservation) requirements of EMWD and the City. The use of water -reducing toilet fixtures will help reduce potential wastewater generation as well. The Project will also be required to satisfy City and EMWD requirements related to the payment of development impact fees and/or the provision of on- or offsite wastewater conveyance features as necessary, and for their installation and maintenance prior to the issuance of building permits. Measures that reduce water consumption can also help reduce wastewater generation (e.g., low flow toilets). Implementation of these COAs is considered regulatory compliance and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Connections to local sewer mains will involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that will occur in conjunction with other on -site improvements. In addition, the Project will be required to comply with standard conditions (e.g., Sewer Connection Fees). Implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project will not require, or result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, whereby the construction or relocation would cause significant environmental effects. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the Project? Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact _ Incorporated _ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or Local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local X infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact Solid waste management in Riverside County is required to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Chapter 1095 (AB 939) which redefined solid waste management in terms of both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and the state. AB 939 was adopted in an effort to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is landfilled and incinerated by requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to improve the management of waste resources. AB 939 required each of the cities and unincorporated portions of counties throughout the state to divert a minimum of 25% by 1995 and 50% of the solid waste landfilled by the year 2000. To attain these goals for reductions in disposal, AB 939 established a planning hierarchy utilizing new integrated solid waste management practices. No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 131 The Countywide Summary Plan contains goals and policies, as well as a summary of integrated waste management issues faced by the County and its cities. The Summary Plan summarizes the steps needed to cooperatively implement programs among the County's jurisdictions to meet and maintain the 50% diversion mandates. The Countywide Siting Element demonstrates that there are at least 15 years of remaining disposal capacity to serve all the jurisdictions within the County. If there is not adequate capacity, a discussion of alternative disposal sites and additional diversion programs must be included in the Siting Element. The Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR) - Planning Section ensures that the Department's planned and proposed waste management activities and projects are in compliance with applicable federal, State and local land use and environmental laws, regulations, and ordinances. The RCDWR operates six (6) active landfills (Badlands, Blythe, Desert Center, Lamb Canyon, Mecca II and Oasis) and administers a contract agreement for the private El Sobrante Landfill serving the greater Riverside County area. The RCDWR also oversees several transfer station leases, as well as a number of recycling and other special waste diversion programs. Municipal waste collection services for the City of Menifee, including the Project site, is provided by Waste Management. The Project site is located in the primary service area of the Lamb Canyon Landfill with additional capacity available at the El Sobrante Landfill for all non -hazardous, non -recyclable, non -green municipal waste. The Project site is located approximately 14.3 miles south of the Lamb Canyon Landfill and 26 miles east of the El Sobrante Landfill. Lamb Canyon Landfill The Lamb Canyon Landfill is a Class III municipal solid waste facility owned and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR). It is located in the unincorporated Badlands/Lamb Canyon area of Riverside County, south of Interstate 10 (1- 10) and the City of Beaumont, and northeast of the City of Menifee at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road (State Route 79). The landfill is currently permitted a five-year timeline on (July 2018; CalRecycle SWIS Facility No. 33-AA-0007) to receive 5,000 tons of refuse per day with a permitted Traffic Volume of 913 vehicle per day. The maximum permitted capacity is 38,953,653 cubic yards and plans to continue operations through April 1, 2029 (estimated closure date). El Sobrante Landfill The Project site is also located within the service area of the El Sobrante Landfill, a service area that includes the cities/communities within southwestern Riverside County including the Project site and multiple jurisdictions within the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego. Located near the center of the highly populated western third of Riverside County, it processes approximately 43 percent of Riverside County's annual waste, according to Waste Management, Inc., the landfill's operator. The El Sobrante Landfill is located approximately 20 miles northwest of the Project site in the unincorporated Temescal Canyon area of Riverside County between the City of Lake Elsinore and the City of Corona, east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road, and south of Cajalco Road, at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road near Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill facility currently comprises a total area of 1,322 acres which includes a 495-acre footprint permitted for landfill operations, and a 688-acre wildlife preserve. The current operating permit allows a maximum of 16,054 tons per day of waste to be accepted at the landfill, due to limitations on the number of vehicle trips per day. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 132 Project Impacts Waste collection in the City is managed by Waste Management under contract to the City, while waste disposal is managed by the County. Solid waste generation rates estimate the amount of waste created by residences and businesses over a certain amount of time (day, year, etc.). Waste generation includes all materials discarded, whether or not they are later recycled or disposed of in a landfill. Waste generation rates for residential and commercial activities can be used to estimate the impact of new developments on the local waste stream. In this way, they are useful in providing a general level of information for planning purposes and estimating potential effects. It should be noted that the Generation Rates used by the County do not take into account any recycling, reduction or diversion (potentially upwards of 50%-75%, associated with compliance with AB 341. As set forth in Section 4.17.4 (Solid Waste) of the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the County applies an annual Generation Rate of 0.41 Tons per dwelling unit for residential uses. The Project proposes 33 residential units which would generate 13.5 tons per year or 0.04 tons per day of waste. This represents less than 0.001 percent of both the Lamb Canyon Landfill daily capacity (5,000 tons per day) and the El Sobrante Landfill daily capacity (16,054 tons per day). The amount of additional solid waste generated by the Project operation would have an incremental, but nominal, impact on the existing solid waste infrastructure at the Lamb Canyon and El Sobrante Landfills. Therefore, the proposed Project use would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Would the Project? e) Comply with federal, and reduction statutes a waste? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated state, and local management Less Than Significant Impact All land uses within Riverside County area, including those in the City of Menifee, that generate solid waste are required to coordinate with the County's contracted waste transfer hauler (Waste Management, Inc.) to collect solid waste on a common schedule as established in applicable local, regional, and State programs. Additionally, all development in the City is required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939 (CalRecycle), and other local, State, and federal solid waste disposal standards. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element to its Solid Waste Management Plan, that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. The purpose of AB 939 is to "reduce, recycle, and re -use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible." According to its website, the City of Menifee maintains a number of green programs to help reduce solid waste generated by its residents and businesses. Programs include: 31 % of DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 133 the City fleet are hybrid electric vehicles (reduces fossil fuel use); City purchases recycled paper products; 400 cubic yards of mulch was used in City parks in 2020; recycling is encouraged at all City -sponsored events; and 34% of collected wastes were diverted from landfills in 2020. The Project would be required to comply with applicable aspects of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991), AB 939, and other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste disposal standards as a matter of regulatory policy, thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to the waste disposal facilities is reduced in accordance with existing regulations. Any impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 134 20. WILDFIRE. Source(s): Fire Protection Technical Memorandum, Garbani Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Dudek, 5-10-2023 (Fire Memo, Appendix M); Google Maps; General Plan; GPEIR (Chapter 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials); and Figure 7-1, Surrounding Topography, provided in Section 7. Geology and Soils of this Initial Study. Applicable General Plan Policies: • Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires. • Policy S-4.1: Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire. • Policy S-4.2: Ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that fire services, such as firefighting equipment and personnel, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the City. • Policy S-4.4: Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate • Goal S-5: A community that has reduced the potential for hazardous materials contamination. Analysis of Project Effect and Determination of Significance: If located in or near state responsibility Potentially areas or lands classified as very high fire Significant hazard severity zones, would the Project: Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated 11 T Less Than Significant I No Impact Impact The proposed Project site is located within an isolated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone and a Local Responsibility Area mainly due to the vegetated knoll to the southwest. This Fire Safety Zone generally covers an area that is south of Garbani Road, west of Sherman Road, north of Wickerd Road, and east of Evans Road and is evidently intended to cover the hill with the steep slopes on the west side of the Project. A Fire Protection Technical Memorandum (Fire Memo) was prepared for the Project in May 2023. The Project will incorporate the various physical and operational design items recommended in the Memo to protect future Project residents and residences. For example, the Project has incorporated a 30-foot fuel modification zone (FMZ) on its south, west and southwest boundaries. Additionally, all new housing associated with this subdivision shall be required to comply with Section 701.A.3 of the California Building Code, which governs building materials, and systems and/or assemblies used in exterior design of buildings located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Mitigation Measure MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 are proposed to assure the Project implements the design recommendations of the Fire Memo. It is noted her that the requirements of the Fire Memo are based on the following: Title 14 Section 1280, Part 9 of the California Fire Code 2019 Chapter 7a- California Building Code, Residential Code Sections R337, California Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189; California DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 135 Public Resources Codes Sections 4201 through 4204; National Fire Protection Association Standards (NFPA) 13-D, 2016; Riverside County Ordinance 787.9 and 460.151. A limited potential exists to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction. Construction work in the street associated with the Project will be limited to lateral utility connections (i.e., water or sewer) that will be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Control of access will ensure emergency access to the site and Project area during construction through the submittal and approval of a traffic control plan (TCP). The TCP is designed to alleviate any construction circulation impacts. The TCP is a standard condition and is not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Following construction, emergency access to the Project site and area will remain as it was prior to the proposed Project. All Project elements, including landscaping, will be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed residences so as to not interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the site. The proposed Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Menifee Municipal Code. The Project will not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. If located in or near state responsibility Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than areas or lands classified as very high fire Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact hazard severity zones, would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact _ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant X concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The proposed Project site is located within an isolated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone and a Local Responsibility Area mainly due to the vegetated knoll to the southwest. The far southwest corner of the site contains disturbed coastal sage scrub vegetation, as does the small knoll located just offsite to the southwest. Topographic relief at the subject property is relatively low with the terrain being generally flat. Elevations onsite range from approximately 1,450 on the north to 1,542 feet AMSL at the southwest corner. The Project site is currently vacant but there is a low -density residential subdivision located just north of the site across Garbani Road. The remaining land around the site is vacant to the east, south, and west. There are relatively steep slopes immediately southwest of the site. The Project will incorporate the various physical and operational design items recommended in the Memo to protect future Project residents and residences. For example, the Project has incorporated a 30-foot FMZ on its south, west and southwest boundaries. Additionally, all new housing associated with this subdivision shall be required to comply with Section 701.A.3 of the California Building Code, which governs building materials, and systems and/or assemblies used in exterior design of buildings located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Mitigation Measures MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 are proposed to assure the Project implements the design recommendations of the Memo. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 136 The proposed Project has been reviewed, and conditions of approval have been issued to address any potential impacts to Fire Resources, consistent with the Fire Hazards section of the Safety Element of the General Plan. As part of the Project approval(s), standard conditions are assessed on the proposed Project to reduce impacts from the proposed Project to fire services. Prior to final map recordation, prior to grading permit issuance, prior to building permit issuance, and prior to building final inspection, the Project will need to demonstrate compliance with the General Plan as well as with the current building code. Adherence to the other fire protection regulatory compliance are typically standard conditions of approval and are not considered unique mitigation pursuant to CEQA. With the incorporation of the FMZ, the other recommendations of the Fire Protection Memo, and application of the appropriate sections of the Building Code, the Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, significantly exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. With implementation of MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3, potential wildfire -related impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Mitigation Impact _ Incorpor�*a c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines X or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposed Project site is located within an isolated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone and a Local Responsibility Area mainly due to the vegetated knoll to the southwest. The Project will incorporate the various physical and operational design items recommended in the Memo to protect future Project residents and residences. The Project has incorporated a 30-foot FMZ on its south, west and southwest boundaries. Additionally, all new housing associated with this subdivision shall be required to comply with Section 701.A.3 of the California Building Code, which governs building materials, and systems and/or assemblies used in exterior design of buildings located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Mitigation Measures MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 are proposed to assure the Project implements the design recommendations of the Memo. All of the planned improvements related to fire protection for the tentative tract will be built and maintained onsite, and there are no new improvements within the wildland/urban interface that could exacerbate fire risks to people or the environment. With the incorporation of the FMZ, the other recommendations of the Memo, and application of the appropriate sections of the Building Code, the Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, significantly exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The Project does not include and or require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 137 environment. The Project site is currently vacant but new roads and utilities will be installed onsite (but not into any wildland areas) in accordance with the respective jurisdiction requirements. With implementation of MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated p X Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No Impact The proposed Project site is located within an isolated Very High Fire Hazard Safety Zone and a Local Responsibility Area mainly due to the vegetated knoll to the southwest. The Project will incorporate the various physical and operational design items recommended in the Memo to protect future Project residents and residences. The Project has incorporated a 30-foot FMZ on its south, west and southwest boundaries. Additionally, all new housing associated with this subdivision shall be required to comply with Section 701.A.3 of the California Building Code, which governs building materials, and systems and/or assemblies used in exterior design of buildings located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Mitigation Measures MM-WILD-1 through MM-WILD-3 are proposed to assure the Project implements the design recommendations of the Fire Protection Memo. All of the planned improvements related to fire protection for the tentative tract will be built and maintained onsite, and there are no new improvements within the wildland/urban interface that could exacerbate fire risks to people or the environment. Elevations onsite range from approximately 1,450 in the north to 1,542 feet AMSL in the southwest corner adjacent to a small knoll. Therefore, there are steep slopes but no water sources within a one -quarter mile radius of the Project site that could result in flooding or inundation. The tentative map shows the FMZ and drainage control area at the southwest corner of the site separating the steeper slopes from the flatter portions of the residential tract. This buffer area will preclude any impacts related to landslides or post -fire instability of the neighboring hillside. Based on this information, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures MM-WILD-1: Site Plan Requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate the site plan includes the following design requirements consistent with the Fire Memo review of the Project site plan: • The site has two points of access with adequate separation to Sherman Road. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 138 • Sherman Road shall be upgraded to CFC fire apparatus access standards including surface, width, and load bearing capabilities. • All on -site roads comply with fire apparatus access requirements. • Roadway widths/turn radii shall meet fire department minimum requirements with no dead-end roadways. • Six -foot -tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) "fire" walls along the entire perimeter property line; • Windows on exposed sides of structures with less than 100 feet of Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) shall be dual tempered panes exceeding Chapter 7A requirements of dual pane, one pane tempered; • Walls will have added treatment for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19 that are adjacent to off -site areas with unmaintained fuels (i.e., southwest and west); • Irrigated landscaping in the rear yards of lots 7 through 19; and • An NFPA 13D sprinkler system shall be installed in all homes with water to be supplied by EMWD. • Access roads (including weight support and Opticom signalization), driveways, gates, Knox boxes will all be installed to comply with current codes/standards. MM-WILD-2: Fire Protection Design. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable design and operational recommendations presented in the approved Fire Protection Technical Memorandum, Garbani Project, City of Menifee, prepared by Dudek and dated 5-10-2023 with any subsequent revisions and additions adopted by the City. Required measures include but are not limited to the following: The site shall have a series of irrigated fuel modification zones (FMZ) in the rear yards of residential lots along the west and south sides of the Project, the side yards of residential lots along Sherman Road, and the common Lot D. The FMZs shall consist of irrigated, low fuel plant materials with regular maintenance. See Attachment 1 (Fuel Modification Plan) in the Fire Memo for FMZ details. • The FMZs shall be delineated in a The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) that shall be submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department (RVCFD) for review and approval. The FMZs shall include: o Zone 0 - The area within five feet of structures to be maintained as an ember resistant zone and include gravel, pavers, concrete or other noncombustible materials (no combustible bark or mulch). 0 20 to 36-foot-wide onsite irrigated FMZ is proposed in the rear yards on the western boundary (future ROW to include paved roadway); a 30-foot wide offsite equivalent FMZ (existing condition) occurs adjacent to these lots; a 6-foot-tall masonry wall will be provided around the entire project; it will provide mitigation for reduced FMZ on lots 7 through 19. 0 56 to 58-foot-wide onsite irrigated FMZ is proposed in the rear yards on the southern boundary. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 139 o 100-foot-wide combination onsite FMZ and adjacent paved ROW FMZ equivalent on the eastern boundary (47- to-49-foot wide onsite FMZ and paved roadway; 44-foot-wide existing dirt road offsite (future paved street). MM-WILD-3: Homeowners Association (HOA) Requirements. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate that the developer covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&R) contain the following requirements. • Up to 100-foot wide maintained FMZ proposed on common Lot D; HOA maintenance shall be provided. • Common area vegetation management conducted by the HOA is identified on the Fuel Modification Plan; area shall be maintained and irrigated. • Fuel Modification areas maintained by individual homeowners are identified on the Fuel Modification Plan. Mulch shall not be placed in backyards unless irrigated and no closer than 5 inches from the house. • Fuel modification areas must be maintained at least once annually and additionally as needed to ensure compliance with maintenance requirements. All fuel modification areas are to be kept free of invasive plants and any volunteer native shrubs. Weeds are to be maintained less than four inches in height. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Development Director or their designee. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 140 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Source(s): Staff review and Project Plans (Appendix L). Potential) Less Than y Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Implementation of the proposed Project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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. Please reference the discussions in Section 4 (Biological Resources) for recommended mitigation measures shown below. In addition to the mitigation measures outlined in this Section (and below), standard conditions will apply to the proposed Project to protect biological and cultural resources. Any impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation and standard conditions incorporated. Biological Resources MM-BIO-1: Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds MM-BIO-2: Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl MM-BIO-3: Owl Monitoring MM-BIO-4: Tree Survey The City hereby finds that impacts will be less than significant with the standard conditions and mitigation incorporated. DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 141 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project X 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)? Less Than Significant Impact Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions. Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes and operational characteristics involved with the Project. Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies two methods to determine the scope of related projects for cumulative impact analysis: List -of -Projects Method: a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. Summary -of -Projections Method: a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of San Jacinto General Plan, AQMP, and the CMP. Therefore, cumulative impacts will be less than significant. Based on the analysis of the Project's impacts in the responses to items 1 through 20 of this Environmental Assessment, the proposed Project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Standard conditions will apply to the proposed Project. Any impacts will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 142 Based on the analysis of the Project's impacts in the responses to items 1 through 20, there is no indication that this Project will result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Section 13 (Noise) and Section 20 (Wildfire) include mitigation measures as shown below which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Long-term effects include increased vehicular traffic, traffic related noise, use of hazardous materials, emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis herein concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects in these other topics will remain at less than significant levels. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts to human beings will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and standard regulatory compliance. Noise MM-NOI-1: Noise Barriers Wildfire MM-WILD-1: Site Plan Requirements MM-WILD-2: Fire Protection Design MM-WILD-3: HOA Requirements DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 143 V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Earlier Analyses Used, if any: N/A Location Where Earlier Analyses, if used, are available for review: VI. SOURCES/REFERENCES Assembly Bill 52 https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52 Assembly Bill 939 https:Hleginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilITextClient.xhtmI?bill_id=198919900AB939 California Building Code (CBC) http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/Current20l3Codes.aspx CalRecycle https://www2.caIrecycle.ca.gov/swfaciIities/Directory/36-AA-0055/ https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates#Commercial https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SoIidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2256?sitel D=2402 Department of Finance https:Hdof.ca.gov/ Eastern Municipal Water District 2019 Sewer System Management Plan https://www.emwd.org/post/sewer-system-management-plan-ssmp Eastern Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan https://www.emwd.org/post/urban-water-management-plan El Sobrante Landfill Annual Monitoring Report http:Hwww. rcwaste. org/Portals/0/Files/EISobrante/2020/FI NAL%20- 2019_EI_Sobrante_Landfil I_Ann ual_Status_Report. pdf El Sobrante Landfill Fact Sheet https://www.wmsolutions.com/locations/details/id/l 80 EnviroStor website hftp://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Viewer https://fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htmI GEOTRACKER website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov Google Maps https://maps.google.com DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 144 Menifee General Plan https://www.cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan Menifee General Plan Environmental Impact Report hftps://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Environmental-impact-Report Menifee Municipal Code https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/overview Menifee Citywide Trails Map https://www. cityofinenifee.us/295/Park-Trails-Open-Space-Recreation-Master Menifee Union School District https://www.menifeeusd.org/ Menifee Zoning Map https://www.cityofinenifee. us/DocumentCenterNiew/10804/Current-Zoning-Map-041520?bid Id= Metropolitan Water District 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan https://www. mwdh2o.com/media/21641/2020-urban-water-management-plan-june-2021.pdf Perris Union High School District https://www.puhsd.org/ Public Resources Code (PRC) http://www.search-california-law.com/research/titletoc/ca/PRC/index. html Riverside Transit Agency https://www.riversidetransit.com/ Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy https:Hscag.ca.gov/connect-socal U.S. Census Bureau https://www. census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/menifeecitycalifornia/ Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Interactive Maps https://www.wrc-rca.org/rcamaps/ DEV2021-009 / TTM 37450 Page 145 -----Original Message ----- From: Ebru Ozdil <eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2023 3:03 PM To: Brandon Cleary <bcleary@cityofinenifee.us>; Orlando Hernandez <ohernandez@cityofinenifee.us> Cc: Molly Earp <mearp@pechanga-nsn.gov>; Juan Ochoa <jochoa@pechanga-nsn.gov>; Tina Thompson Mendoza <tmendoza@pechanga-nsn.gov>; Cole Bauman <cbauman@pechanga-nsn.gov> Subject: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tentative Tract Map 37450 Garbani South Importance: High [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Clearly, This comment letter is written on behalf of the Pechanga Band of Indians (hereinafter, "the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Tribe formally requests, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"). Please add the Tribe to your distribution list(s) for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archeological reports, and all documents pertaining to this Project. The Tribe further requests to be directly notified of all public hearings and scheduled approvals concerning this Project. Please also incorporate these comments into the record of approval for this Project. The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of 'Ataaxum, and therefore the Tribe's, aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of 'Ataaxum place names, toota yixelval (rock art, pictographs, petroglyphs), and an extensive 'Ataaxum artifact record in the vicinity of the Project. This culturally sensitive area is affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this area as well as extensive history with both this Project and other projects within the area. The Tribe consulted on this project on our quarterly consultation meeting that was held on April 13, 2023. During our consultation we had agree that with the full set of cultural resources conditions along with Pechanga Tribal monitoring, inadvertent finds and human remains, that this project MND document can make the "Less than Significant Impact" determination. However, the MND document does not reflect these requests and fails to reference the conditions of approval for Pechanga Tribal Monitoring. The Tribe requests that the following additions to be incorporated into the final IS/MD and any other applicable documents, such a development and grading plans. We would be happy to discuss these further with the City of Menifee. COA— Native American Monitoring (Pechanga). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above -mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. The Tribe reserves the rights to continue to fully participate in the environmental review process, as well as to provide further comment on the Project's impacts to cultural resources and potential mitigation for such impacts. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to continue to work together with the City of Menifee in protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact me at 951-770-6313 or at eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov<mailto:eozdil pechanga-nsn.gov> once you have had a chance to review these comments so that we might address the issues concerning the IS/MND and the conditions that are being referenced in the document. Ebru T. Ozdil Cultural Analyst Pechanga Cultural Resources Department P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Office: (951) 770-6313 Fax: (951) 693-2314 Confidential Communication: This message, and any documents or files attached to it contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. Recipients should not file copies of this message and/or attachments with publicly accessible records. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent for the intended recipient, you have received this message and attachments in error, and any review, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by reply email or by telephone at (951) 770-6313, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them. CITY OF MENIFEE TTM 37450 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Issue Area Mitigation Measure Timing of Verification Biological Resources MM-13I0-1 Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds. Any development activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) within the project site shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through February 15) This will avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503 5, and 3513 The nest surveys shall include the project site and adjacent areas where project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February through August for raptors and March through August for songbirds), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey results shall be provided to the City's Planning Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following: 1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization efforts. 2 Pre -activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If nestinq birds (includinq Within 30 days of any ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation Responsible for Verification Planning Department upon submittal of survey report Status/Dat e/ Initials Issue Area Mitigation Measure Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Status/Dat e/ Initials nesting raptors) are found to be present, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Menifee and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Measures shall include immediate establishment of an appropriate buffer zone to be established by a qualified biologist, and approved by the City of Menifee, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and no construction activity shall occur within the buffer area until a qualified biologist determines nesting species have fledged and the nest is no longer active, or the nest has failed. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., juveniles are surviving independent of the nest). The onsite qualified biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting avoidance buffers and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. MM-BIO-2 Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl: To No more than 30 days Planning avoid project -related impacts to burrowing owls potentially prior to construction Department upon occurring on or in the vicinity of the project site, a preconstruction (e.g., vegetation submittal of survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 clearing, clearing and survey report days prior to construction (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to determine the presence of site watering). own or sign thereof. The results shall be submitted to the City Planning Department. If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If burrowing owls are found to be present, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Menifee and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sin is present that the burrows are being used by adult or L. '� c 20 a c � 00 mj m G cc N c N i7 a (6 m a) U m m C > N L O E 0 3: 0) a) C:U a)0 o m c�.o 0) C: O O O -�5 O ID a)O -0 3 2 — m w 0 m z C 0 a) O m a) Q U L O C ' >m v7 (n30 > 2 O U LL O_ —O L U U 0— C,t 0)O 0)00 ON QL_ cw E (� a) N - - ca E 0 3 a) o 5 �; 0) a) ul C O 0L OI� 7� 0 6 3� 0 m a) 0 m m U U E C C 1>? m� U O L D m- a�•� 0 7 mcr H L_L C)C C)3 un N >+NC C)C () LL .0 O .0 O 3 -2.0 O C_ m 3 m 'O U) p 3 O m c0_ E 3 0- a)�a3:L) O` U O`er C)m �� N O` U LL — O C > m C) m 3 0� m -m a) 3 `° o Cm0 �O ��CU a) a) aj-° a) rnE a� m U �y H NH L)-0 m m-0-0 U C cn m�tC _m t1 fn O mm O ) m OLLa) cai> ."� CU -0 ooLL�r- -C rn-0 n� '�'' o o OU 0C mmOmca)_ a) M > U m m Om - C 0 L) U 0 aO- -0.0 0>>.� `"m_.0cm`� a�U0 m°�0 } a) CLO.0a-a U E -0 a) L0 rn0E `� cL oa)'> _CD OL L O O@ O_ Q) m LLr C U EL 7 0�L E m C L y6 U -C C )n m 0— U) (n 3 a) m C 0.++ Em O NO m O " 0 LL E CLOO_ cM—C mC) "0 m LL d LL M O 0� O N om� L) . a) .U- U) C) U m-0 d O C N O a) -O ?� U 2 O C O N 7 C� m O •� >C N L 3 Ey (a U) m E.c a).0 0: ~Li O )n 'c m C C) a) -C N c �O C C� m .0 m m 00 (n (6 C: Em o N U0 3—� 01 C F- C)NQ-C m0 EO'cn `o o °m0 0 t�Qam�8N�3 03m> a)•0 cpLLL a�LO -0O� 0 O C C U❑ m 0 0 C) L N_ U To ch o _0) 2 .0 3 m 0) Co a) > � = C m 3 � '� a) oE ��co cLo� CoZ) o o 0Cv )n c O U m O o N N O m m 0 uJ �n .0 O 0§ a) N O a) 0 a) O_U))� OL 0)�y .fn- o LL - .� o cn Q o O o C) t '- m .E m U ._ U U L U » N j m a) a) O �,+ U O a) U C C C m 0 0C 3 m�V -0- 00 L 0 C a) O U a) L`U U !E E a) a) cn m I -0 U (n E >' O p) En a) — ca U ma) O O E m •U C a)-O o 0- > d U L u1 ?`- 9 O m O Co ? N N N 3 U a w U) U) 3 CUe- a) ca c a) > ma 0 C C m N 0 C --0cu E U m O •— O C) O_.— C m U C ,n m m C m N .— C)j .� i! C) m E O LL.. C M E m 0 0 0 3 0�U m _ cn m >> a) E .� m () a) a) 01 C a) a) a) 2E� 30 0 C 0 E "C O O O L 30 L L CIO7 O_O O_a2 Q@ DEL 7L �. Um m U ca maw En .0 O M 2._ w>,a cmm�O C "c 2 cc �a CM cE o c E c cm �NZ B 0E 2U� O caa0•�N a)aa)NE faaa)sE° Ua a pmo ccaiCoa m o — C m > L a) C1 O O m `O 0 0 a) U O U C '� a) m >, V) .a) m m E .� a c U c C Z) -t Ca m Q U - (n E O u1 a) U = mm o v)a-0 o o ado c�• ) ow w c a 0 d a a O m a C- to a) O) V a) c ,[ N c m M O C` a) C •� m .0.• a) 0 y v U O c O m a) c c O C 0 o L .-� 0 m a) CO m w `- m a) C m' L'U o' m O' ` m' �� C J U c N y a) c m•c o� Eca m aa)) �' aE Xa o f0" m m 0 m ��- �� 3 �.> > a) 0a a) a) �� c U) mw ° -E E �� -L o Z?L U cOi N� m� a— s c um> �� rn3 �� aim) 0 U Q`m � rn�m � a) a)'> a) '0— _m o c �L a�a aw amity m m o a� ��U U oLw m m� �'�a m.o m m mcc m o mom? m 2 0 3� 0) 'rL'y c.0 me 6� m m CL o0 0 ��a o a) `m m 3 0 01�'m c o o ;,�_ o o m o U O.E 2 m y m m m �L+ a) a) ma NL rnU > m m> m ui a)• .m `oL � a w m �y c~ am) -0 E c°) C c o in o.o L `�Qw aa))-0 Za) ym2c35o>m�com oao.0 L v�mm -c°m U Nin cmm m T O d m m U m C L Q a) m >, -pcu d) >, p a a) L (O O N CO w 0 c Cp m L c MN D y O c a) a) a) O U C m aL0 O m .m J j E 4 O a) 70 0 a N�� c m mL Z mU m m 0 m c m —?y a) Ems— cn �@ N� U c:��Lm. w� w� ao �� 3 �� o 0 Na °� T'� o c a m a cn c m m m 0— 0) 0 0 G �Q-Zmo>ommca)co.°m-'ua:—rnm m o° o tZ5-0a) U a =d min m> �'o m c m m 0o m E �a m `o_ mz m �— a) Iwo eta o c o cu cL m aEi m aa))2 a) m o m.0 o.j a) a a`)c_ ��L NL a+ O .0 ` C o-0 O •0 0 •3 :> d a o N a) U v U m a :F a) d p `) a) � � 0 •c a s a) +• O ILA aYL o— Ea m 0c a� o m m c c m m� U 1 E d >a 0� 0a c 0 ai� p 3 a�'iL o c a�'i•o m m coi aci acflc.Sr�c a) a) ao c a m m� a�U� m.> of U E Oy m a) a) O_�L o'0 mm m my m m m mA-- �v C c m 0 3 m cma m� � a) @ > N U mmo °_) H C aCi o=_ C m m m `o. Y c 3 N 0-x mo 0— +% o U) 0 a) m mc' )OEcE- c•�c~IE5m-L0coom�E jmu) otaci Zc.�w-0 m � m EOa � � a�— — a) m 30 a) aa))'� � E o a)� � E Q`U > m m m E� °� o 2 °a�oc �o Z m �' o'~coc E 0 o O �� L m c.� O m U O) +• a) a) m N !� 0-0 a) t a) w w O c U to Z U a) Q) a m C ` o a�� m o ° o ° oc m� c m oN cn m m z- or 0- v� aa) aa) o.o 0o aa) Qa-02a U� Ea 0H �� m o Uoi L aL �v �., Eo o c�`N— °) 0 m c H H 7 O m 0 Q, Nam•` N 7 R N m Z N co .m. A_� ICT G 0 cc co •a+ co ♦a 2 m5E-2 L O C m mm(D O O o m z:.o a) In w c_ in C OL 7 C a) E m �L O N a N m C cc rn a) -0w O) T.L T c:m 7 N o O E U C 7 c N o U q U maXC C�LL c0 (DH o- a) OL- m wL inm p -0Y 3 � U a) —inm�m 7 E C 0 N 0 -, 7 ' a) a `m o c c LLLL m o a) co :L- -2 cu II m pro 7aN O O)cn C 0 U cu N � J t6 C f0 o m En -oo @U v )UU 01 0-2 c u aa) _ E +� E cn c J E co � 3 a) m a O L `n=om min cn C_ m a) 7 N a L m N � 6 L cn L p 0 -p 0 . c m m a CU c �0 3U)a a m C c +) tC�-mom m m mii m m �- U) o- a m .a) C• m 0 0� 0 0 a) y c � m 7 0. -n cm c 0 0 m ca c N� c cn a N C O) O m O r L O m O O_ O 7 m O a) c0 O _ N _ 7 cn Co O U m C a C 0 3 L C C N L m Q -O m m� co w a) a) C a m O C a> � L E O O o a) 7 N m Co to U) aa)i � 7 a33 cn �m � N a) ca Y N N L N 6 LL a) .0 � o 3 o a 3N¢ c' C'C a U c6 a�c� cn 7 O a) C �E� L 0 �_ EoU ALL soma �LL1 m 3 a -_ m O- o U) Cu O-0 a m cn a u1 L m a C a) L C `� a) �' E a C- in m L O 7 .0 V) 0-(- -0 C a) `m � L .� m rn m 3 c Z. — N U a� m m 7 °� U) m cn Q v C-.� >, — L c cn c m E O m cn C ` Q m 7 a a o N N o C C• m a cn .L-+ 7 Hamm o m7 a camC a aE�m �� 6 C- .N U) L U E o` N c0 a) +� a) a) .0 Y a) d U C - C U E C a a X a) m '`. O) C O a) a) •O O_ a cn -p •a) (n .� E � O o N m a m D_ to ccaa o ca - 0 CL m am m 7 m a a) �'a) m-0n o -a'Z3 o•E aa) c �>--o m p m a) 3� cn c m a c 3� o Q c= Qo Cc 0) a) a t U)., — r-o ca E c cn a E mE � cn � � c m a d 3 o d) m L C �E -�•�a)Eu`ni.��a)37ocooa�a�rn-� LLcn par>m�m `m Zm Xm�oEmmoErnaZE J mw H �U) coo ) �� Etna � ) �-0 :3 mQt 0 -0 -0 E N a) m V_ Q 4) ` w m U) •- V v � ca 7 IL Ln 2 a as>m 3: mmC Ca) E � p Q2Q 0 m Co �ln a LL m ao 0 L) U _0-0m j a) m 0 a) a c C o m (n 16.2 a) m U C U) U C cn a) — O_ o 7 U 0O U O O D- y O i a) Q a) c a)_ (` c a) (D U U a) cnn 'p o- rZJ o c m a) a) m Qm o4 -) 'na) O- oEaa �E a) O v_ c N C a Q,O T _0 a7 X m O m c LL m 0' CL Xo � o m a) . mY m � o N Q.CL mNU I--oa a)a maoNc 3 o C a) �� a) C O T O 01` N -0 a)cp� O m >, Q a= c m e o -C- m aaa))� m o o 3 ' O m -o 0 U m a m a a m a3 C m� o acYo.E m c U a 0 o o o.o o m o, oa (n N a _ 3 o Q) m (n — N O m Z >, c m C c (D U 0 U _j i- C a) (0 a cn -0 Q .0 .E a) c6 E .V N C U _ a) O w QE c a) . -a a) E O U a'> U a)a)a) a)otcu a) CZ4 o 0) N c a C cu � 7� (6 -m m O C U •C > O O C — •� m e T a) `� c c o m w U (0 o:m,,E mLa - (D o m -Z N a E U) c m o 3 cn �-0 U) > p 0 O '� m p -p O` o U m U O- � a) y c LL a c E 0 a) E o o � a cnmoQ a)co o 00 0 a me CL oa) o cc a) > a mam N a �' c cn a) m a) o a`) U N �'-Om U a) N t m a) N U- a) a O mo�m� a)H�� -0 a)ccoco0E�-0 >o o L�ro c o)� a) �� o o o .� m o c a> a m o a) 'U) o 0 0 0 a c aa- c ca o c c o N •o O p(D `� (a c OM U� m LL o N min o-0— m .- m a) .� o a) O— � a) O .� ` O m o a .0 •a) T O C E� C u) C) O .3 E C •!n a) T O— E > a) .N C= C 2 a) m m u,� o �.�mU m m N 1 0 3 �•_ 3m .Lm• a o� o� m m m m a-> a) y Q m mt ai a) c -0 a) '0 m oa C o cn E a U� 3 c L L m O `) O N c c L a) a)1 O >Om Omcn U E.c >O maC m o-0m Lom Xn O O ocn 00)a)ooN LL amaN . °m cCl)Cl)>m L ' Ov NwCw cmg�Q c.w `p Co >N' � O mm�o O >ai ` o H )ma)N a)c00 NErnEc-4 .cLLaJa (Lnm Qvo H N 3 26 EaLLLL O O O O J d\ 2k $� �c { k 2 �k .0 �k/�C2CLO Eoo�o�000� CL �kk �k 0> �R5 : 2 J> k 02 3 c U ) /p\ o t-8 b o k aft w c0. 0 § /a ma£ 00m�§ CD >/ E �f �ƒ§ E=Co f 5�0 0 �� k2a mE00> 0 cr k° aM 0 2_0-- g E 5 0 c 2 ■�/e = _� .0'-� w�� ' ak)K K2§� kak\k 0$25 �uo� �kk e723 @��&#�- a 075aB U) uoe o ao�m .(D o # __� c- NEE ��0 =®ccC e ■02�2 �e&e `mot=�2<aE E�«2£$k(D R§ ■ a aCLk %�@I 0mm- ��_�cc.- _a 0�°o S/(& aI�m�ca E:3 &)� kB °®£_� m (D ta)cLL a) E k f: 2 7 )cn CU a) E� 2fc a@ E®a (DCC 2-0 k$_ k C Co 2�a)-0 CL /C'D(D >a) —0LO 2 £/ e ,f o��u _� k i O'D , =CcM- (aC- _ 2Em � cm� c�0£ _0 E°IW 2§5 0< ar—) E=£/EE�2f k� 0o'-sm2{��\±§C �/ 9§E� 0 06E�� Gf�f3 (D ,§ @E 1 Qf] 22222�0 0=3c �#t =�olMLL cU-m�%�: E0 cc to §��§ , . �> &3 § « ! / r- G�TY OF MEN IFEE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF MENIFEE ) I, Sarah Manwaring, City Clerk of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the foregoing Planning Commission Resolution No. PC23-601 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of July, 2023 by the following vote: Ayes: Long, Madrid, Thomas, LaDue Noes: None Absent: Diederich Abstain. None lala -, �Vy ah Manwaring Clerk