Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC23-603
RESOLUTION NO. PC 23-603 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 38346 (PLN22-0003) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND PLN22-0004 FOR THE PROPOSED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 162 CONDOMINIUMS COLLECTIVLEY REFERED TO AS DEV2022-002 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROUSE ROAD AND MENIFEE ROAD (APN: 331-250-028; 029; 030) WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the applicant, Bryan Bergeron, filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for Tentative Tract Map No. 38346 (PLN22-0003) and Plot Plan No. PLN22-0004, collectively known as DEV2022-002, for the construction of multi -family residential project consisting of 162 condominiums on an approximately 9.5 gross acre (6.85 net acre) site located on the northwest corner of Rouse Road and Menifee Road; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study ("IS") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") have been prepared to analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, between July 14, 2023 and August 2, 2023, the twenty (20) day public review period for the Draft IS/MND took effect, which was publicly noticed by a publication in a newspaper of general circulation, noticed to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries, related agencies and government agencies, and to persons requesting public notice; and WHEREAS, the City received no public comments during the twenty (20) day public review period; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the adoption of the IS/MND for DEV2022-002; and which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notice to property owners within 300 feet of the Project boundaries, on -site posting at the project site, and to persons requesting public notice; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with CEQA and the IS/MND is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City; and WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the draft IS/MND which would require re -circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee makes the following Findings: IS/MND for TTM 38346 DEV2022-002 August 9, 2023 Section 1: The Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the IS/MND, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 2: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") and a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, will assure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. Section 3: The Planning Commission further finds that the adoption of the MND reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. Section 4: The MND, all documents referenced in the MND, and the record of proceedings on which the Planning Commission's decision is based are located at City of Menifee City Hall at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, and the custodian of record of proceedings is the City of Menifee City Clerk. Section 5: The City of Menifee Planning Commission adopts an MND for the project including, but not limited to the MMRP, as attached to the MND. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 9th day of August 2023: aan ie &Roseaen, Acting City Clerk Approved as to form: Th n, Assistant City Attorney 2 1Z� Jeff Due, Chairman TTM 38346 Project DRAFT INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared for: City of Menifee MENIFEE Prepared by: Michael Baker International, Inc. INTERNATIONAL July 2023 This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. AAF MENIFEE New. Better. Best. DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TTM 38346 Project Lead Agency: CITY OF MENIFEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Contact: Fernando Herrera, Associate Planner 951-723-3718 Prepared by: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 40810 County Center Drive Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 Contact: Alicia Gonzalez 909-974-4933 July 2023 This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. ii� MENIFEE TTIIA 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1.1 1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements.............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Consultation................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Incorporation by Reference............................................................................................................. 1-2 2.0 Project Description..................................................................................................................................... 2.3 2.1 Project Location................................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Project Characteristics..................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Phasing/Construction....................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Agreements, Permits, and Approvals............................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Initial Study Checklist................................................................................................................................. 3.1 3.1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Lead Agency Determination............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts............................................................................................... 3-4 4.0 Environmental Analysis............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................... 4-19 4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................... 4-25 4.6 Energy............................................................................................................................................4-33 4.7 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................................... 4-41 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................................47 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................. 4-59 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................................................... 4-65 4.11 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................................. 4-71 4.12 Mineral Resources......................................................................................................................... 4-73 4.13 Noise......................................................................4-75 4.14 Population and Housing................................................................................................................. 4-89 4.15 Public Services............................................................................................................................... 4-91 4.16 Recreation...................................................................................................................................... 4-95 4.17 Transportation................................................................................................................................ 4-97 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 4-111 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................................... 4-113 4.20 Wildfire......................................................................................................................................... 4-117 4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................................................. 4-119 5.0 References...................................................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 Report Preparation Personnel................................................................................................................... 6-1 July 2023 i Table of Contents "w MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit1 Regional Vicinity................................................................................................................................... Exhibit2 Site Vicinity........................................................................................................................................... Exhibit3 Conceptual Site Plan............................................................................................................................ Exhibit 4 Noise Measurement Locations............................................................................................................. . 2-7 . 2-9 2-11 4-87 July 2023 ii Table of Contents TTM 38346 PROJECT d Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE LIST OF TABLES Table 4.3-1 Project -Generated Construction Emissions .... Table 4.3-2 Project -Generated Operational Emissions...... Table 4.3-3 Localized Emissions Significance ................... Table 4.6-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption 4 1 dG h (I- E' .......................................................................... ... 4-12 .............................................................................. 4-14 ............................................................................... 4-17 ................................................................................ 4-37 Table .8- Estimate reen ouse as missions............................................................................................ Table 4.8-2 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 Inventory Sectors ............................................... . Table 4.8-3 Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.................................................................................... . 4-52 4-54 4-55 Table 4.8-4 Consistency with the City of Menifee General Plan.............................................................................. 4-57 Table 4.13-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.............................................................. 4-76 Table 4.13-2 City of Menifee Stationary Noise Standards....................................................................................... 4-77 Table4.13-3 Noise Measurements.......................................................................................................................... 4-79 Table 4.13-4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment ............................................. 4-81 Table 4.13-5 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots............................................................................... 4-82 Table 4.13-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.......................................................................... 4-85 Table 4.17-1 HCM Intersection Level of Service Criteria......................................................................................... 4-99 Table 4.17-2 Existing Year 2022 Intersection Analysis Results............................................................................. 4-100 Table 4.17-3 Existing Year 2022 Segment Analysis Results................................................................................. 4-100 Table 4.17-4 Trip Generation................................................................................................................................. 4-101 Table 4.17-5 Existing Year 2022 with Project Intersection Analysis Results.......................................................... 4-102 Table 4.17-6 Existing Year 2022 with Project Segment Analysis Results.............................................................. 4-102 Table 4.17-7 Opening Year 2024 Intersection Analysis Results............................................................................ 4-103 Table 4.17-8 Opening Year 2024 Segment Analysis Results................................................................................ 4-104 Table 4.17-9 Opening Year 2024 Cumulative with Project Intersection Analysis Results ...................................... 4-104 Table 4.17-10 Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Segment Analysis Results........................................................... 4-105 Table 4.17-11 WRCOG VMT Calculator Tool Summary ........................................................................................ 4-107 Table 4.19-1 Landfills Serving the City.................................................................................................................. 4-116 July 2023 All Table of Contents TTM 38346 PROJECT ALI Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE APPENDICES A. Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Modeling B. Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis C. Cultural Resources Report D. Geotechnical Evaluation Ell. Phase I ESA E2. Phase II ESA F1. Hydrology Report F2. WQMP G. Noise Modeling H. Traffic Study and VMT Assessment July 2023 iv Table of Contents TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 1.0 Introduction The TTM 38346 Project (herein referenced as the "project") proposes the construction of 162 two-story townhome units on an approximately 9.5-acre site located at the northwest corner of Rouse Road and Menifee Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 331-250-028, 331-250-029 and 331-250-030). Refer to Section 2.0, Proiect Description for more detail. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Menifee (City) has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and statutes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed. 1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.70.10) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City, acting in the capacity of lead agency under CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 (Lead Agency), is required by California Code of Regulations Section 15063 to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project -related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for that project. Such a determination can be made only if "[t]here is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the [L]ead [A]gency" that such impacts may occur (Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(1)). The environmental documentation outlined above, which is ultimately determined by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and/or other discretionary approvals would be required. The environmental documentation is subject to a public review period, During this review, comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City in writing. Following review of any written comments received, the City will consider these comments as a part of the project's environmental review and will include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City's decision -makers. 1.2 Purpose CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: • A description of the project, including the location of the project; • Identification of the environmental setting; • Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; • Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; • Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and • The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. July 2023 1-1 Project Description y TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 1.3 Consultation As soon as a Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Menifee) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with "Responsible Agencies" and "Trustee Agencies" as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15381 and 15386 respectively, that are responsible for resources affected by the project, to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the Lead Agency considers any recommendations of those agencies in the formulation of the preliminary findings. 1.4 Incorporation by Reference The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document by reference. The documents are available for review on the City of Menifee's website (https://www.cityofinenifee.us/98/Community-Development) and at the City's Community Development Department located at City Hall at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. City of Menifee General Plan (adopted December 18, 2013). The City of Menifee General Plan (General Plan) includes forecasts of long-term conditions and outlines development goals and policies. It guides growth and development within the City by designating land uses in the proposed land use map and through implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan. It also provides a long-term vision for the City, and through its implementation goals and policies, indicate how that vision may be achieved over time. The General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use; Housing; Circulation; Open Space and Recreation; Community Design; Economic Development; Safety; and Noise. The Housing Element was last updated and integrated into the General Plan on December 15, 2021. The Land Use Element and Safety Element were last updated an integrated into the General Plan in January 2022. All development projects, including subdivisions, public works, redevelopment projects, zoning decisions, and other various implementation tools must be consistent with the General Plan. City of Menifee General Plan Environmental Impact Report(adopted December 18, 2013). The City of Menifee General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) is intended to provide decision -makers and the public with information concerning the environmental effects of implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR includes background data, analyzes potential environmental impacts, identifies General Plan policies and implementation plans that serve as mitigation, and identifies additional mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects due to implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan implementation would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts in the following topic areas: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation and Traffic. Menifee Municipal Code (current through Ordinance 2023-366, passed March 1 20231. The Menifee Municipal Code (Municipal Code) provides regulations for governmental operations, development, infrastructure, public health and safety, and business operations within the City. Municipal Code Title 9, Planning and Zoning (Zoning Ordinance), is established to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of the City and its inhabitants. The Zoning Ordinance regulates the use of buildings, structures, and land for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional purposes; regulates location, height, bulk, and area covered by buildings and structures; and controls lot size, yards, intensity of land use, signs, and off-street parking, July 2023 1-2 Project Description AAF MENIFEE 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Location TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The City is located in the southwestern portion of the County of Riverside, within the Inland Empire region; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. Interstate 215 (1-215) bisects the City in a north -south orientation, and Newport Road traverses the City's central extent in an east -west orientation. The project site is approximately 9.5 gross acres (8.06 net acres) and is located in the northern portion of the City at Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 331-250-028, 331- 250-029 and 331-250-030); refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity. Specifically, the project site is located at the northwest corner of Rouse Road and Menifee Road. Regional access to the project site is provided via 1-215. Local access is provided via Rouse Road and Menifee Road, 2.2 Environmental Setting The project site consists of an undeveloped, vacant lot composed of disturbed habitat that is dominated by ruderal/weedy, low -growing plant species. The site has been subjected to routine weed abatement activities such as disking and tilling, resulting in heavily disturbed and compacted surface soils. A dirt road is present on the site, and the northern portion is fenced, containing a motorhome, and ornamental plants. The project site has a relatively flat topography and is sloping gently to the southwest. The elevation at the site is approximately 1,466 feet above mean sea level. General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning The project site has a General Plan land use designation of 20.1-24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) Residential (20.1- 24 R), which allows high density residential development, including apartments and townhomes. The site has a zoning designation of High -Density Residential (HDR), which also allows multi -family development (20-24 dwelling units per acre). Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include vacant land and residential uses. Specifically, land uses surrounding the site include • North: An undeveloped lot with scattered trees bounds the site to the north, This area is designated 20.1-24 R and zoned HDR. There is a chain -link fence located along the northern project boundary, • East: Menifee Road bounds the site to the east, with single-family residential uses east of Menifee Road. Areas to the east of the site are designated Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan and zoned Menifee Valley Ranch Specific Plan. • South: Rouse Road bounds the site to the south, with single-family residential uses south of Rouse Road. Areas to the south of the site are designated 2.1-5 du/ac Residential by the General Plan. This area is zoned as Low Density Residential-2 (LDR-2) [7,200 SF]. West: Vacant land designated 20.1-24 R and zoned HDR bounds the project site to the west. July 2023 2.3 Project Description TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 2.3 Project Characteristics Development Concept The proposed project consists of the development of 162 two-story attached townhome units on an approximately 6.85 net acre site; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Plan. The density of the project would be approximately 23.6 du/ac, which is within the allowable density range of 20.1 to 24 du/ac for land with the High -Density Residential zoning designation. Interior livable space would consist of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units ranging from approximately 918 square feet to 1,336 square feet. The maximum building height of the residences would be approximately 28 feet. 352 parking spaces would be provided for residents and guests, inclusive of 287 garage spaces, 59 standard stalls, four accessible stalls, and one electric vehicle stall. Amenities within the development would include a clubhouse, pool, and an approximately 0.42-acre common open space area inclusive of a dog park and recreation center. In addition, the project would provide approximately 21,263 square feet of private open space. Additional improvements include installation of a stormwater infiltration basin in the southwest corner of the project site, approximately 810 feet of offsite sewer lines, 1,220 feet of offsite reclaimed water piping, and connections to existing storm drain and water facilities. Sidewalk, curb, and gutter would be installed along the project's frontages at Rouse Road and Menifee Road, The project would be constructed to conform with the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code (Municipal Code Title 9, Planning and Zoning, Article 4, Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards) and the City's adopted Design Guidelines (amended March 2, 2022), which includes design standards related to building size, height, setback, and materials, as well as landscaping, signage, and other considerations. Site Access Access to the site would be provided via two entry points: one from Rouse Road and one from Menifee Road. The project would install a raised median on each street to limit movements to left in/right in, right out on Menifee Road and right in, right out only on Rouse Road. Access and circulation improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City design and engineering standards; refer to Exhibit 3. Landscaping Ornamental water -efficient landscaping would be installed throughout the site. A conceptual landscape plan was developed for the project in accordance with the requirements of the Menifee Municipal Code Title 9, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 9.195.040, Landscape Requirements. Planting materials would include a mix of trees, shrubs, vines, groundcover, and turf. The total size of landscaped areas would be approximately 1,47 acres or approximately 17 percent of the site. A 4- to 6-foot retaining wall would be installed around the perimeter of the property. Utilities and Services The following utilities and services would serve the site: • Water. The proposed development would be served by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) for domestic (drinking) water supply services. • Sewer. EMWD provides wastewater/sanitary sewer service to the project area. • StormwaterDrainaoe. Open drainage channels and underground storm drains larger than 36 inches diameter are operated and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District July 2023 2-4 Project Description TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE (RCFCWCD); smaller underground storm drains are operated and maintained by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. • Dry Utilities. The site would be served by Southern California Edison for electricity services and the Southern California Gas Company for natural gas services. It is noted that the project is bordered on the east and south by Southern California Edison aboveground transmission and distribution lines. 2.4 Phasing/Construction Land development construction would occur as a single phase and the construction duration is anticipated to occur for approximately seven (7) months, from approximately January 2024 to September 2024. Building construction would be occur in multiple construction phases and is anticipated to occur for approximately 31 months from the completion of the land development construction activities, from approximately August 2024 through October 2026. The earthwork volumes are estimated at approximately 2,121 cubic yards of cut and 16,811 cubic yards of fill dirt, resulting in approximately 12,690 cubic yards of import soil. The project would also remove a 2,000 cubic yard abandoned septic tank and well; refer to Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 2.5 Agreements, Permits, and Approvals The City, as Lead Agency, has discretionary authority over the proposed project, which requires the following discretionary approvals: • CEQA Clearance; • Tentative Tract Map; • Major Plot Plan; • Stormwater management and associated permitting consistent with the provisions of the RCFCWCD; and • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). Other anticipated permits include a grading permit, building permit, and encroachment permit, as well as site plan approval from various approving bodies including but not limited to the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and Menifee Police Department. July 2023 2-5 Project Description HS TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 2-6 Project Description t R<.Imcl ind rongnF - -. Q 2 •wfs RD - - WAIi0N RD a a a a y W � a SCE son JambVaUeyService 2 - Center Heliport G � f z MCLAUGHIRD O Z 9 ROUSE � L Doublv'&,W . a tz c rryf`yr 1 GRAND -- - ( SIMPSON, RD C c` 2 x hlenlfee 0 0.5 1 INTERNATIONAL Miles Source: ESRI, Riverside County MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Regional Vicinity Exhibit 1 Hff MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 2-8 Project Description w .�,___. �J �, _ _- - IP 1 -. Legend Project Site 4 N T EI N T E R® O Source. ESRI, Riverside County 125 250 Feet MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Site Vicinity Exhibit 2 TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 2.10 Project Description RAO i 4t .14 4 t r Alp 4.0 4i Hit fit 1. AAF TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank July 2023 2-12 Project Description t& MENIFEE 3.0 Initial Study Checklist 3.1 Background 1. Project Title: TTM 38346 Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Menifee 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fernando Herrera, Associate Planner 951-723-3718 TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Project Location: The project site (APNs 331-250-028, 331-250-029 and 331-250-030) is located at the northwest corner of Rouse Road and Menifee Road. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Foremost Pacific Group Bryan A. Bergeron, Vice President — Forward Planning & Land Development 27271 Las Ramblas, #100, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 6. General Plan Designation: 20.1-24 du/ac Residential (20.1-24 R) 7. Zoning: High -Density Residential (HDR) 8. Description of Project: Refer to Section 2.3, Project Characteristics. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include vacant land and residential uses. Refer to Section 2.2, Environmental Setting. 10. Other anticipated public agencies whose approval is required: • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City distributed letters notifying each tribe that requested to be on the City's list for the purposes of AB 52 of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. The letters were distributed by certified mail on February 1, 2022. The tribes had 30 days to respond to the City's request for consultation. Refer to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for additional information. July 2023 3.1 Initial Study Checklist HS MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ® Geology and Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance July 2023 3-2 Initial Study Checklist ,14 MENIFEE 3.3 Lead Agency Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ❑ environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and El an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable El standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Title. Associate Planner Printed Name: Fernando Herrera Agency Citv of Menifee Date July 5, 2023 July 2023 3.3 Initial Study Checklist MENIFEE 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire • Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and used by the City of Menifee in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to identify mitigation to avoid or minimize the impact. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. • Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures are required so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. July 2023 3-4 Initial Study Checklist TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.1 Aesthetics Less Than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, Potentially Significant Significant Impact With Less Than Significant No would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ✓ _ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ✓ within a State scenic highway? c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced ✓ from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would ✓ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed.' Scenic vistas may also be represented by a particular distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features. Other designated Federal and State lands, as well as local open space or recreational areas, may also offer scenic vistas if they represent a valued aesthetic view within the surrounding landscape of nearby features. The City's scenic resources are categorized within the General Plan Community Design Element as Scenic Corridors and Enhanced Landscape Corridors. According to the General Plan, the protection of the city's visual resources along its Scenic Corridors is particularly important because these corridors help visually frame some of the community's most distinctive features. Additionally, roadways designated as Enhanced Landscape Corridors are recognized as major transportation routes and shall receive special design consideration to ensure they complement the existing community. Menifee Road, which is adjacent to the east of the project site, is identified as both a Scenic and Enhanced Landscape Corridor. Because of these designations, the project must comply with General Plan Policies CD-4.1 through CD-4.3 for Enhanced Landscape Corridors and CD-4.4 through CD-4.11 for Scenic Resources. Policies CD-4.1 through CD- 4.3 ensure unification of streetscape elements such as coordinated streetlights, landscaping and signage; allow for safer walkability and bicycling; and require special considerations at intersections and crosswalks. Policies CD-4.4 through CD-4.11 provide requirements such as building height restrictions, billboard prohibition and landscaping to maintain compatibility with the surrounding scenic setting. The project satisfies Policies CD-4.1 through CD-4.3 by providing coordinated streetlights, landscaping trees, streetscape walkways, and parkways along Menifee Road, as well as through the provision of monument signage walls A viewshed is the geographical area which is visible from a particular location. July 2023 4-1 Aesthetics MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration at the project entryway. The project satisfies CD-4.4 through CD-4.11 by providing a wide parkway with median landscaping, incorporating landscaping and signage that's compatible with the surrounding setting, and limiting building height and setbacks according to the City's Design Guidelines. Additionally, the project would not obstruct views of scenic features along Menifee Road, because the project is located west of the roadway. Further, the project's design, including its architectural features, building materials, and landscaping would be reviewed and approved by the City during the development review process. The City would also have the ability to add conditions related to project aesthetics during the developmental review process if needed, all prior to approval of the project. This process would verify that the project's design is compatible with development in the surrounding vicinity and that it is consistent with applicable zoning regulations. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no officially designated State scenic highways within the project vicinity.z The nearest eligible highway is State Route 74 (SR-74), approximately one mile north of the project site. Views of the project site are not afforded from SR-74 due to intervening topography, structures, and vegetation. Thus, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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. The project site consists of an undeveloped, vacant lot composed of disturbed habitat that is dominated by ruderal/weedy, low -growing plant species. The site has been subjected to routine weed abatement activities such as disking and tilling, resulting in heavily disturbed and compacted surface soils. A dirt road is present on the site, and the northern portion is fenced, containing a motorhome, and ornamental plants. In addition, the project site is located in an urbanizing area of the City that supports residential development. Specifically, the site is bordered by residential uses to the east and south, and vacant land to the north and west. The project would allow for the development of 162-unit two-story attached townhome units. The project would include installation of right-of-way improvements, including sidewalk, street lighting, and landscaping. The architectural design of the project would adhere to the requirements of General Plan Policy CD-3.14, which requires that new project designs provide variation in color and materials to present aesthetically pleasing buildings and project features. The project design would also adhere to General Plan Policy CD-3.19 and CD-3.20, which guides the design of proposed walls and fences within the development to avoid the blocking of public views. While project implementation would change the visual quality of the project site and its surroundings, the proposed project would not degrade the visual quality of the project area because the project is consistent with the surrounding uses and its current zoning. Further, the project's design, including its architectural features, building materials, and landscaping would be reviewed and approved by the City during the development review process. The City would also have the ability to add conditions 2 California Department of Transportation, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed October 26, 2022. July 2023 4.2 Aesthetics TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE related to project aesthetics during the developmental review process if needed, all prior to approval of the project. This process would verify that the project's design is compatible with development in the surrounding vicinity and that it is consistent with applicable zoning regulations. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Light impacts are typically associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. Glare may be a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass and reflective cladding materials, and may interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle on adjacent streets. Daytime glare is common in urban areas and is typically associated with mid- to high-rise buildings with exterior fagades largely or entirely comprising highly reflective glass or mirror-like materials. Nighttime glare is primarily associated with bright point source lighting that contrasts with existing low ambient light conditions. Project construction could involve temporary glare impacts as a result of construction equipment and materials. Although there may be construction equipment and materials that produce glare, such as side mirrors or unpainted metal surfaces, the potential for glare would be short-term (hours) in duration because of the movement of either the equipment or angle of the sun. Therefore, no adverse light or glare impacts to adjacent properties are anticipated to result from construction activities. The project would comply with Municipal Code Section 9.210.050, Glare, and Section 9.210.060, Noise, which limit allowable construction hours between 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturday, except on holidays. Therefore, short-term construction -related impacts pertaining to nighttime lighting are not anticipated. Project operations would increase lighting at the project site compared to existing conditions. However, proposed lighting would be similar to the existing surrounding community. Further, the project would be required to comply with the exterior lighting requirements included in Municipal Code Section 9.205, Lighting Standards. Lighting would be installed throughout the project site including pole -mounted pedestrian lighting and LED wall sconces. All lighting as a standard condition (see below) would be shielded to prevent off -site illumination in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.01.040, Requirement for Lamp Source and Shielding, of Menifee's Dark Sky Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6,01, Dark Sky; Light Pollution). The project would be required to be consistent with City's design guidelines, and it is the City's regulatory procedure to review the project's building materials to ensure neighboring uses are not exposed to substantial daytime glare and to ensure the project is consistent with the surrounding development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required July 2023 4-3 Aesthetics HS TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4.4 Aesthetics y TTM 38346 PROJECT 1/ Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.2 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 Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In Less Than determining whether impacts to forest resources, including Potentially Significant Less Than No timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead Significant Impact With Significant Impact agencies may refer to Information compiled by the California Impact Mitigation Impact Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the Incorporated state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ✓ Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - a ricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ✓ Williamson Act contract? _ c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code ✓ section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104( ))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land ✓ to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ✓ Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, the northernmost portion of the project site is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land, which is defined as land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Examples of Urban and Built -Up Land include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.3 The southern portion of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland, which is defined as irrigated land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. The land has characteristics needed to produce sustained high yields and has been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the four years 3 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ accessed October 26, 2016. July 2023 4.5 Agriculture and Forestry Resources HS MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to the mapping date.4 According to a review of historic aerial photographs for the project site, the site was used for agricultural purposes from the 1930s to the 1990s.5 However, the project site has not supported such uses since that time and is currently vacant land. Further, the project site's designated land use is 20.1-24 du/ac Residential (20.1-24 R). No agricultural land uses are present within the City of Menifee based on Exhibit LU-4 (Land Use Buildout Summary) of the General Plan Land Use Element. Since the project site is designated for residential uses as envisioned by the General Plan, and impacts associated with rezoning the project site from agricultural to residential uses were considered in the General Plan EIR, impacts regarding conversion of farmlands to non-agricultural uses would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, all Williamson Act contracts within the City went into nonrenewable status in 2007 and expired on January 1, 2017. Thus, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is zoned High -Density Residential. The project site is not occupied or used for forest land or timberland. Further, project implementation would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.2(c). No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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? No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(d). No impacts in this regard would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4lbid. 5 McAlister Geoscience, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, LDW Development, Menifee, Riverside County, California 92585, May 3, 2021. July 2023 4-6 Agriculture and Forestry Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration TvIENIFEE 4.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the Less Than applicable air quality management district or air pollution Potentially Significant Significant Impact With Less Than Significant No control district may be relied upon to make the following Impact Mitigation Impact Im act p detenninations. Would the project. Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality Ian? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? This section is primarily based upon Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and Federal air quality standards. The AQMP is a regional and multi -agency effort including the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 2022 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG's latest growth forecasts. SCAG's latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators: Criterion 1: With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment. a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project's pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(c), localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM25) would be less July 2023 4-7 Air Quality AAF TTM 38346 PROJECT MDraft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ENIFEE than significant during project construction and operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations.6 b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards. c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP? The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and localized concentrations during project construction and operations; refer to Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions. Criterion 2: With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD's second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining whether a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? Growth projections included in the 2022 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions and are based on general plan land use designations and SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts. The population, housing, and employment forecasts within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS are based on local general plans as well as input from local governments, such as the City. The SCAQMD has incorporated these same demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment) into the 2022 AQMP. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of 20.1-24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) Residential (20.1-24 R) and a zoning designation of High Density Residential (HDR), which allows multi -family development (20-24 dwelling units per acre). The project would allow for the development of 162-unit two- story attached townhome units on approximately 6.85 net acres (9.5 gross acres), representing a density of 23.6 du/ac.7 Therefore, the density of the project would be within the allowable density range of 20.1 to 24 du/ac within the High -Density Residential zoning designation. The project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation and zoning. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the project could induce population growth in an area either directly, through the development of new residences or businesses, or indirectly, through the extension 6 Because reactive organic gases (ROGs) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROG plays in ozone formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. 7 Density is calculated by dividing net acreage (6.85 acres) from proposed number of units (162). July 2023 4-8 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE of roads or other infrastructure. The project would construct 162 two-story attached condominium units. According to the California Department of Finance8, the population of the City was estimated to be 106,627 as of January 1, 2022, with approximately 2.93 persons per household. This would equate to approximately 475 new persons living within the City as a result of the proposed project. According to the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Demographics & Growth Forecasts, the number of people living within the City is anticipated to grow from 89,600 in 2016 to 129,800 in 2045. The project -related increase of 475 residents would contribute approximately 1.2 percent to the City's planned growth through 2045. As such, the proposed project is an allowed use under the site's existing land use and zoning designations. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections included in the 2022 AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the proposed project meets this 2022 AQMP consistency criterion. c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The existing Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus stops are located less than one mile to the north of the project site. Further, in compliance with CALGreen Code, all multi -family development projects with 20 or more dwelling units would require 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces to be electric vehicle (EV) capable, 25 percent would be equipped with low power Level Two EV charging receptacles, and five percent are equipped with EV chargers. This project design feature would encourage and support the use of EVs within the proposed residential development. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. In addition, as discussed above, the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Furthermore, project consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS and the 2022 AQMP would promote the City's goal to protect air quality by incorporating goals and policies from the Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion. In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed project's long-term influence on air quality in the Basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG's goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required 9 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, Sacramento, California, May 2022. 9 Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020. July 2023 4.9 Air Quality ter, MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 Significant Impact. Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon -based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body's red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide. Ozone 03 . 03 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth's surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the "good" ozone layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. "Bad" 03 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are 03 precursors. To reduce 03 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these 03 precursors. Significant 03 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High 03 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. While 03 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground -level 03 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. 03 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of 03. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to 03 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground -level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish -brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction. Coarse Particulate Matter (PM,o). PM,o refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one -millionths of a meter. PM,o arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM,o scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children's Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25). July 2023 4.10 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Fine Particulate Matter (PM25), Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to PM2.5, both State and Federal PM25 standards have been created, Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA's new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, the CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. Sulfur Dioxide (SOS. SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx• Exposure of a few minutes to low levels Of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form 03 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to 03, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably (see below). Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming 03 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to 03, which is a criteria pollutant. Construction The project involves construction activities associated with grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately 35 months from early 2024 through late 2026 and require approximately 13,000 cubic yards of soil import. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel -powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1.6 (CaIEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off -site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CaIEEMod. Refer to Appendix A, Air Qualify/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results, for the CaIEEMod outputs and results. Table 4.3-1, Project -Generated Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions. Fugitive Dust Emissions Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut -and -fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, July 2023 4.11 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT Ih Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health. Table 4.3-1 Project -Generated Construction Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (poundslday)t� — _- - ---- ROG NOx CO S02 PM,o PMts Year 1 Construction Emissions2 3.96 40.8 35.8 0.08 4.96 2.68 Year 2 Construction Emissions2 3.75 7.36 16.8 0.02 2.23 0.71 Year 3 Construction Emissions2 3.70 6.96 16.0 0.02 2.21 0.69 Maximum Daily Emissions 3.96 40.8 35.8 0.08 4.96 2.68 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. 2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM,o generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM,o poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2 5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re -suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM25 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOx and SOx combining with ammonia. PM25 components from material in the Earth's crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations. The project would adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track -out and street sweeping requirements in accordance with Rule 1186/1186.1, etc.), to reduce PM,o and PM2.5 concentrations. As depicted in Table 4.3-1, total PM,o and PM2 5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus. PM,o and PM2.5emissions impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant. Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, employee commutes to the project site, emissions produced on -site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 4.3-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOx, CO, S02, PM,o, and PM2.5) would not July 2023 4-12 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. ROG Emissions In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are 03 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the SCAQMD, ROG emissions associated with paving and architectural coating have been quantified with the CaIEEMod model. As required by SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 —Architectural Coating, all architectural coatings for the proposed structures would comply with specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint.10 ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant; refer to Table 4.3-1. Total Daily Construction Emissions As indicated in Table 4.3-1. criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction related air emissions would be less than significant. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986, Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report", serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Operations Long-term operational air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from project -related traffic and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. Emissions associated with each source are detailed in Table 4.3- 2, Project -Generated Operational Emissions, and discussed below. 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, hftp://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-sourcelrule- book/reg-xilrl113.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. "Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California —Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000, hftps://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxiGs/asbestos/ofr-2000-019.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. July 2023 4-13 Air Quality AAr TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.3-2 Project -Generated Operational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)' ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM15 Project Summer Emissions Area 5.05 0.09 9.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy 0.04 0.69 0.30 <0.01 0.06 0.06 Mobile 4.62 4.64 43.40 0.11 3.86 0.75 Total Summer Emissions2 9.71 5.42 52.89 0.13 3.93 0.82 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Project Winter Emissions Area 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.04 0.69 0.30 <0.01 0.06 0.06 Mobile 4.32 4.98 36.20 0.10 3.86 0.75 Total WinterEmissions2 8.60 5.67 36.50 0.11 3.92 0.81 SCAQMD Threshold 55 1 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. 2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding. Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis Area Source Emissions Area source emissions include those generated by architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment associated with the development of the proposed project. As shown in Table 4.3-2, area source emissions during both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Enerov Source Emissions Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy source emissions would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds; refer to Table 4.3-2. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mobile Source Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOx, SOx, PM1o, and PM2,5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOx and ROG react with sunlight to form 03 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOx, PM10, and PM25). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Project -generated vehicle emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. According to the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study prepared by Michael Baker International (dated January 12, 2023), the proposed project would generate 1,092 average daily trips, including 65 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 83 trips during the p.m. peak hour. As shown July 2023 4-14 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE in Table 4.3-2, mobile source emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Total Operational Emissions As shown in Table 4.3-2, the total operational emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Air Quality Health Impacts Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, 03 precursors, VOCs, and NOx, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to 03 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project -generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project's less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (April 6, 2015) for Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form, Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (April 13, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, SJVAPCD acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project's air emissions and specific human health impacts. The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from 03, as an example, is correlated with the increases in ambient level of 03 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD's Brief of Amicus Curiae for Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient 03 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD's 2012AQMP, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOx and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce 03 levels at highest monitored sites by only nine parts per billion, As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify 03-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts, Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as those most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located 100 feet south of the project site. July 2023 4-15 Air Quality AAF TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Localized Significance Thresholds Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 20081) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five -acre projects emitting CO, NOx, PM25, and/or PM1o. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 24, Perris Valley. Construction LST The SCAQMD guidance on applying CaIEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.12 SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for one-, two-, and five -acre site disturbance areas; SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for projects over five acres. The project would actively disturb approximately three acres per day during the grading phase of construction. Therefore, the LST thresholds for two -acre were conservatively utilized for the construction LST analysis. The closest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence located approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) to the south of the project boundary. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on -site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) from the planned construction area, the LST values for 25-meter were used. Table 4.3-3, Localized Emissions Significance, shows the localized unmitigated and mitigated construction -related emissions for NOx, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 24. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 4.3-3 are less than those in Table 4.3-1 because localized emissions include only on -site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off -site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 4.3-3, the project's localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 24. Therefore, localized significance impacts from project -related construction activities would be less than significant. iz The number of acres represent the total acres traversed by grading equipment. In order to properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. July 2023 4-16 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.3-3 Localized Emissions Significance Pollutant (poundsiday) Source3 NOx CO PM10 PMis Year 11 36.0 32.6 1.54 1.42 Year 2z 5.19 4.69 0.22 0.20 Year 32 4.91 4.63 0.21 0.19 Maximum Daily Emissions 36.0 32.6 1.54 1.42 Localized Significance Threshold3,4 170 883 7 4 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Notes: 1. Maximum on -site daily emissions occur during grading phase for all pollutants in Year 1. 2. Maximum on -site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOx, CO, PM1o, and PM2 s in Year 2 and Year 3. 3. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires properly maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul roads twice daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 4. The LST was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD's Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOx, CO, PM1o, and PM25. The LST was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (approximately two -acre as a conservative estimate; therefore, the two -acre threshold was used) and distance to sensitive receptor (25 meters) for SRA 24, Perris Valley. _ Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis. Operational LST According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (i.e., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long- term LST analysis is needed. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly). The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation's total anthropogenic CO emissions.13 Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per -vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. The closest monitoring station to the project site that monitors CO concentration is Lake Elsinore-W Flint Street station, which is located approximately 11.0 miles west of the project site. The maximum CO concentration 13 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed April 3, 2023. July 2023 4.17 Air Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE at Lake Elsinore-W Flint Street station was measured at 0.897 ppm in 2022.14 Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site. Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction -related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimize the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 — Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating, Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 14 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Meteorological Information. https://www.arb.ca.gov/agmis2/agdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed April 3, 2023. July 2023 4-18 Air Quality //® MENIFEE 4.4 Biological Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project. Significant Impact With Significant 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 status species in local or ✓ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ✓ Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, ✓ vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, h drolo ical interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ✓ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ✓ ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ✓ or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? This section is primarily based upon the Tentative Tract Map 38346 Project Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated February 2023. Refer to Appendix B, Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A general habitat assessment was conducted on October 19, 2022 to document existing biological conditions and determine the potential for special -status plant and wildlife species to occur within the project site; refer to Appendix B. Prior to conducting the field survey, thorough literature reviews and records searches were conducted to determine which special -status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the project site. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); as such, an MSHCP Consistency Analysis was also conducted as part of Appendix B. July 2023 4.19 Biological Resources f _ TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Special -Status Plant Species Based on review of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, 29 special -status plant species were determined to have a potential to occur within the project site. Based on the results of the literature review and the field survey, existing/historical site conditions, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions, Michael Baker determined that all special -status plant species identified during the literature review either have a low potential or are not expected to occur within the project site. No impacts would occur in this regard. Special -Status Wildlife Species A total of 41 special -status wildlife species were determined to have the potential to occur within the project site. Of the 41 special -status wildlife species identified, Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii; a State Watch List [WL] species), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius; a State Species of Special Concern [SSC]), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; a State Watch List [WL] species) have a moderate potential to forage within the project site, but are not expected to nest. Potential impacts to Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, and California horned lark would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Pre -Construction Survey for Nesting Birds). Although Appendix B determined that suitable habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; an SSC species) is present, based on the high degrees of on -site and surrounding disturbance including routine mowing/discing and surrounding residential communities, lack of suitable burrows on -site, and presence of perching and nesting opportunities for predatory raptors, focused burrowing owl surveys are not recommended by the Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis. However, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) would still require that a preconstruction clearance survey be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls that may occur on or within 500 feet of the project impact area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires a pre -construction survey within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Special -Status Veqetation Communities A total of three (3) special -status vegetation communities were determined to have the potential to occur within the project site. However, none of these special -status vegetation communities occur within or adjacent to the project site. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: BIO.1 Pre -Construction Survey for Nesting Birds. Ground -disturbing activities shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through January 31) to avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code § § 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. If grading or construction activities, including vegetation removal with the potential to disrupt nesting birds, including burrowing owl and coastal California gnatcatcher, are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a pre -construction survey for nesting birds and coastal California gnatcatcher shall be conducted by a qualified Designated Biologist who is experienced in the identification of avian species and conduction nesting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology. The nest survey shall include the project site and any adjacent areas (i.e., construction site entrances and/or staging areas) where the project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. The pre -construction survey shall be conducted no more than three July 2023 4-20 Biological Resources AAF MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration days prior to the start of ground -disturbing activities within the bird breeding season at the appropriate time of day/night, and during appropriate weather conditions. If no nesting bird or gnatcatchers are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If nesting birds (including nesting raptors) or gnatcatchers are found to be present, avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken to avoid potential project -related impacts. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance -free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non -breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. If an active avian nest confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience. 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., the juveniles are surviving independent from 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. BIO-2 Pre -Construction Surveys for Burrowing Owl. A pre -construction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within the project site within 30 days prior to the start of ground -disturbing activities. The surveys shall follow the methods described in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCTLMA 2006). According to the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted because suitable habitat was recorded during the burrowing owl habitat assessment. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrowing owl burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified on the project site during the survey and impacts to the species are unavoidable, additional mitigation may need to be implemented, such as implementing a no - disturbance buffer around occupied burrows or seasonal work restrictions. If at any time there is a lapse of project activities for 30 days or more, another burrowing owl survey shall be conducted. If an occupied burrow is found within the project impact area during the pre -construction clearance survey, the onsite biologist will review and establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgment and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), or the construction contractor shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the July 2023 4.21 Biological Resources MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to Appendix B, the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities that would need to be preserved. Therefore, development of the project site would not result in impacts relative to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to Appendix B, no State or Federally protected wetlands were observed within the boundaries of the project site. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. According to Appendix B, wildlife movement opportunities into or out of the project site have been significantly reduced, if not completely eliminated, due to surrounding high -traffic roadways (Le., Menifee Road and Rouse Road) and existing residential/commercial developments, which have fragmented the connection between the project site and any naturally occurring vegetation communities within the vicinity. In addition, the disturbed and developed nature of the project site, absence of native vegetation for cover, and elevated noise levels, vehicle traffic, lighting, and human presence associated with surrounding residential developments and roadways has further reduced the potential for the project site to be used as a wildlife movement corridor or linkage. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not presently contain any trees which would require removal for project implementation. The northeastern portion of the project site formerly supported eucalyptus trees, which were removed prior to Michael Baker's biological field survey. The City has conditioned the project to replace these trees on a 3:1 basis. Based on review of the project's landscape plans, the project has provided enough trees to meet this replacement ratio. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4.22 Biological Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENBFEE f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within the boundaries of the MSHCP. As such, an MSHCP Consistency Analysis was conducted as part of the project's Biological Technical Report. According to Appendix B, the project site is not located within any Cell Groups, Criteria Cells, and Subunit designations of the MSHCP. However, the project site is located within a designated survey area for burrowing owl (refer to Appendix B Figure 7, MSHCP Conservation Areas). Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires assessment of the potential effects from the project on biological resources including riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp, burrowing owl, and narrow endemic plant species. In addition, the MSHCP requires an Urban/Wildlands Interface analysis be conducted in order to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in proximity of MSHCP Conservation Areas. These resources were assessed during the reconnaissance survey and are discussed below in relation to the project. Since development of the project site is a covered activity within the MSHCP (see section 7.3.3 of Covered Activities/Allowable Uses within the MSHCP), it is an allowable use that has been contemplated within the MSHCP (RCTLMA 2021). However, projects that are covered still need to comply with MSHCP requirements. Riparian/Riverine Vernal Pool and Fairy Shrimp Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6 1.2) In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a habitat assessment was performed for riparian and riverine communities, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp. The project site did not contain vernal pool habitat or suitable habitat for fairy shrimp. No significant riparian vegetation was observed on the project site. No defined channels or drainages were identified on the project site and the project site did not contain any riverine resources; therefore, no impact would occur. Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) According to the RCA's online MSHCP Information Application (RCA 2022) and Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP, the project site is not located within a designated survey area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species (refer to Appendix B Figure 7, MSHCP Conservation Areas). Therefore, no impacts to narrow endemic plant species would occur. Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) The requirements for Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors do not apply to this project site because it is not situated adjacent to any MSHCP-designated conserved lands. Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) According to the RCA's online MSHCP Information Application (RCA 2022) and Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP, the project site is located within a designated survey area for burrowing owl (refer to Figure 7, MSHCP Conservation Areas). No burrowing owls, sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash), occupied burrows, or remnant burrows were observed during Michael Baker's field survey/habitat assessment, which for the purposes of burrowing owl also included walking up to 500 feet outside of the project site to look for owls or owl sign. A total of five (5) suitable burrows (greater than 4 inches in diameter) were found on the project site, all in a single cluster in the northwest quadrant of the site; none of these burrows showed any sign of current or former owl occupancy. All other burrows throughout the project site and 500-foot buffer were generally approximately 2 inches in diameter, consistent with lizards or small rodents, and unsuitable for burrowing owls. The project site is bordered along its southern edge by transmission towers that could provide perching opportunities for predatory raptors, and to the east and south by large residential communities and busy roads that increase human disturbance in the area. In addition, July 2023 4.23 Biological Resources //S MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration historic aerial imagery shows that the project site has been continually disced/mowed over the years, with nearly every aerial image since 2009 showing new mowing -related disturbance since the previous image and most street view images after 2011 showing recently mowed land. Finally, the property immediately north of the project site has a cluster of large eucalyptus trees in it, one of which had an owl box nailed to the side of the tree. If the owl box is occupied, either of the two larger owl species that may occur in this area (great horned owl [Bubo virginianus] and barn owl [Tyco alba]) may act as predators of burrowing owls if active at the same time of day, further reducing the likelihood of burrowing owls to be present. However, the MSHCP would still require that a preconstruction clearance survey be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls that may occur on or within 500 feet of the project impact area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1310-2, which requires a pre - construction survey within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure 1310-2. July 2023 4-24 Biological Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.5 Cultural Resources Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? This section is primarily based upon the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the TTM 38346 Project (Cultural Resources Report), prepared by BCR Consulting, Inc., dated March 29, 2023; refer to Appendix C, Cultural Resources Report. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. A historic overview of the project area is provided in the Cultural Resources Report; refer to Appendix C. To evaluate the project's potential to support historic resources, a records search request was submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC). The search was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. A review was also conducted of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register, and documents and inventories from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures. An intensive -level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on January 11, 2023. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart across 100 percent of the accessible project site. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project boundaries and all soil exposures were carefully examined for evidence of cultural resources; refer to Appendix C. The EIC records search revealed that 20 cultural resource studies were previously conducted within 0.5-mile of the project site, resulting in the recording of eight cultural resources within the research radius. Of the previous studies, two have assessed portions of the project site for cultural resources, resulting in no cultural resources previously identified within the project boundaries. During the field survey, BCR Consulting archaeologists carefully inspected the project site for evidence of historic resources, using the methods described above. Representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians accompanied BCR Consulting archaeologists. The project site has been subject to mechanical clearing and discing for previous agricultural use. The northern fifth of the project was the site of at least three structures between 1976 and 2022, all of which have been demolished. No historic resources were identified within the project site boundaries during the field survey conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Report. Although findings were negative for cultural resources on the surface of the project site, ground disturbing activities could reveal historic -period artifacts or structural or building elements. As such, potential significant impacts to buried historic -period resources could result in this regard, and Standard Condition SC-CUL-1 July 2023 4.25 Cultural Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT d Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE would require that an archaeological monitor be present during any earthmoving activities proposed within the project site boundaries. SC-CUL-3 would protect inadvertent discoveries by halting construction until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the significance of the find and recommends a course of action. With the implementation of Standard Condition SC-CUL- 1 and SC-CUL-3, impacts would be less than significant. Standard Conditions and Requirements: Refer to Standard Condition SC-CUL-1 and SC-CUL-3 below. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Prehistoric background information on the project area is provided in the Cultural Resources Report. As discussed above, an EIC records search revealed that 20 cultural resource studies were previously conducted within 0.5-mile of the project site. The search revealed eight cultural resources within the research radius, two of which have assessed portions of the project site resulting in no culturally significant resources previously identified. The records search results also indicate that five cultural resource studies have been conducted within a .25-mile radius of the project, one of which (Wlodarski and Foster 1980) included the subject property. However, the cultural resources overview by Greenwood and Associates did not identify any resources within the current project. According to the records search, no prehistoric archaeological resources were previously identified within the project site. As discussed above, representatives from Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians accompanied BCR Consulting archaeologists during the field survey conducted for the Cultural Resources Report. Tribal personnel identified a single piece of quartz shatter and one quartzite fragment or flake within the project site boundaries. These isolated items may be prehistoric but evidence is not conclusive. They have been temporarily designated MBH2204-PI-1 and MBH2204-PI-2 respectively. Isolates are not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and as such are not significant under CEQA. As a result, these items do not warrant any further consideration. No other cultural resources, including prehistoric archaeological resources or historic -period archaeological resources, were identified within the project site boundaries. Although findings were negative for cultural resources on the surface of the project site, the potential exists for ground - disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. To protect archaeological resources, Standard Condition-SC-CUL-1 would require that an archaeological monitor be present during any earthmoving activities proposed within the project site boundaries. SC-CUL-3 would protect inadvertent discoveries by halting construction until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the significance of the find and recommends a course of action. With the implementation of Standard Condition SC-CUL-1 and SC-CUL-3, impacts would be less than significant. Standard Conditions and Requirements: Refer to Standard Condition SC-CUL-1 and SC-CUL-3 below. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. No evidence of human remains was identified as part of the Cultural Resources Report. Nonetheless, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site, the County Coroner shall be notified of the find July 2023 4-26 Cultural Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE immediately, and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As required by State law, if the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC and shall have the opportunity to offer recommendations for the disposition of the remains (refer to Standard Condition SC-CUL-8 below). Further, SC-CUL-2 would ensure that Native American human remains shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. SC-CUL-4 would ensure inadvertent discoveries of Native American tribal cultural resource are preserved -in -place, reburied on -site, or a combination of the two in consultation with the tribes. Following compliance with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. Standard Conditions and Requirements: Refer to Standard Condition SC-CUL-2, SC-CUL-4, and SC-CUL-8 below. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. STANDARD CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: SC-CUL-1 Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. In addition, the project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB 52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB 52. Details in the Plan shall include: a. Project grading and development scheduling; b. The project archeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre - grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the July 2023 4.27 Cultural Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT M E NeFEE �v 'E Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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; and The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources' evaluation. SC-CUL-2 Non -Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254(r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r). SC-CUL-3 Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). 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 July 2023 4.28 Cultural Resources AAF MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial on the project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non -Disclosure of Reburial Condition. v. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not achieved, a Phase I I I data recovery plan shall be prepared by the project archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. vi. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council." SC-CUL-4 Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department: i. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. 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. 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 July 2023 4-29 Cultural Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT AAr Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. SC-CUL-5 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 Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above -mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist. SC-CUL-6 Native American Monitoring (Soboba). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on -site during all ground -disturbing activities, including grading, stockpiling of materials, engineered fill, rock crushing, etc. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above -mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground - disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the project Archaeologist. SC-CUL-7 Archeology Report - Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre -grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s). SC-CUL-8 Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County July 2023 4-30 Cultural Resources //ff MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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. July 2023 4-31 Cultural Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-32 Cultural Resources HS MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.6 Energy FLess Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy ✓ resources, during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable ✓ enerav or enerav efficiencv? This section is primarily based upon Appendix A, Air Qualify/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results. State California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) The 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as "Title 24," became effective on January 1, 2023. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 Title 24 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric -ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, and more. California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is the first -in -the -nation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards Commission developed CALGreen to meet the State's landmark initiative Assembly Bill (AB) 32 goals, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the administration. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost -savings potential in green building practices and materials.15 California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) in September 2008 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in GHGs. In January 2011, a lighting is U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, hftps://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-costs-and-savings, accessed April 3, 2023. July 2023 4.33 Energy MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration chapter was adopted and added to the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is California's single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the State between 2009 and 2020, and beyond 2020. The Strategic Plan contains the practical strategies and actions to attain significant statewide energy savings, as a result of a year -long collaboration by energy experts, utilities, businesses, consumer groups, and governmental organizations in California, throughout the West, nationally and internationally. The plan includes four bold strategies: 1 All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020; 2 All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030; 3 Heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California's climate; and 4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020. California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report In 2002, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State's economy, and protect public health and safety. The CEC adopted the 2021 integrated energy policy report (2021 IEPR) Volume I, Volume II, and Volume IV on February 1, 2022 and Volume III on February 24, 2022.16 The 2021 IEPR provides information and policy recommendations on advancing a clean, reliable, and affordable energy system for all Californian.17 Volume I of the 2021 IEPR addresses actions needed to reduce the GHG emissions related to the buildings in which California live and work, with an emphasis on energy efficiency; Volume II examines actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of California's energy system; Volume III looks at the evolving role of gas in California' energy system; and Volume IV reports on California's energy demand outlook, including a forecast to 2035 and long-term energy demand scenarios of 2050. The 2021 IEPR builds on the goals and work in response to AB 758 (Energy: energy audit), SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act), AB 3232 (Zero -emissions buildings and sources of heat energy), and the 2019 IEPR to further a comprehensive approach toward decarbonizing buildings in a cost-effective and equitable manner. For the 2021 IEPR, the CEC extends the forecast timeframe to 15 years to coincide with several state goals that are planned for 2035 and improves methodologies to better quantify and predict the likelihood, severity, and duration of future extreme heat events. 16 California Energy Commissions, 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, https:llwww.energy.ca.gov/data-reportslreportslintegrated- energy-policy-report12021-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed April 3, 2023. 17 California Energy Commissions, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Decarbonization, February 2022. July 2023 4-34 Energy TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Local City of Menifee General Plan Applicable goals and policies related to energy from the General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element and Land Use Element are listed below. 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. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis on Response 4.6(a) relies upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met: • Criterion 1: The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed. • Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. • Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. • Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. July 2023 4-35 Energy TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE • Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources. • Criterion 6: The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. Quantification of the project's energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction - related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use is divided into transportation energy demand and building energy demand. The transportation energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 4, and 6, and the building energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5. Project -Related Sources of Energy Consumption This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips and off -road equipment associated with project construction and operations. The analysis of operational electricity and natural gas usage is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1.6 (CaIEEMod) modeling results for the project. The project's estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod's default settings for Riverside County, and consumption factors provided by the Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and the project site. The results of the CaIEEMod modeling are included in Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the CARB's EMFAC2021 website platform which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in the County, and the project's annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CaIEEMod. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project's construction equipment list, timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips. The project's estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.6-1, Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project's energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0073 percent increase over Riverside County's typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.0064 percent increase over Riverside County's typical annual natural gas consumption. The project's construction on -road, construction off - road, and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County's consumption by 0.0804 percent, 0.0402 percent, and 0.0405 percent, respectively (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 1). July 2023 4.36 Energy TTIVI 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.6-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption Project Annual Riverside County Percentage Energy Type Energy Consumption � Annual Energy Increase Countywide2 Consumion2 Electricity Consumption 1.232 MWh 16,767.236 MWh 0.0073% Natural Gas Consumption 27,492 therms 430,843,598 therms 0.0064% Fuel Consumption • Construction Off -road Consumption3 30,519 gallons 37,944,972 gallons 0.0804% • Construction On -road Consumption 67,226 gallons 167,064,305 gallons 0.0402% • Operational Automotive Fuel Consumption3 270,800 gallons 668,946,275 gallons 0.0405% Notes: 1. As modeled in CaIEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. 2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in the County in 2021. The project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide diesel fuel consumption in 2024 (start of construction), and gasoline fuel consumption in 2026 (operational year). Riverside County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, hftp://www.ecdms. energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed March 23, 2023. Riverside County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy. ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed March 23, 2023. 3. Pro'ect fuel consumption calculated based on CaIEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the CARE EMFAC2021 model. Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis. Construction During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy -consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings, Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy-duty diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 4). Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting green building materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than non -recycled materials.18 The integration of green building materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these building industry source materials.19 The project -related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project's fuel consumption from off -road construction would be approximately 30,519 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the 18 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed April 3, 2023. t9 Ibid. July 2023 4.37 Energy MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration County by 0.0804 percent. Also indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project's fuel consumption from on -road construction would be approximately 67,226 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the County by 0.0402 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 2). It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5). Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Operations Transportation Eneray Demand Pursuant to the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Table 4.6-1 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Based on the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study prepared by Michael Baker International (dated January 12, 2023), the proposed project would generate 1,092 average daily trips. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, project operational daily trips are estimated to consume approximately 270,800 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase the County's automotive fuel consumption by 0,0405 percent. The project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 2). The key drivers of transportation -related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed project. However, in compliance with CALGreen Code, all multifamily development projects with 20 or more dwelling units would require 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces to be EV capable, 25 percent would be equipped with low power Level two EV charging receptacles, and five percent are equipped with EV chargers. This project design feature would encourage and support the use of EVs within the proposed residential development and thus reduce the petroleum fuel consumption (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 4 and Criterion 6). Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Building Energy Demand The CEC developed 2020 to 2035 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2021 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections. 20 CEC forecasts that the Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2021 and 2030 would be 1.3 percent to 2.3 percent for electricity and less than 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent increase for natural gas.21 As shown in Table 4.6-1, operational energy consumption of the project would represent approximately 0.0073 percent increase in electricity consumption and 0.0064 percent increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC's forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Therefore, 20 California Energy Commission, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast, February 2022. Annual average growth rates of electricity demand and natural gas per capita demand are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 14, respectively. 21 Ibid. July 2023 4-38 Energy TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE the project would be consistent with the CEC's energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 2). The project would also consume energy during the same time periods as other commercial development. As a result, the project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 3). The project would be required to comply with the most current version of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. The project would install high efficiency lighting, energy efficient appliances, electrical infrastructure to support a future battery system, and solar photovoltaics panels. Compliance with the current 2022 Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each update. Compliance with 2022Title 24 standards would also ensure the project would be consistent with General Plan Goal LU-1 (Policies LU-1.1, LU-1.5) and Goal OSC-4 (Policies OCS-4.1, OCS-4.2, OCS-4.3), by incorporating sustainable building design features (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 4). Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor -owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources. The project would install solar photovoltaics panels and have electrical infrastructure to support a future battery system on the proposed two-story condominium units in compliance with 2022 Title 24 and CALGreen Code requirements (CEQA Appendix F - Criterion 5). Therefore, the project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. The City currently does not have a plan pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable State plans and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency include the 2022 Title 24 standards, the 2022 CALGreen Code, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC's) Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and CEC's 2021 IEPR. The project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen standards pertaining to building energy efficiency. Compliance with 2022 Title 24 standards and 2022 CALGreen Code would ensure the project incorporates energy -efficient windows, insulation, lighting, and ventilation systems, which are consistent with the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan strategies, the IEPR building energy efficiency recommendations, and General Plan Goal LU-1 (Policies LU-1.1, LU-1.5) and Goal OSC-4 (Policies OCS-4,1, OCS-4,2, OCS-4.3). The project would also install water -efficient fixtures and EV charging infrastructure. Additionally, per the RPS, the project would utilize electricity provided by SCE that is composed of 30.9 percent renewable energy as of 2020 and would achieve at least 60 percent renewable energy by 2030.22 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 22 California Energy Commission, Southern California Edison 2020 Power Content Label, hftps:llwww.energy.ca,gov/filebrowser/downlcad/3902, accessed April 3, 2023. July 2023 4.39 Energy TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENI FEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-40 Energy TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.7 Geology and Soils Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact incorporated a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based ✓ on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 21 Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓ 3 Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ✓ 4 Landslides? ✓ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ✓ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ✓ potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct ✓ or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ✓ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ✓ resource or site or unique geologic feature? This section is primarily based upon the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Percolation/Infiltration Feasibility Testing, Proposed Multi -Family Residential Development (Geotechnical Evaluation) prepared by Geosoils, Inc., dated July 26, 2021; refer to Appendix D, Geotechnical Evaluation. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The project site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or show evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years are known as "active faults." According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, no known active faults cross the project site, and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, the site is not located within a County of Riverside -designated fault zone. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the project site is located approximately 10.6 miles west of the San Jacinto Valley/Casa Loma segment of July 2023 4-41 Geology and Soils TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture on -site is considered very low, No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the project site is located in a region of generally high seismicity (Southern California), As such, the project site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. However, active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Nevertheless, in conformance with existing seismic design requirements of the California Building Code, the project would be subject to the site -specific seismic design recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Evaluation to minimize the potential for damage and major injury during a seismic event; refer to the Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations section of Appendix D. Modern buildings are designed to resist ground shaking through the use of shear panels, moment frames, and reinforcement. Conformance with the seismic design recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Evaluation would ensure impacts related to ground shaking are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction and seismically -induced settlement or ground failure is generally related to strong seismic shaking events where the groundwater occurs at shallow depth (generally within 50 feet of the ground surface) or where lands are underlain by loose, cohesionless deposits. Liquefaction typically results in the loss of shear strength of a soil, which occurs due to the increase of pore water pressure caused by the rearrangement of soil particles induced by shaking or vibration. During liquefaction, soil strata behave similarly to a heavy liquid. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, perched groundwater was encountered approximately 35 feet below ground surface. However, the regional groundwater table was measured to be between 50.9 and 71.8 feet below ground level. Thus, the potential for liquefaction is considered low based on the dense/stiff to very dense/hard old alluvial fan deposits which underlie the site at shallow depths, and anticipated removal of near -surface potentially compressible soils during site grading activities; refer to Appendix D. Further, the project site is not located in an area considered susceptible to liquefaction based on Exhibit S-3, Liquefaction and Landslides, of the General Plan Safety Element. No impact would occur in this regard. 4) Landslides? No Impact. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, there is no evidence of landslides or slope instabilities at the project site. The project site and the surrounding properties are flat and not prone to slope instability hazards, such as landslides. Thus, the potential for seismically -induced landslides is considered negligible. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary concern in regard to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be from construction activities associated with the project, which could expose soils to short-term erosion by wind and water. Soil disturbance would temporarily occur during earth -moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction, and grading. Disturbed soils would be susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project site. However, the project July 2023 4-42 Geology and Soils TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the Santa Ana RWQCB's Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP) and the City's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce potential for soil erosion. The project would also employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to control runoff from discharging from the site during project construction; refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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. Refer to Responses 4.7(a)(3), 4.7(a)(4), and 4.7(d) for a discussion concerning liquefaction, landslides, and collapse (from expansive soils), respectively. LATERAL SPREADING Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non -liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the project site is not subject to seismic -related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction). As a result, the lateral spread is anticipated to be negligible. No impact would occur in this regard. SUBSIDENCE According to the U.S. Geological Survey, land subsidence occurs when large amounts of groundwater have been withdrawn from certain types of rocks, such as fine-grained sediments. The rock compacts because the water is partly responsible for holding the ground up. When the water is withdrawn, the rocks falls in on itself. Events, other than the removal of groundwater, that can cause land subsidence include aquifer -system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydrocompaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the potential for subsidence to affect the site is considered very low based on the nature of the underlying old alluvial fan deposits and lack of onsite faulting. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content fluctuates, swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement, and distorting structural elements. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, laboratory testing indicates that the majority of onsite soils do not meet the criteria of detrimentally expansive soils as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code. However, some site soils are considered expansive. With recommended site grading, the overall expansive character of site soils is anticipated to be non -detrimentally expansive. Should site grading result in areas underlain with expansive soils, foundation systems would be constructed in conformance with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation in accordance with California Building Standards Code requirements and Municipal Code Section 8.04, Building Code. Compliance with the site - specific design recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Evaluation would reduce potential impacts relative to expansive soils to less than significant levels. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4.43 Geology and Soils TTM 38346 PROJECT 26 AV 1&_J Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would be constructed as part of the project. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 0 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Overall, ground -disturbing activities in previously undisturbed portions of the project site underlain by geologic units with a high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., Pleistocene to early Holocene alluvial deposits) may result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources and associated stratigraphic and paleontological data. A Records Search at the Western Science Center determined that the geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as Pleistocene alluvial deposits of sand and gravel.23 Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be paleontologically sensitive. No fossil localities have been discovered within a one -mile radius of the project site. Given the site's high sensitivity for paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require preparation of a paleontological resource mitigation program to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered paleontological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: GEO-1 Paleontological Resources. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the site and prepare and implement a paleontological resource mitigation program (PRMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any preconstruction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRMP. During ground disturbing activities, the qualified paleontologist shall monitor ground disturbing activity within Pleistocene alluvial deposits. If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the qualified paleontologist shall contact the City of Menifee Community Development Director in writing within four hours. Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by the qualified paleontologist before the City of Menifee Community Development Director allows for construction activities to recommence. If significance criteria are met, the qualified paleontologist shall collect and catalogue the resource in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines. The PRMP shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. Information contained in the PRMP would minimally include: 1. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations 2. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth -moving activities 3. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving 23 Written Correspondence: Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, Collections Technician, Western Science Center, dated February 2, 2023 July 2023 4.44 Geology and Soils TTM 38346 PROJECT / Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens 5. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City 6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays 7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any. 8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary 9. Fossil identification and curation procedures 10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material 11. All pertinent maps and exhibits 12. Procedures for reporting of findings 13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation. July 2023 4.45 Geology and Soils ��,'I, TTM 38346 PROJECT . ' � Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page left intentionally blank. July 2023 4.46 Geology and Soils TTM 38346 PROJECT �! Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project. a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the Duroose of reducino the emissions of greenhouse qases? Less Than Potenti ally Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated This section is primarily based upon Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 418 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year.24 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well - mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human -caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N20) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre -industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre -industrial period range. As of April 2023, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 421.39 ppm.2s The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)26 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (OC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. 24 California Air Resources Board, Califomia Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/defaulYfiles/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020—ghg—inventory_trends.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. 25 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed April 3, 2023. 26 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) — A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. July 2023 4.47 Greenhouse Gas Emissions { TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)27 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (OC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. State Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State's contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels Senate Bill 32. Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce GHG emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State's projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MTCO2e under a business as usual (BAU)28 scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020. 27 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) — A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. 28 "Business as Usual" refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions; refer to http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the "definition." It is broad enough to allow for design features to be counted as reductions. July 2023 4.48 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTIVI 38346 PROJECT Ih Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that "a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal." On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State's post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update was finalized in November 2017 and approved on December 14, 2017 and reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SIB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new Statewide emissions limit of 260 million MTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB released the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which identifies the strategies achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan contains the GHG reductions, technology, and clean energy mandated by statutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan was developed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 through a substantial reduction in fossil fuel dependence, while at the same time increasing deployment of efficient non -combustion technologies and distribution of clean energy. The plan would also reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and would include mechanical CO2 capture and sequestration actions, as well as emissions and sequestration from natural and working lands and nature -based strategies. Under 2022 Scoping Plan, by 2045, California aims to cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, reduce smog - forming air pollution by 71 percent, reduce the demand for liquid petroleum by 94 percent compared to current usage, improve health and welfare, and create millions of new jobs. This plan also builds upon current and previous environmental justice efforts to integrate environmental justice directly into the plan, to ensure that all communities can reap the benefits of this transformational plan. Specifically, this plan: • Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SIB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030. • Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. • Focuses on strategies for reducing California's dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs. • Integrates equity and protecting California's most impacted communities as driving principles throughout the document. • Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands (NWL) to the State's GHG emissions, as well as their role in achieving carbon neutrality. • Relies on the most up-to-date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools to address the existential threat that climate change presents, including carbon capture and sequestration, as well as direct air capture. • Evaluates the substantial health and economic benefits of taking action. • Identifies key implementation actions to ensure success. July 2023 4.49 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTM 38346 PROJECT Ho Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Local 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light -duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are to: • Focus growth near destinations and mobility options; • Promote diverse housing choices; • Leverage technology innovations; • Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region. Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the State -mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Some of these tools include center focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions. City of Menifee General Plan Applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction from the General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element are listed below. 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-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter Policy OCS-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 1 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. 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. July 2023 4-50 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration PAENIFEE 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, a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions nor has the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), or any other State or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the proposed project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the project's impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project's GHG-related impacts on the environment. Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the project's GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good -faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the project's incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. However, the significance of the project's GHG emissions impacts are not based on the amount of GHG emissions resulting from the project. Project -related GHG emissions include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Direct project -related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, mobile sources, and refrigerants, while indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1,1.6 (CaIEEMod) was used to calculate project -related GHG emissions. Table 4.8-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions associated with the proposed project; refer to Appendix A, AirQuality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Modeling Results for the CaIEEMod outputs. July 2023 4.51 Greenhouse Gas Emissions /h MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source COz CHa N20 Refrigerants COze Metric Tons/year' Direct Emissions Construction amortized over 30 ears 33.07 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 36.35 Area Source 2.79 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 6.04 Mobile Source 1,770 0.07 0.08 2.81 1,798.41 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 Total DirectEmissions2 1,824.79 0.09 0.10 3.06 1,841.02 Indirect Emissions Energy 443 0.03 <0.01 0.00 446.75 Solid Waste 2.67 0.27 0.00 0.00 9.47 Water Demand 14.2 0.22 0.01 0.00 22.70 Total Indirect Emissions2 459.87 0.52 0.02 0.00 478.92 Total Project -Related Emissions2 2,319.94 MTCO2e/year Notes: 1. Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CaIEEMod) computer model. 2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. Refer to Appendix A, for detailed model in utlout ut data. Direct Project -Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases Construction Emissions. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.29 As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project would result in 36.35 MTCO2e per year construction emissions when amortized over 30 years (or a total of 1,090.5 MTCO2e in 30 years). Area Source. Area source emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod and project -specific land use data. Project - related area sources include natural gas consumption for space heating and exhaust emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, such as lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the site. The project would directly result in 6.04 MTCO2e per year from area source emissions; refer to Table 4.8-1. Mobile Source. CaIEEMod relies upon trip generation rates from the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study prepared by Michael Baker International (dated January 12, 2023), and project specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions, Based upon the trip generation rates, the proposed project would generate 1,092 average daily trips, including 65 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 83 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The project would result in approximately 1,798.41 MTCO2e per year of mobile source generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 4.8-1. Refrigerants. Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are HFCs or blends thereof, which can have high GWP values. All equipment that uses refrigerants has a charge size (i.e., quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains), and an operational refrigerant leak rate, and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. CaIEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions 29 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document- Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008). July 2023 4.52 Greenhouse Gas Emissions dSY MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime, and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. The proposed project would result in 3.06 MTCO2e per year of GHG emissions from refrigerants; refer Table 4.8-1. Indirect Project -Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project -specific land use data. Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site. The project would indirectly result in 446.75 MTCO2e per year due to energy consumption; refer to Table 4.8-1. Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result in 9.47 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 4.8-1. Water Demand. The project operations would result in a demand of approximately 7.60 million gallons of water per year. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 22.70 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 4.8-1. Total Project -Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases As shown in Table 4.8-1, the total amount of project -related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 2,319,94 MTCO2e per year. Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations The GHG plan consistency for the project is based on the project's consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and applicable goals and policies from the City's General Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan describes the approach the State will take to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHG from transportation sector. The City's General Plan contains goals and policies that would help implement energy efficient measures and would subsequently reduce GHG emissions within the City. Consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each AB 32 inventory sector. Provided in Table 4.8-2, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 GHG Inventory Sectors, is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. July 2023 4.53 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTIVI 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.8-2 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 Inventory Sectors Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled MT Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below Consistent. The project would require 10 percent of the total number of parking 2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below spaces to be EV capable, 25 percent would be equipped with low power Level 2019 levels by 2045 Two EV charging receptacles, and five percent are equipped with EV chargers in accordance with the 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code, which would promote alternative mode of transportation to reduce VMT. Additionally, the project would be in close proximity to public transportation stops. As such, the project would be consistent with this action. New Residential and Commercial Buildin s All electric appliances beginning 2026 Consistent. The project is expected to consist of natural gas heating and/or (residential) and 2029 (commercial), cooking on -site. The City of Menifee has not adopted an ordinance or program contributing to 6 million heat pumps limiting the use of natural gas for on -site cooking and/or heating. However, if installed statewide by 2030 adopted, the project would comply with the applicable goals or policies limiting the use of natural gas equipment in the future. Furthermore, the project would install high efficiency lighting and appliances. As such, the project would be consistent with this action. Construction Equipment Achieve 25% of energy demand Consistent. The City of Menifee has not adopted an ordinance or program electrified by 2030 and 75% electrified by requiring electricity -powered construction equipment. However, if adopted, the 2045 project would comply with the applicable goals or policies requiring the use of electric construction equipment in the future. As such, the project would be consistent with this action. Non -combustion Methane Emissions Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills Consistent. SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the by 2025 level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. The project would comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to SB 1383. As such, the project would be consistent with this action. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16. 2022. Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best -performing projects, as well as different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by eight percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State. Table 4.8-3. Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS shows the project's consistency with these five strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, July 2023 4.54 Greenhouse Gas Emissions A01v MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.8-3 Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTPISCS Applicable Project Consistency Analysis Reduction Strategy Land Use Tools Focus Growth Near Destinations and MobilityOptions Center Focused Consistent. The project site is located within • Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations Placemaking, an area that is planned for residential, with • Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce Priority Growth uses to the east presently developed with commute times and distances and expand job opportunities Areas (PGA), single-family residential uses. The proposed near transit and along center -focused main streets Job Centers, project would be required to incorporate • Plan for growth near transit investments and support High Quality pedestrian -oriented features, such as implementation of firsVIast mile strategies Transit Areas sidewalks to promote other forms of • Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail (HQTAs), transportation. Existing Riverside Transit developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses Transit Priority Agency (RTA) bus stops are located less • Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to Areas (TPA), than one mile to the north of the project site. accommodate new growth, increase amenities and Neighborhood Furthermore, the project site is located in connectivity in existing neighborhoods Mobility Areas close proximity to existing commercial • Encourage design and transportation options that reduce (NMAs), Livable development located west of the project site. the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could Corridors, Therefore, the project would focus growth include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to Spheres of near destinations and mobility options. existing destinations) Influence • Identify ways to "right size" parking requirements and (SOls), Green Region, Urban promote alternative parking strategies (e.g. shared parking Greening. or smart parking) Promote Diverse Housing Choices • Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent _ PGA, Job Consistent. The project would involve displacement Centers, development of a residential community • Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and HQTAs, NMA, near existing bus stops and commercial affordable housing development TPAs, Livable development, which increases housing Corridors, supply and supports reduction of GHG • Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for building Green Region, emissions. Therefore, the project would be context sensitive accessory dwelling units to increase Urban consistent with this reduction strategy. housing supply Greening. • Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports reduction of greenhouse gas emissions Leverage Technolo Innovations Consistent. The project would require 10 • Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood HQTA, TPAs, electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing NMA, Livable percent of the total number of parking and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such Corridors. spaces to be EV capable, 25 percent would as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space be equipped with low power Level Two EV • Improve access to services through technology —such as charging receptacles, and five percent are telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a equipped with EV chargers in accordance "mobility wallet," an app-based system for storing transit and with the 2022 Title 24 standards and other multi -modal payments CALGreen Code. Therefore, the proposed • Identify ways to incorporate "micro -power grids" in communities, project would leverage technology for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and innovations and help the City, County, and power generation State meet its GHG reduction goals. The project would be consistent with this reduction strategy. Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies • Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable Center Focused Consistent. As previously discussed, the development implementation projects that reduce greenhouse Placemaking, proposed project would be located close to July 2023 4.55 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE gas emissions Priority Growth bus stops, which would promote alternative • Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new Areas (PGA), Job modes of transportation. The project would construction and that incentivizes development near transit Centers, High include common and private outdoor areas corridors and stations Quality Transit with landscaped planters, trees, and • Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced Areas (HQTAs), seating. Further, the project would comply Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Transit Priority with sustainable practices included in the Revitalization and Investment Authorities Areas (TPA), CALGreen Code and 2022 Title 24 (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance Neighborhood standards. Thus, the project would be sustainable infrastructure and development projects, including Mobility Areas consistent with this reduction strategy. parks and open space (NMAs), Livable • Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities Corridors, and assess barriers to implement sustainability strategies Spheres of • Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to Influence (SOls), promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region Green Region, • Continue to support long range planning efforts by local Urban Greening. jurisdictions • Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy Promote a Green Region • Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard Green Region, Consistent. The proposed project involves mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that improves Urban Greening, development of a residential community on community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards Greenbelts and a disturbed vacant lot and would therefore • Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction Community not interfere with regional wildlife of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration Separators. connectivity or concert agricultural land. • Integrate local food production into the regional landscape The project would be required to comply • Promote more resource efficient development focused on with CALGreen Code and 2022 Title 24 conservation, recycling and reclamation standards, which would help reduce energy • Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity consumption and reduce GHG emissions. • Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural Thus, the project would support efficient land development that reduces energy • Identify ways to improve access to public park space consumption and GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with this reduction strategy. Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy — Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020. Consistency with the Citv of Menifee General Plan The General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes goals and policies that promote GHG reduction within the City. The project's consistency with these goals and policies is discussed in Table 4.8-4, Consistency with the City of Menifee General Plan. As depicted in Table 4.8-4, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan. It should be noted that policies under Goal OCS-10 are associated with City-wide planning efforts and are not applicable to individual development projects. July 2023 4-56 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.8-4 Consistency with the City of Menifee General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency 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 Consistent. The project would comply with 2022 Title 24 and conservation practices in land use, transportation CALGreen Code and incorporate energy efficiency building design demand management, and subdivision and building features. As such, the project would be consistent with this policy. design. Consistent. The project would install solar photovoltaics panels and Policy OSC-4.2: Evaluate public and private efforts to develop and operate alternative systems of energy have electrical infrastructure to support a future battery system on the production, including solar, wind, and fuel cell. proposed two-story condominium units in compliance with 2022 Title 24 and CALGreen Code requirements. As such, the project would be consistent with this policy. Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter. Policy OCS-9.5: Comply with the mandatory Consistent. As discussed above, the project would comply with 2022 requirements of Title 24 Part 1 of the California Title 24 and CALGreen Code. As such, the project would be Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part consistent with this policy. 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Source: City of Menifee. General Plan. Conclusion In summary, the project's characteristics render it consistent with Statewide, regional, and local climate change mandates, plans, policies, and recommendations. More specifically, the GHG plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the project complies with the regulations and GHG reduction goals, policies, actions, and strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City's General Plan. Consistency with these plans would reduce the impact of the project's incremental contribution of GHG emissions. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, regulation, or recommendation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to response 4.8(a) above. Impacts would be less than significant Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-57 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-58 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TTM 38346 PROJECT /h Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ✓ materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ✓ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- ✓ Quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ✓ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a ✓ safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ✓ plan? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a ✓ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? This section is primarily based upon the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, LDW Development, Menifee, Riverside County, California 92585, prepared by McAlister GeoScience, dated May 3, 2021; and the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil Sampling Report, LDW Development, Menifee, Riverside County, California 92585, prepared by McAlister GeoScience, dated June 30, 2021; refer to Appendix El, Phase I ESA and Appendix E2 Phase 11 ESA. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials could occur through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes particularly by untrained personnel, a transportation accident, environmentally unsound disposal methods, or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. The severity of potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous material or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. Construction Project construction could expose construction workers and the public to temporary hazards related to the transport, use, and maintenance of construction materials (i.e., oil, diesel fuel, and transmission fluid), and/or import/export of July 2023 4-59 Hazards and Hazardous Materials �f L/ MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration soils. Project construction activities would be compliant with the applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials/waste, ensuring that potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner. Impacts concerning the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project construction would be less than significant. Operations Hazardous materials are not typically associated with single-family residential uses. Anticipated hazardous materials use may include cleaning products and the use of pesticides and herbicides for landscape maintenance. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. As such, impacts concerning the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substance could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil, soil vapor, or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. Construction During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum - based fuels or hydraulic fluids used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. As required by various State laws, the construction contractor is required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. Construction activities could also result in accidental conditions involving existing on -site contamination. Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site was previously used for agricultural crops, which is considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) due to possible soil contamination. The Phase I ESA found the following RECs in connection with the project site: • The project site was previously used for agricultural uses including row crops from the 1930s to the 1990s. • At least one septic system was in use and connected to a residential structure that was present in the northern portion of the site. The residential structure has since been demolished; however, unauthorized discharge of hazardous materials to the septic system is possible. July 2023 4-60 Hazards and Hazardous Materials !- TTM 38346 PROJECT 41i Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE • Due to the age of the former residential structure, a groundwater well is expected to have been utilized to provide irrigation and domestic water for the project site prior to the establishment of a municipal water supply. Unused groundwater wells present a threat to groundwater in the form of a conduit from the surface. • Due to the age of the former residential structure on the project site, hazardous building materials are expected to be present. It is noted that the former residential structure has been demolished since preparation of the Phase I ESA. The following analysis evaluates potential environmental impacts from the RECs identified in the Phase I ESA. Former Agricultural Use According to the Phase I ESA, historic aerial photographs, historical topographical maps, and city directory indicate that the project site was unimproved or used for agricultural practices in the 1930s. Between the late 1940s and the 1990s, the project site appears to have been used for agricultural land with row crops. A Phase II ESA was conducted with soil sampling to determine the extent of possible soil contamination based on the site's former agricultural use. During the field investigation, sixteen borings were advanced to six inches below ground surface. Ten samples from each of the borings were obtained and laboratory -tested. Organochloride Pesticides (OCPs) were not present in the soil samples with the exception of 4,4'-DDE. Although OCP 4,4'-DDE was detected, laboratory testing determined it was at levels below the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level and would not present a risk to human health. In addition, arsenic was not detected above the laboratory detection limit. Thus, the results of the investigation determined that soil at the project site is not significantly impacted with OCPs or Arsenic. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Septic System As discussed, at least one septic system was in use and connected to a residential structure that was present in the northern portion of the site. The residential structure has since been demolished; however, unauthorized discharge of hazardous materials to the septic system is possible. Based on the Phase I ESA, if the septic tank is confirmed to exist, it would need to be properly abandoned in accordance with State and local requirements. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is included to require that a professional geologist survey the project site to locate the former septic system such that it can be abandoned in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations before ground disturbing activities. Following compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts would be less than significant. Groundwater Well A groundwater well is expected to have been utilized for crop irrigation, which presents a threat to groundwater as a conduit from the surface. Based on the Phase I ESA, if the groundwater well is confirmed to exist, it would need to be properly abandoned in accordance with State and local requirements. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is included to require that a professional geologist survey the project site to locate the former groundwater well such that it can be abandoned in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations before ground disturbing activities. Following compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts would be less than significant. Former Residential Structure As discussed, the former residential structure has been demolished since preparation of the Phase I ESA. Nonetheless, The Phase I ESA recommends soil sampling be performed in areas surrounding the former residential structure to analyze the potential for elevated lead concentrations in soil from lead -based paint used on the structure and OCPs. The Phase II ESA did not conduct soil sampling in this area. Thus, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires that Phase II soil sampling be performed at the former residential structure prior to ground disturbing activities. If found, removal of July 2023 4-61 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TTM 38346 PROJECT /h Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE soils contaminated with lead paints or OCPs must be completed with an approved Health and Safety Plan prepared by a qualified Phase II specialist. Disposal of lead paints or OCP containing soils must be done at an approved disposal facility. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, impacts would be less than significant. Operations Refer to Response 4.9(a) for a description of impacts related to project operations. Upon adherence to existing regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials safety, impacts pertaining to the potential for accidental conditions during project operations would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: HAZ-1 Septic Tank and Groundwater Well Abandonment. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a professional geologist to verify the presence or absence of an abandoned septic tank and/or groundwater well at the former residential structure. In the event either feature is identified, the former septic tank and/or groundwater well shall be abandoned and/or removed in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall verify these features have been abandoned and/or removed prior to ground disturbance activities. HAZ-2 Contaminated Soils. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified Phase II specialist to conduct soil sampling to identify the presence or absence of lead -based paint and/or OCP-contaminated soils at the former residential structure. If found, removal of soils contaminated with lead -based paints or OCPs must be completed with an approved Health and Safety Plan prepared by a qualified Phase II specialist. Disposal of lead paints or OCP containing soils must be done at an approved disposal facility. The City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall verify contaminated soils have been removed and properly disposed of prior to ground disturbance activities. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. The closest schools to the project site include Boulder Ridge Elementary School, located approximately 0.33-mile southwest of the project site, and Mesa View Elementary School, approximately 0.4-mile southeast of the project. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory sites list (pursuant to the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116395. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. July 2023 4.62 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TTM 38346 PROJECT Ho Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE According to the Phase I ESA, the project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would result in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 4 miles northwest of the project site. According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is not located within the Perris Valley Airport influence area and airspace protection area.30 Additionally, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or related facilities. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport noise levels or safety hazards. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. fl Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Shyificantlmoact with Mitigation Incorporated. As indicated in Section 4.17, Transportation, the project does not propose changes to the City's circulation system, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, and would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways, The project site would have one entry point from Menifee Road and one entry point from Rouse Road. The RCFD would review the proposed driveways and interior vehicular circulation network against the Department's requirements related to fire access and turning radius requirements, Further, should partial or full lane closures be required as part of project construction activities, implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would minimize congestion and ensure safe travel, including emergency access in the project vicinity; refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1. As such, project implementation would not interfere with the implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 in Section 4.17. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Viewer, the project site is not designated as being within a fire hazard severity zone in the State or Local Responsibility Area.31 In the event of a fire, adequate access and circulation for fire trucks would be provided through the proposed neighborhood. Entry and exit would be available from both Menifee Road and Rouse Road, with access available to all four of the through streets within the development. As a result, project implementation would not result in exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 30 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 3 (Individual Airport Policies and Compatibility Maps), July 2010. 31 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed September 23, 2022 July 2023 4-63 Hazards and Hazardous Materials / h MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4.64 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TTM 38346 PROJECT A06 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ✓ round water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project ✓ may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river orthrough the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: 1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ✓ 2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or ✓ off -site? 3) 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? ✓ 4) Impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of ✓ pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality ✓ control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The information presented in this analysis is based on the Hydrology Report for LDW TTM 38346 (Hydrology Report), prepared by Adkan Engineers (June 13, 2022); refer to Appendix F1, and the Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, LDW Menifee, Tentative Tract Map 38346 (WQMP), prepared by Adkan Engineers (August 2022), refer to Appendix F2. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharge. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the General Construction Permit under the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City lies within the Santa Ana RWQCB. Construction Typical construction activities would require the use of gasoline- and diesel -powered heavy equipment, such as backhoes, water pumps, bulldozers, and air compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, July 2023 4.65 Hydrology and Water Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT A01v Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances would also likely be used during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade surface water runoff quality and contribute additional sources of pollution to the existing drainage system. Therefore, small quantities of pollutants have the potential to enter the storm drainage system during project construction and degrade water quality. In general, construction -related impacts to water quality could occur in the following periods of activity: • During the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest; and • Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high. Because development of the project would disturb more than one acre of soil, construction activities would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities requirements (and all subsequent revisions and amendments), To demonstrate compliance with NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent must be prepared and submitted to the SWRCB, providing notification and intent to comply with the Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit also requires that non- stormwater discharges from construction sites be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent practicable, a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) that governs construction activities for the project be developed, and routine inspections be performed of all stormwater pollution prevention measures and control practices being used at the site, including inspections before and after storm events. Permittees must verify compliance with permit requirements by monitoring their effluent, maintaining records, and filing periodic reports. The SWPPP would include a site map showing the construction site perimeter, proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns. The SWPPP would identify the BMPs that would be used to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. The SWPPP would also identify a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for "nonvisible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. Upon completion of construction, a Notice of Termination would be submitted to the SWRCB to indicate that construction has been completed. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.01.015, Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater, all construction work in the City is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ.Thus, compliance with NPDES requirements would reduce short-term construction -related impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Operations In compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff, a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared to implement post -construction BMPs that help infiltrate or treat stormwater runoff, control peak flow discharge, and reduce post -construction pollutant discharge into the City's stormwater conveyance systems; refer to Appendix F2. According to the project's preliminary WQMP, anticipated and potential pollutants would include the following: bacterial indicators, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash and debris, and oil and grease. Runoff from the project site ultimately drains to San Jacinto Reach 3 - Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. According to the preliminary WQMP, perforated underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storage chambers would be installed in the southwestern portion of the project site. All runoff from impervious areas would be directed to the CMP system, which would provide volume storage and infiltration. Additional source control (i.e., structural) measures identified in the preliminary WQMP include the following: provide storm drain system stenciling and signage; design landscaping to minimize irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides; post signage near dumpsters instructing against July 2023 4-66 Hydrology and Water Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT AAr Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE hazardous material disposal; provide a means to drain fire sprinkler test water to the sanitary sewer; and avoiding roofing, gutter, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff. Non-structural measures identified in the preliminary WQMP include the following: maintain landscaping using minimal pesticides; education of property owners and maintenance staff on stormwater BMPs; sweeping regularly to prevent litter from accumulating; and prohibiting discharge of cleaning agents or degreasers into the storm drain system. Compliance with project -specific BMPs identified in the project description and preliminary WQMP and adherence to applicable State requirements would ensure long-term water quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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. The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site compared to existing conditions. However, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project impedes sustainable groundwater management of the basin. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, seeps, springs, mottled soils, or other indications of a high regional groundwater level were not encountered during the site investigation. While perched groundwater was encountered at approximately 35 feet below ground surface, the regional groundwater table was measured to be between 50.9 and 71.8 feet below ground level refer to Appendix D, Geotechnical Evaluation. Further, the project site is not currently used for groundwater extraction or groundwater recharge. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) would provide domestic water supply service to the project site. According to the EMWDs 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, local supplies such as recycled water, potable groundwater, and desalinated groundwater provide for half of EMWD's supply, while the other half is supplied by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which is imported into the EMWD service area. While local groundwater basins are currently in a state of overdraft, EMWD is contributing to the replenishment of local groundwater basins by providing recycled water in lieu of groundwater production for outdoor irrigation water use. EMWD is also party to agreements with other local agencies to limit groundwater extraction. As such, sufficient water supplies are available from EMWD to serve the proposed project, and that local groundwater basins would not be substantially depleted as a result of serving the project. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would. 1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. 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. Project compliance with the General Construction Permit requirements and Municipal Code Chapter 15.01 would minimize erosion and water quality impacts during construction to less than significant levels; refer to Response 4.10(a). July 2023 4.67 Hydrology and Water Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT V Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Although the project would increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, long-term operation of the project would not have the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation given the nature of proposed use and the urbanized project setting, The project site would not include any large areas of exposed soils that would be subject to runoff. Rather, any unpaved areas would be landscaped to minimize the potential for erosion or siltation on- or off - site. The proposed project would include operational BMPs in conformance with Municipal Code requirements in order to reduce long-term water quality impacts to less than significant levels; refer to Response 4.10(a). Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. There is no existing drainage system on -site and surface runoff currently flows west toward Palomar Road and continues west toward a Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) open channel known as Line A-2. According to the Hydrology Report, the project would include one drainage management area with a planned drainage system, which would collect on -site runoff and convey the flows to the southwest. The proposed drainage system includes catch basins inlets, storm drain lines, and a perforated underground CMP system. The CMP system would provide adequate detention for 2, 5, 10 and 100-year storm volumes. Flows would be conveyed via the existing storm drain on Rouse Road (Lateral A-21) and ultimately drain into Line A-2. All on -site storm water would be captured in accordance with Santa Ana RWQCB Order Number R8-2010-0033, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. CAS618033, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4 permit. Thus, as the proposed storm drain system would meet MS4 permit requirements, impacts concerning on- or off -site flooding would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) 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? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 4.10(c)(2), although the proposed project would involve an increase in impervious surfaces, the project's proposed storm drain system would ensure the project's peak flow rate does not exceed the MS4 requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of an existing or planned stormwater drainage system. As stated in Response 4.10(a), operations of the proposed project would be subject to compliance with NPDES requirements and Municipal Code Chapter 15.01 standards in order to reduce long-term water quality impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to 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. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4.68 Hydrology and Water Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT % Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(c)(2) and 4.10(d). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. Flood Hazard According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Hazard Layer, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.32 No impact would occur in this regard. Tsunami A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. The project site is located over 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, a sufficient distance so as to not be subject to tsunami impacts. No impact would occur in this regard. Seiche A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi -enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. The project site is not in the vicinity of a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank capable of creating a seiche. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium -priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans or prepare an alternative to a groundwater sustainability plan. The project site is located within San Jacinto Basin, which is ranked as a "high" priority basin.33 Therefore, EMWD has prepared and implemented its West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin Management Plan, The Management Plan is intended to protect the vested interests of existing groundwater producers while providing a planning framework for new water supply projects for the benefit of groundwater producers and the public. The Management Plan goals include: • Establishment of a Groundwater Basin Manager • Monitoring of Groundwater Production • Monitoring of Groundwater Level and Quality • Development of Well Construction Policies • Development of a Well Abandonment and Destruction Program 92 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Service Center. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Available at: hftps://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=menifee#searchresultsanchor, accessed November 2, 2022. 13 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.govlapplbp- dashboard/final/, accessed November 1, 2022, July 2023 4.69 Hydrology and Water Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE • Monitoring of Well Construction, Abandonment, and Destruction • Groundwater Quality Protection • Exchange of Agricultural and Other Non -potable Groundwater Production to Municipal Use • Maximize Yield Augmentation with Local Resources — Local Runoff and Reclaimed Water • Maximize Conjunctive Use • Groundwater Treatment As discussed, the project would be required to comply with NPDES and Municipal Code requirements regarding protection of water quality and thus would not conflict with the Management Plan. Further, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. As such, upon compliance with all applicable regulations, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Management Plan. The project site is located within the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB manages surface waters through implementation of its Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). Basin Plan Chapter 2, Plans and Policies, includes a number of water quality control plans and policies adopted by the SWRCB that apply to the Santa Ana RWQCB. Basin Plan Chapter 4, Water Quality Objectives, includes specific water quality objectives according to waterbody type (i,e., ocean waters, enclosed bays and estuaries, inland surface waters, and groundwaters. As concluded under Responses 4.10(a) and 4.10(b), the project would result in less than significant impacts to surface water quality and groundwater quality following conformance with applicable regulations. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-70 Hydrology and Water Quality TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.11 Land Use and Planning F - Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigatinq an environmental effect? a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated No Impact. The factors that could physically divide a community are generally large, linear infrastructure projects including, but are not limited to construction of major highways or roadways; construction of storm channels; closing bridges or roadways; and construction of utility transmission lines. The key factor with respect to this question is creating physical barriers that change the connectivity between areas of a community to the extent that persons are separated from other areas of the community. As indicated in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by vacant land and residential uses. The project does not propose to construct any major infrastructure or utilities that could physically divide an established community within the project site or the immediate vicinity. No changes to the connectivity of the surrounding area are proposed that would separate persons from other areas of the community. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan, the project site's designated land use is 20.1-24 R. The purpose of the 20.1-24 R designation is to provide for high density residential development, including apartments, townhomes, and condominiums. The site's zoning designation is HDR, which allows for multi -family dwellings, including apartments, townhomes, and condominiums with a density range of 20 to 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The project would allow for the development of 162-unit two-story attached townhome units on approximately 6.85 net acres (9.5 gross acres), representing a density of 23.6 du/ac.34 Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the existing land use and zoning designation for the site. Further, the project's design would be reviewed and approved by the City during the development review process. This process would verify that the project's design is compatible with development in the surrounding vicinity and that it is consistent with applicable zoning regulations. As such, the project would result in less than significant impacts in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 34 Density is calculated by dividing net acreage (6.85 acres) from proposed number of units (162). July 2023 4.71 Land Use and Planning USTTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank July 2023 4.72 Land Use and Planning TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.12 Mineral Resources Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ✓ state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral _ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ✓ specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation (Division of Mines and Geology), the project site is designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which indicates areas containing mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.35 No known mineral resource recovery sites are known to occur within or adjacent to the project site, and no sites are identified in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a). The project site is not located in an area designated for locally -important mineral resources and is not utilized for mineral resource production. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 35 California Department of Conservation, Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate in the Temescal Valley Production Area, Riverside County, California, 2014. July 2023 4-73 Mineral Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-74 Mineral Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT AP' Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.13 Noise Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project result in: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess ✓ of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ✓ aroundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ✓ airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the protect area to excessive noise levels? This section is primarily based upon Appendix G, Noise Mode!lnp. Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time -varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day -Night Sound Level (Ld,). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10 dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. Similarly, Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 5-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. July 2023 4-75 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK State The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the CNEL. Table 4.13-1, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, presents guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories, The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community's sensitivity to noise, and the community's assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. Table 4.13-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Ex osure Ldn or CNEL dBA Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Category Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacceptable Residential — Low Density, Single -Family, Duplex, Mobile 50 — 60 55 — 70 70 — 75 75 — 85 Homes Residential — Multiple Family 50 — 65 60 — 70 70 — 75 70 — 85 Transient Lodging — Motel, Hotels 50 — 65 60 — 70 70 — 80 80 — 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 — 70 60 — 70 70 — 80 80 — 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 — 70 NA 65 — 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 — 75 NA 70 — 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 — 70 NA 67.5 — 75 72.5 — 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, 50 — 70 NA 70 — 80 80 — 85 Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial, Professional 50 — 70 67.5 — 77.5 75 — 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 — 75 70 — 80 75 — 85 NA Notes: NA = Not Applicable; Ldn = Day/Night Average; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dBA = A -weighted decibels Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable - New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable — New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, July 2017 Local City of Menifee General Plan The Noise Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at the control and abatement of environmental noise and protection of citizens from excessive exposure to noise. To protect City residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element contains the following goals related to the project: July 2023 4-76 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Goal N-1: Noise -sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure. Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications. Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes. Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, Policy N-1.4: Regulate the control of nuisances, such as residential party noise and barking dogs, through the city's Municipal Code. Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below (Table 4.13-2, Stationary Source Noise Standards; refer to General Plan Table N-1, Stationary Source Noise Standards) to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors: Table 4.13.2 City of Menifee Stationary Noise Standards Land Use Residential Interior Standards Exterior Standards 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. 40 Leq (10-minute) 45 Leq (10-minute) 7:00 a.m. —10:00 p.m. 55 Leq (10-minute) 65 Leq (10-minute) Source: City of Menifee. City of Menifee General Plan, Table N-1, Stationary Source Noise Standards, adopted 2013; City of Menifee, City of Menifee Municipal Code, Section 9.210.060(D), Table 9.215.060- 1. Stationary Source Noise Standards. current through Ordinance 2020-295, passed April 15, 2020. Policy N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise -producing uses adjacent to noise -sensitive receptors and require that new noise -producing land be are designed with adequate noise abatement measures. Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. Policy N-1.17: Prevent the construction of new noise -sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones. New residential land uses within the 65 dB CNEL contours of any public -use or military airports, as defined by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, shall be prohibited. Policy N-1.20: Adhere to any applicable Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Land Use Commission land use compatibility criteria, including density, intensity, and coverage standards. July 2023 4-77 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT MAAr Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ENIFEE Menifee Municipal Code The City's noise regulation is contained within the Menifee Municipal Code (Municipal Code) and the Comprehensive Development Code (Development Code). The following sections of the Municipal Code and Development Code are applicable to the proposed project: 8.01.010 Hours of Construction. Any construction within the city located within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. 9.215.060 Noise Control Regulations B. General Exemptions. Sound emanating from the following sources are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 8. Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 10. Heating and air conditioning equipment in proper repair. C. Construction -Related Exemptions. Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Section 9.215.060 of this chapter and may be characterized as construction -related, single event or continuous events exceptions. 1. Private construction projects, with or without a Building Permit, located one -quarter of a mile or more from an inhabited dwelling. 2. Private construction projects, with or without a building permit, located within one -quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or specified in Section 8.01.010. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. 3. Construction -related exceptions. If construction occurs during off hours or exceeds noise thresholds, an application for a construction -related exception shall be made using the temporary use application provided by the Community Development Director in Chapter 9.105 of this Title. For construction activities on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays, Section 8,01.010 of this Code shall prevail. D. General Sound Level Standards. No person shall create any sound or allow the creation of any to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 9.215.060-1 (refer to Table 4.13-2, above). 9.215.070 Vibrations All uses shall be so operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one July 2023 4-78 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains and temporary construction is exempted from this standard, Existing Conditions The project site is located in an urban area. Noise sources in the project area include the use of mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] units) and motor vehicle use along Menifee Road and Rouse Road. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single -event noise occurrence, short-term, or long- term/continuous noise. Mobile Sources The majority of the existing mobile source noise in the project area is generated from vehicles traveling along Menifee Road and Rouse Road. Noise Measurements In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, two noise measurements were taken on October 19, 2022; refer to Exhibit 4, Noise Measurement Locations, and Table 4.13-3, Noise Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. Ten-minute measurements were taken between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. Table 4.13-3 Noise Measurements Site Location Leq Lmin L= Peak Time No. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 Across the project site and parallel along Rouse 56.8 42.4 71.2 90.2 9:07 a.m. Road 2 Northeast corner of intersection of the Menifee 68.5 45.0 79.6 92.2 9:25 a.m. Road and Rouse Road Notes: dBA = A -weighted decibels, Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmm = Minimum Sound Level; Lm. = Maximum Sound Level, Peak = Highest Instantaneous Sound Level Source: Michael Baker International, October 19, 2022 Meteorological conditions were sunny, warm temperatures, with light wind speeds (0 to 5 miles per hour). Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Briiel & Kjaer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre -polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for sound level meters. As shown in Table 4.13-3, the ambient recorded noise level in the project vicinity ranged between 56,8 dBA and 68.5 dBA. The source of the highest instantaneous sound levels ranging from 90.2 dBA and 92.2 dBA came from trucks passing along Menifee and Rouse Road. The results of the field measurements are included in Appendix H, Norse Modelrnc. July 2023 4-79 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Noise Sensitive Receptors Noise -sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health - related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise -sensitive land uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located approximately 100 feet to the south of the project site. Impact Analysis a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; noise that is considered a nuisance to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. Construction The project involves construction activities associated with grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately 24 months and require approximately 13,000 cubic yards of soil import. Ground -borne noise and other types of construction -related noise impacts would typically occur during the initial earthwork phases. This phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.13-4, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise levels depicted in Table 4.13-4 represent maximum sound levels (Lmax), which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located 100 feet south of the project site. At this distance, construction noise levels could range between approximately 68 dBA and 84 dBA; refer to Table 4.13-4. Although sensitive receptors may be exposed to increased noise levels during project construction, construction activities are exempt from the City's noise thresholds as it is a normal part in the urban life and the project would be required to comply with the City's allowable construction hours (Municipal Code Section 9.215.060[C][21). Municipal Code Section 8.01.010, Hours of Construction, permits construction activities between 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply Standard Condition SC-NOl-2 with regard to the permitting hours of construction activities. Therefore, with project compliance with Standard Condition SC-NOI-2, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. July 2023 4-80 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT r Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.13.4 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factors Lim at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmaz at 100 Feet (dBA) Backhoe 50 78 78 72 Compressor 40 72 Concrete Saw 20 90 84 Dozer 40 82 76 Dump Truck 40 76 70 Excavator 40 81 75 Flatbed Truck 40 74 68 Grader 40 85 79 Loader 40 79 73 Paver 50 77 71 Roller 20 80 74 Scraper 40 85 79 Tractor 40 84 78 Water Truck 40 80 74 Welder 40 1 74 68 Note: 1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. Operations Mobile Noise Future development generated by the proposed project would result in on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. As determined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), a doubling in roadway traffic volumes is required to generate any noticeable increase in roadway noise levels.36 Based on data provided by the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study prepared by Michael Baker International, dated January 12, 2023, the project would generate approximately 1,092 average daily trips (ADT). The nearest roadway segment of the project vicinity currently experiences approximately 11,000 ADT along Menifee Road (North of McCall Boulevard).31 As such, the project's minimal trip generation (approximately 1,092 ADT) would not double existing traffic volumes along nearby roadways and an increase in traffic noise along local roadways would be imperceptible. Project - related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Stationary Noise Impacts Stationary noise sources associated with the proposed project would include mechanical equipment, slow -moving trucks, parking activities, and outdoor gathering area. These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration. Noise has a decay rate due to distance attenuation, which is calculated based on the Inverse Square Law. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source.38 36 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. 37 City of Menifee, General Plan Environmental Impact Report, December 18, 2013. 38 Cyril M. Harris, Noise Control in Buildings, 1994. July 2023 4-81 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE All stationary noise activities would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and the California Building Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation. Mechanical Equipment Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units typically generate noise levels of approximately 66 dBA Leq at 3 feet from the source.39 HVAC units could be included on the side of the proposed buildings. Buildings 300, 400, and 500 represent the closest proposed buildings to sensitive receptors. Potential HVAC units of the parcels would be located as close as 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors to the south. At this distance, potential noise from HVAC units would be approximately 46 dBA and would not be audible above existing ambient noise levels; refer to Table 4.13-3. Additionally, properly functioning HVAC units are exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.215,060(B.10). Therefore, the nearest sensitive receptors would not be directly exposed to substantial noise from on -site mechanical equipment and impacts would be less than significant. Slow -Moving Trucks The project proposes a residential development that would necessitate occasional garbage and truck delivery operations. Typically, a medium 2-axle truck used to make deliveries can generate a maximum noise level of 79 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.40 These are levels generated by a truck that is operated by an experienced "reasonable" driver with typically applied accelerations. Higher noise levels may be generated by the excessive application of power. Lower levels may be achieved but would not be considered representative of a normal truck operation. The proposed project is not anticipated to require a significant number of truck deliveries. Garbage and delivery trucks currently service the surrounding area, and thus would not introduce a new source of noise to the site vicinity. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Parking Areas Traffic associated with parking activities is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time -averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up and car pass -byes may be an annoyance to adjacent noise -sensitive receptors. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 4.13-5, Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots, Table 4.13-5 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots Noise Source �— Maximum Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Source L Car door slamming 61 dBA Leq L Car starting 60 dBA Leq Car idlinq 53 dBA Leq Source: Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991. The project would provide 352 parking spaces. As shown in Table 4.13-5, parking activities can result in noise levels up to 61 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. It is noted that parking lot noise are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the CNEL scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than what is identified in Table 4.13-5. The proposed project would have 39 Berger, Elliott H., et al., Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015. 40 Elliot H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Madden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010. July 2023 4-82 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT & Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE intermittent parking activities noise due to the movement of vehicles. The nearest sensitive receptors would be located approximately 100 feet from parking areas associated with dwelling units on the southern portion of the project site. There would be residential building located in between the parking areas and sensitive receptors which would block the line of the sight. At this distance, noise levels from parking activities would range from 30 to 55 dBA. Additionally, an approximate 3-foot-high masonry wall parallel to Menifee Road would separate the proposed project site and the nearest sensitive receptors, which would result in further noise level reduction.41 Therefore, parking activities noise would be reduced below the range of 25 to 50 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, parking lot noise levels would not exceed the City's exterior daytime (i.e., 65 dBA) noise standards for residential uses. Further, parking activity noise currently exists within the adjacent residential neighborhoods and would not represent a new source of noise. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Outdoor Gathering Area The proposed project includes a recreational center and public open space in the center of the project site. The open space has the potential to be accessed by groups of people intermittently for gathering, etc. Noise generated by groups of people (i.e., crowds) is dependent on several factors including vocal effort, impulsiveness, and the random orientation of the crowd members. Crowd noise is estimated at 60 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) away for raised normal speaking.42 This noise level would have a +5 dBA adjustment for the impulsiveness of the noise source, and a -3 dBA adjustment for the random orientation of the crowd members.43 Therefore, crowd noise would be approximately 62 dBA at one meter from the source (i.e., the outdoor gathering areas). The nearest sensitive receptors would be the residential uses to the south of the project site, located approximately 300 feet from the public outdoor gathering area. Therefore, crowd noise at the nearest sensitive receptor would be 22 dBA, which would not exceed the City's noise standards for residential uses (i.e., 65 dBA for daytime and 45 dBA for nighttime) and would be lower than existing ambient noise levels near the site; refer to Table 4.13-3. Additionally, noise would also be generated in private backyards connected to the proposed two-story attached condominium units. The nearest sensitive receptors would be the residential uses to the south of the project site, located approximately 100 feet from private backyards of residential building near the southern boundary of the project site. Crowd noise generated at the nearest sensitive receptors would be 32 dBA, which would not exceed the City's noise standards for residential uses and would be lower than existing ambient noise levels near the site. Noise generated from the public outdoor gathering area and private backyards connected to the two-story attached condominium units would be dampened by the surrounding buildings and boundary walls. As such, project noise associated with outdoor gathering area would not introduce an intrusive noise source over the existing condition. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Standard Conditions and Requirements; Refer to Standard Conditions SC-NOl-1 and SC-NOl-2 below. STANDARD CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: SC-NOI-1 The project shall comply with Menifee Municipal Code, Section 9.210.060 (Noise Control Regulations), Section 9.210.060 — General Exemptions, exemptions relevant to the project include: • Property maintenance including lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; • Motor vehicles, other than off -highway vehicles; and 41 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 87, Highway Noise Barriers, December 1981, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_87.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. 42 M.J. Hayne, et al, Prediction of Crowd Noise, Acoustics, November 2006. 43 Ibid. July 2023 4-83 Noise IVIENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Heating and air conditioning equipment in proper repair. SC-N01-2 The project shall comply with Menifee Municipal Code, Section 9.210,060 (Noise Control Regulations), Section 9.210.060 — Construction -Related Exemptions, construction noise is exempt from applicable noise standards provided that: • The construction project is located at least one -quarter mile from an inhabited dwelling; or • Construction does not occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual identifies various vibration damage criteria for different building classes. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. For most commercial and industrial structures that are engineered concrete and masonry buildings, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations is 0.3 in/sec. For most residential structures that are non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations is 0.2 in/sec. As the nearest structure is a residential building located approximately 100 feet to the south of project construction activities, the architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at modern industrial/commercial buildings of 0.2 inch -per -second peak particle velocity (PPV) is utilized. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 4.13-6, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment. July 2023 4-84 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT / Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.13-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Apprinximate peak particle velocity at Approximate peak particle velocity at Equipment chl J 100 feet inchisec i Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0111 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0095 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0044 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0004 Notes: 1. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPV ref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPV equip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV ref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, September 2018. The nearest structure is the single-family residential structure located 100 feet to the south of the project site. As indicated in Table 4.13-6, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during project construction would range from 0.0004 to 0.0111 in/sec PPV at 100 feet from the source of activity, which would not exceed the FTA's 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. Additionally, the project would not utilize heavy-duty construction equipment with noticeable vibration levels (e,g., vibratory rollers, pile drivers, etc.) near off -site uses or nearby structures. As such, the impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 3.98 miles to the northwest. The project site is not located within two miles of the airport and the project is not located within the Perris Valley Airport noise contours.44 Additionally, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or related facilities. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft. As such, the impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 44 County of Riverside, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Perris Valley Airport, July 2010. July 2023 4-85 Noise TTM 38346 PROJECT J�' Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-86 Noise •1 ! 1 . * i T T77r r t -- — j . - '.`mil"-`F J•� Legend O Noise Measurement Location t• ' 1 1�' Project Site •� 0 75 150 N T E R N A T•I O N A L OiiiiR Feet Source: ESRI, Riverside County, Nearmap MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Noise Measurement Locations Exhibit 4 TTM 38346 PROJECT I kw, Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-88 Noise r. � TTM 38346 PROJECT , ' ta Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.14 Population and Housing Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ✓ businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ✓ elsewhere? 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. A project could induce population growth in an area either directly, through the development of new residences or businesses, or indirectly, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. The project would construct 162 two-story attached townhome units, which would be permitted under HDR zoning designation for the project site. The proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Based on the City's average household size of 2.93, the project would introduce up to 475 new residents,45 As a residential housing development, the project would not generate new permanent jobs. Thus, the project would not result in indirect population growth from potential employees relocating to the City. Therefore, potential population growth associated with the project would represent only a 0.45 percent increase over the City's estimated 2022 population of 106,627 persons.46 As such, although nominal, the project would induce population growth in a local context. Potential population growth impacts are also assessed based on a project's consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts estimate the City's population to reach 129,800 persons by 2045, representing a total increase of 40,200 persons between 2016 and 2045.47 SCAG's regional growth projections are based upon long-range development assumptions (i.e., General Plans) of the relevant jurisdiction. The project's anticipated resident population (475 persons) would represent 0.37 percent of the 2045 population anticipated for the City. Although the project would result in direct population growth, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth exceeding existing local conditions (0.45 percent increase) and/or regional populations projections (0.37 percent of the total projected 2045 population of the City). Additionally, buildout of the project site under the HDR zoning was already contemplated in the General Plan and regional growth forecasts. As a result, the project would result in less than significant impacts to unplanned population growth. 45 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022 with 2020 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 2022. 46 Ibid. 47 Southern California Association of Governments, Current Context: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020. July 2023 4-89 Population and Housing Ho MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. There are no existing residences on -site. As such, project implementation would not displace existing people or housing. No impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-90 Population and Housing TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.15 Public Services Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. 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: 1) Fire protection? ✓ 2 Police protection? ✓ 3) Schools? ✓ 4) Parks? ✓ 5) Other public facilities? ✓ a) 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: 1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD). The nearest fire stations to the project site are RCFD Fire Station 7 located at 28349 Bradley Road, approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the project site, and RCFD Fire Station 76 located at 29950 Menifee Road, approximately 3.1 miles south of the project site. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project would create a temporarily increased demand for fire protection services at the project site. All construction activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable State and local regulations in place to reduce risk of construction -related fire, such as installation of temporary construction fencing to restrict site access and maintenance of a clean construction site. As a result, project construction would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or other RCFD performance standards. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Operation Based on communication with RCFD, Fire Station 7 is not currently meeting the City's four -minute fire response threshold and a Fire Response Plan is currently being prepared to identify the additional fire protection resources needed for the area.48 Although the proposed project would create an increased demand for fire protection services in 48Telephone Call: Lonny Olson, Division Chief, Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department, May 30, 2023. July 2023 4-91 Public Services _ TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Fire Station 7's service area, the project would not itself result in the need for additional fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. The proposed project is consistent with land uses anticipated for the area and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth; refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.14, Population and Housing. The increased presence of structures, traffic, and population generated by the project will not have a cumulative adverse impact on City's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. The development of future fire stations or resources necessary for the area by the City's Fire Master Plan would be subject to their own project -specific environmental review. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with RCFD requirements for emergency access, turn radii, fire flow, fire protection standards, fire lanes, and other site design/building standards. The project would be subject to Municipal Code Chapter 8.20, Fire Code, which adopts by reference the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code. The California Fire Code includes site access requirements and fire safety precautions. The City would also collect a one-time development impact fee in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 8.02, Development Impact Fees, which is imposed on all new development to help pay its fair share of costs in upgrading RCFD fire facilities, as needed. Payment of these fees would help fund the acquisition, design, and construction of new fire facilities and would minimize the project's operational impacts to fire protection services to the greatest extent practicable. Collection of development impact fees and compliance with all RCFD and Municipal Code provisions would ensure operational impacts concerning fire protection services are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact The Menifee Police Department (MPD) provides police protection services to the City. The MPD headquarters is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the project site 29714 Haun Road, Unit A. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project would create a temporarily increased demand for police protection services at the project site. However, all construction activities would be subject to compliance with Municipal Chapter 8.04, Building Code. Specifically, Municipal Code 8.04,010 adopts by reference the California Building Code (CBC). Chapter 33, Safeguards During Construction, of the CBC includes emergency access requirements which would minimize site safety hazards and potential construction -related impacts to police services. As a result, project construction would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or other MPD performance standards. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Operations Project operations would increase demands for police protection services above existing conditions. However, this increase would not require the construction of any new or physically altered MPD facilities. Project implementation would be subject to compliance with applicable local regulations to reduce impacts to police protection services, such as Municipal Code Chapter 8.04. Specifically, Municipal Code 8.04.010 adopts by reference the CBC, which includes emergency access requirements which would minimize site safety hazards and potential operational impacts to police services. In addition, the City would collect a one-time development impact fee in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 8.02, which is imposed on all new development to help pay its fair share of costs in upgrading MPD facilities, as needed. Payment of these fees would help fund the acquisition, design, and construction of new MPD facilities and would minimize the project's operational impacts to police protection services to the greatest extent practicable. July 2023 4-92 Public Services TTM 38346 PROJECT J� Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENQFEE Collection of development impact fees and compliance with all Municipal Code provisions would ensure operational impacts concerning police protection services are less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within the boundaries of the Romoland School District (Transitional kindergarten through grade 8) and the Perris Union High School District (serving grades 9 through 12). The nearest schools are Mesa View Elementary School (27227 Heritage Lake Drive, Menifee, CA 92585), approximately 0.4-mile southeast of the project and Boulder Ridge Elementary, approximately 0.33-mile southwest of the project. As indicated in Section 4,14, the project includes the development of 162 townhome units, which could generate additional students within the project area. Although the project would result in an increased demand for Menifee Union School District services, the project would be required to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 50 requirements, which allow school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential projects. According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, payment of statutory fees is considered full mitigation for new development projects. Thus, upon payment of required fees by the project applicant consistent with existing State requirements, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The City Community Services Department currently operates and maintains 38 parks within the City. Thirteen parks located west of 1-215 and three parks located east of 1-215 (16 total) are operated and maintained by the City, and 22 parks located east of 1-215 are operated and maintained by the Valley -Wide Recreation and Park District.49 The project would contain a an approximately 0.42-acre common open space area inclusive of a dog park and recreation center. In addition, the project would provide approximately 21,263 square feet of private open space. These features would be maintained for through homeowner's association fees and are not anticipated to result in substantial unplanned population growth in the City; refer to Section 4.14. In addition, the City would collect a one- time development impact fee in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 8.02, which is imposed on all new development to help pay its fair share of costs in maintaining and upgrading park facilities, as needed. Payment of these fees would help fund the acquisition, design, and construction of new park and recreation facilities and would minimize the project's operational impacts to parks and recreation facilities to the greatest extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant►mpact. Other public facilities that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project include library services. The nearest library to the project site, Sun City Library, is operated by the Riverside County Library System. It is located at 26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard, Sun City, CA 92586, located 2.2 miles southwest of the project site. The project's nominal population increase is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on library services. Nonetheless, the City would collect a one-time development impact fee in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 8.02, so that the project would pay its fair share of costs in maintaining and upgrading library facilities, as needed. Payment of these fees would help fund the acquisition, design, and construction of new library facilities and would 49 City of Menifee, Community Services Department, Parks, https:llwww.cityofinenifee.us/285/Parks, accessed November 2, 2022. July 2023 4-93 Public Services HS MENIFEE TTIVI 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration minimize the project's operational impacts to library facilities to the greatest extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-94 Public Services TTM 38346 PROJECT / Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.16 Recreation Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which miqht have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Siqnificant Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-95 Recreation AAr TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4-96 Recreation TTM 38346 PROJECT A& Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.17 Transportation Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and ✓ pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section ✓ 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ✓ incompatible uses (e._ ., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓ This section is primarily based upon the following technical reports: • DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated July 5, 2023, and; • DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) VMT Assessment, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated April 5, 2023. Refer to Appendix H 1, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Appendix H2, VMT Assessment. a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. This section discusses the project's potential impacts to the circulation system, including transit system, bicycle system, and pedestrian facilities. On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, which initiated a process to change transportation impact analyses completed in support of CEQA documentation. SB 743 eliminates level of service (LOS) as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA and provides a new performance metric, vehicle miles travelled (VMT). A VMT-based analysis is thus provided below, in Response 4.17(b). However, the City's Engineering Department LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (LOS Guidelines), dated October 2020, identifies LOS as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts within the City and the General Plan has established a minimum acceptable performance standard of LOS D for designated intersections (Circulation Element Policy C-1.2). Thus, the following analysis evaluates the project's potential to conflict with adopted LOS performance standards near the project site. The following analysis scenarios are evaluated in this section: • Existing Year 2022 Condition • Existing Year 2022 With Project Condition • Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Without Project Condition • Opening Year 2024 Cumulative With Project Condition July 2023 4.97 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE STUDY AREA The following study intersections were examined as part of the DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study (Michael Baker International 2023; the Traffic Study): 1. Junipero Road and Rouse Road 2. Galloping Way and Rouse Road 3. "B" Street and Rouse Road 4. Menifee Road and Rouse Road 5. "A" Street and Menifee Road The following study segments were examined as part of the Traffic Study: A. Rouse Road, west of "B" Street B. Menifee Road, north of Rouse Road C. Menifee Road, south of Rouse Road These five (5) intersections and three (3) segments have been identified in coordination with City staff as locations where traffic operations could potentially be impacted by the proposed project. Traffic counts were collected on Thursday May 17th, 2022. Intersection counts were collected from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m, while segment counts were collected for a 24-hour period. The counts used in this analysis represent the peak hour of each period. The count locations were selected in coordination with City staff. Appendix H1 Table 4-1 shows the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and Appendix H1 Exhibit 4-2 shows the existing peak hour intersection volumes. LOS METHODOLOGY LOS is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the type of traffic control and experienced delay at the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition published by the Transportation Research Board in 2016 was utilized in this analysis to determine the operating LOS at each of the study intersections. LOS can range from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions). Delay in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh) passing through the intersection is the primary measure of effectiveness for signalized, stop -controlled, and roundabout intersections. The corresponding average stopped delay range experienced per vehicle per LOS is shown in Table 4.17-1. HCM Intersection Level of Service Criteria. July 2023 4-98 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT A01v Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.17-1 HCM Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Signalized Intersection Average Delay (secondslvehicle) Two -Way Stop -Controlled, All -Way Stop - Controlled, and Roundabout Control Delay secondstvehicle A x<10 x<10 B 10<x<20 10<x<15 C 20<x<35 15<x<25 D 35<x<55 25<x<35 E 55<x<80 35<x<50 F 80 < x 50 < x Notes: If the volume -to -capacity ratio (vlc) > 1.0, LOS = F. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. LOS is reported for the average stopped delay per vehicle for the overall intersection (all movements) for signalized intersections, all -way stop -controlled, and roundabout intersections. For one-way or two-way stop -controlled intersections, LOS is reported for the worst stop -controlled approach. LOS and delay for the intersection analysis was conducted with Synchro/Sim Traffic (version 11) software. HCM 6th Edition results were reported. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The City's LOS Guidelines identify two minimum operating conditions. The minimum acceptable condition is LOS D for locations in the City. LOS E is identified as acceptable only in capacity constrained locations near 1-215. For the purpose of this evaluation, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition given the project location. Per the City's LOS Guidelines, a project would result in adverse effects: 1. "If the pre -project condition at an intersection or roadway segment is at or better than the minimum acceptable LOS (LOS D, or LOS E at constrained locations near 1-215) and the addition of project trips results in unacceptable LOS (LOS E or LOS F)." 2. "If the pre -project condition is LOS E or F and the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips to the intersection or roadway segment. This type of impact would be considered a "cumulative" project impact in which the project would be required to contribute a fair share payment toward reducing the impact." EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Intersections Level of Service Table 4.17-2, Existing Year 2022 Intersection Analysis Results, presents existing intersection LOS conditions during a typical weekday. As shown, all intersections are presently operating at a satisfactory LOS during the weekday AM and PM peak hour. July 2023 4-99 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT AAF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.17-2 Existing Year 2022 Intersection Analysis Results ControlYe Existingar 2022 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection Type LOS Delay LOS Dela 1 Junipero Road and Rouse OWSC B 14.1 A 9.0 Road Galloping Way and Rouse OWSC B 10.0 A 9.0 2 Road 3 "B" Street and Rouse OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist Under This Condition Road 4 Menifee Road and Rouse SIG B 16.8 B 10.5 Road 5 "A" Street and Menifee OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist Under This Condition Road Notes: 1) LOS = Level of Service 2) OWSC = One -Way Stop -Controlled; SIG = Signal Controlled 3) Overall LOS provided for all -way stop intersection. Worst approach LOS provided for one-way and two-way stop -controlled intersections. 4) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. Existing Segment Level of Service Table 4.17-2, Existing Year2022 SegmentAnalvsis Results, presents existing segment LOS conditions during a typical weekday. Per the City's LOS Guidelines capacity values, all three study segments operate under LOS D capacity. Table 4.17.3 Existing Year 2022 Segment Analysis Results ID Segment Existing Year 2022 ADT LOD D Capacity' LOD D or Better? A Rouse Road, west of "B" 1,840 11,700 Yes Street B Menifee Road, north of 12,760 -F-33,400 Yes Rouse Road C Menifee Road, south of 10,170 33,400 Yes Rouse Road Notes: 1) ADT rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles. 2) Rouse Road assumed capacity of two-lane collector roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. 3) Menifee Road assumed capacity for a four -lane Arterial roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, Julys, 2023; refer to Appendix H1, July 2023 4.100 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Project Trip Generation and Distribution The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was used to forecast vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. Appendix H1 Table 5-1 shows the trip generation rate for Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) land use (ITE Code 220). Table 4.17-4, Trip Generation summarizes the vehicular trips forecast to be generated by the project. As shown, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,092 daily trips with 65 AM Peak Hour trips and 83 PM Peak Hour trips. The project is assumed to be constructed in one phase. Table 4.17.4 Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Intensity Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume In Out Volume In Out Multifamily (Low 220 162 DU 1,092 65 16 49 83 52 31 Rise Notes: DU = dwelling units Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. The regional distribution trends identified in the Traffic Study are as follows: • 20 percent to the north via Menifee Road • 70 percent to the south via Menifee Road and Junipero Road • 10 percent to the west via Rouse Road Appendix H1 Exhibit 5-1 shows the project trip distribution at each of the study intersections and Appendix H1 Exhibit 5-2 shows the project intersection trips. Refer to Appendix H1 for detailed volume development worksheets. EXISTING YEAR 2022 WITH PROJECT CONDITION Intersection Analysis As shown in Table 4.17-5, Existing Year 2022 with Project Intersection Analysis Results, all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM Peak Hours under existing (2022) with project conditions. Since each intersection is projected to operate better than the LOS E threshold, no adverse effects on operations are projected. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. July 2023 4-101 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Table 4.17-5 Existing Year 2022 with Project Intersection Analysis Results ExistingYear 2022 Existing Year 2022 with Project Control AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection Type Hour Hour LOS Dela LOS LOS Delav LOS Delay Junipero OWSC B 14.1 A .2elaL 9.0 C 15.3 A 9.1 1 Road and Rouse Road Galloping OWSC B 10.0 A 9.0 B 10.1 A 9.1 2 Way and Rouse Road "B" Street OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist A 9.2 A 8.7 3 and Rouse Under This Condition Road Menifee SIG B 16.8 B 10.5 B 16.9 B 11.1 4 Road and Rouse Road "A" Street OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist B 10.8 B 10.1 5 and Menifee Under This Condition Road Notes: 1) BOLDED TEXT = Adverse Effect 2) LOS = Level of Service 3) OWSC = One -Way Stop -Controlled; SIG = Signal Controlled 4) Overall LOS provided for all -way stop intersection. Worst approach LOS provided for one-way and two-way stop -controlled intersections. 5) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. 6) Adverse Effect when pre -project is LOS EIF and more than 50 AM or PM peak hour project trips are added to the intersection. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No, 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1 Segment Analysis As shown in Table 4.17-6, Existing Year 2022 with Project Segment Analysis Results, all segments would operate at acceptable LOS of D or better under existing (2022) with project conditions. Since each segment is projected to operate better than the LOS D threshold, no adverse effects on operations are projected. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Table 4.17.6 Existing Year 2022 with Project Segment Analysis Results ID Segment Existing with Project LOD D Capacity2 LOD D or Better? ADT A Rouse Road, west of "B" 2,220 11,700 Yes Street B Menifee Road, north of 12,980 33,400 Yes Rouse Road C Menifee Road, south of 10,660 33,400 Yes Rouse Road N otes 1) ADT rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles. 2) Rouse Road assumed capacity of two-lane collector roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. July 2023 4.102 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT A& Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 3) Menifee Road assumed capacity for a four -lane Arterial roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. OPENING YEAR 2024 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION The Opening Year 2024 traffic volumes are developed by adding cumulative project trips and increasing the existing traffic volumes by a 2 percent linear growth rate. The growth rate used for the traffic forecasting was coordinated with the City. Appendix H1 Table 7-1 shows the Opening Year 2024 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and Appendix H1 Exhibit 7-1 shows the Opening Year 2024 peak hour intersection volumes. These volumes are Without Project conditions. Intersection Analysis As shown in Table 4.17-7, Opening Year 2024 Intersection Analysis Results, all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM Peak Hours under opening year (2024) without project conditions except for Intersection No. 1 (Junipero Road and Rouse Road). As depicted, Intersection No, 1 is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the AM Peak Hour. Table 4.17-7 Opening Year 2024 Intersection Analysis Results Ye Opening ar 2024 ID Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type LOS Delay LOS Delay Junipero Road and Rouse OWSC F 52.2 B 11.8 1 Road Galloping Way and Rouse OWSC B 13.5 B 12.9 2 Road "B" Street and Rouse OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist Under This Condition 3 Road Menifee Road and Rouse SIG D 50.7 C 25.2 4 Road "A" Street and Menifee OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist Under This Condition 5 Road Notes: 1) LOS E or LOS F in bold font where applicable. 2) LOS = Level of Service 3) OWSC = One -Way Stop -Controlled; SIG = Signalized 4) Overall LOS provided for all -way stop intersection. Worst approach LOS provided for one-way and two-way stop -controlled intersections. 5) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. Segment Analysis As shown in Table 4.17-8, Opening Year 2024 Segment Analysis Results, all segments would operate at acceptable LOS of D or better under opening year (2024) without project conditions. Since each segment is projected to operate better than the LOS D threshold, no adverse effects on operations are projected. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. July 2023 4-103 Transportation Hff MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.17.8 Opening Year 2024 Segment Analysis Results ID Segment Existing with Project LOD D Capacity2 LOD D or Better? ADT A Rouse Road, west of"B" 10,300 11,700 Yes Street Menifee Road, north of B 28,100 33,400 Yes Rouse Road C Menifee Road, south of 26,300 33,400 Yes Rouse Road Notes: 1) ADT rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles. 2) Rouse Road assumed capacity of two-lane collector roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. 3) Menifee Road assumed capacity for a four -lane Arterial roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. OPENING YEAR 2024 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION The opening year 2024 with project traffic volumes are developed by adding the estimated project trips to the Opening Year volumes. Appendix H1 Table 8-1 shows the opening year 2024 with project ADT volumes and Appendix H1 Exhibit 8-1 shows the opening year 2024 with project peak hour intersection volumes. Intersection Analysis The results shown in Table 4.17-9, Opening Year 2024 Cumulative with Project Intersection Analysis Results, reflect a No Right Turn On Red condition of approval for the southbound right turn movement at Intersection No. 4 (Menifee Road and Rouse Road). The results reflect worst case conditions. The City will observe operations and safety of the southbound right and eastbound left movements and may consider No Right Turn On Red restrictions in the future if needed. As shown in Table 4.17-9, all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the AM and PM Peak Hours under opening year (2024) with project conditions except for Intersection No. 1 (Junipero Road and Rouse Road). Table 4.17-9 Opening Year 2024 Cumulative with Project Intersection Analysis Results 0 enin ear 2024 Opening Year 2024 with Project Project Adverse 1 I Intersectio Contr AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Trips Effect? D of Hour Hour Hour Added LO Delay LO Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay A P AM PM n Type S S M M Junipero OWSC F 52.2 B 11.8 F 63.9 B 11.9 31 24 No' No 1 Road and Rouse Road Galloping OWSC B 13.5 B 12.9 B 13.7 B 13.1 No No Way and 2 Rouse Road July 2023 4-104 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT ZZF Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 3 "B" Street and Rouse Road OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist Under This Condition B 10.4 B 12.3 No No Menifee SIG D 50.7 C 25.2 D 52.9 C 27.1 33 54 No No 4 Road and Rouse Road _ "A" Street OWSC Intersection Does Not Exist B 14.9 B 13.9 — No No and Under This Condition 5 Menifee Road Notes: 1) Adverse Effect when pre -project is LOS EIF and more than 50 AM or PM peak hour project trips are added to the intersection. 2) LOS = Level of Service 3) LOS E or LOS F in bold font where applicable. 4) OWSC = One -Way Stop -Controlled; SIG = Signalized Intersection 5) Overall LOS provided for all -way stop intersections. Worst approach LOS provided for one-way and two-way stop -controlled intersections. 6) Delay shown in seconds per vehicle. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. As indicated in Table 4.17-9, Intersection No. 1 is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS F during the AM Peak Hour. According to City's TIA Guidelines an improvement should be identified if the following exists: "If the pre -project condition is LOS E or F and the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips to the intersection or roadway segment. This type of impact would be considered a "cumulative" project impact in which the project would be required to contribute a fair share payment toward reducing the impact." The project is forecast to add 31 AM trips at the intersection of Junipero Road and Rouse Road (Intersection No. 1). Therefore, while the intersection of Junipero Road and Rouse Road (Intersection No. 1) operates at LOS F, it does not qualify as cumulative adverse project effects since less than 50 peak hour project trips are added to the intersection during the time period when unacceptable LOS is projected (AM Peak Hour). A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Segment Analysis As shown in Table 4.17-8, Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Segment Analysis Results, all segments would operate at acceptable LOS of D or better under opening year (2024) with project conditions. Since each segment is projected to operate better than the LOS D threshold, no adverse effects on operations are projected. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Table 4.17-10 Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Segment Analysis Results ID Segment Existing with Project LOD D Capacity2 LOD D or Better? ADT A Rouse Road, west of "B" 10,700 11,700 Yes Street B Menifee Road, north of 28,300 33,400 Yes Rouse Road C Menifee Road, south of 26,800 33,400 Yes Rouse Road Notes: July 2023 4-105 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 1) ADT rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles. 2) Rouse Road assumed capacity of two-lane collector roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. 3) Menifee Road assumed capacity for a four -lane Arterial roadway from City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Attachment B. Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) Traffic Study, July 5, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. TRANSIT FACILITIES Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) provides transit service in the area including fixed -route bus service and Dial -a -Ride service. Dial -A -Ride service is provided for locations within three quarters of a mile of an RTA local route, meaning service is provided in the project area. RTA provides three types of Dial -A -Ride service: ADA Priority for the disabled and their Personal Care Attendant, Senior/Disabled regular service to those over 65 and disabled, and "Plus Lifeline Service," although trips are restricted to life sustaining services. The current bus route map showing the fixed route services is shown in Appendix H1 Exhibit 4-1, along with the project location added to the exhibit. The closest bus stop is located approximately one mile away at the intersection of Menifee Road and State Route 74 (SR-74). Service offered at this intersection is provided by Route 28 (Light Blue) seven (7) days a week, spanning between the Perris Station Transit Center, Romoland, downtown Hemet, and Valle Vista. The route runs from about 4 AM to 12 AM on weekdays and 4 AM to 12 AM on weekends, with about 20-minute headways between major stop locations along its route. The project would not induce significant population growth and is consistent with the anticipated land use for the project site; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. As a result, it is anticipated that existing transit service in the project area would be able to adequately accommodate the increase in project -generated transit trips. Thus, project impacts on existing and future transit services in the project area are expected to be less than significant. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Bicycle lanes currently exists within the project Area. Class 2 Bike Lanes are located along the eastbound and westbound lanes of Rouse Road, between Palomar Road and Menifee Road, including along the project frontage. Class 2 Bike Lanes are also present on the northbound and southbound lanes of Menifee Road between Rouse Road and Heritage Lake Drive to the south of the project. Along the project frontage with Menifee Road, no bike lane currently exists with the exception of a 100-foot Class 2 Bike Lane at the southbound approach to the Rouse Road signalized intersection. Along the project frontage no sidewalks currently exist. Sidewalk is present on the south side of Rouse Road. A sidewalk is present on the east and west side of Menifee Road from Rouse Road to Heritage Lake Drive. At the intersection of Menifee Road and Rouse Road crosswalks are provided on all legs of the intersection. The project would not induce significant population growth and is consistent with the anticipated land use for the project site; refer to Section 4.14. As a result, it is anticipated that existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project area would be able to adequately accommodate the increase in project -generated trips. In addition, the project proposes 6- foot wide sidewalks as well as bike lanes along the project's frontages at Rouse Road and Menifee Road. Thus, project impacts on existing and future bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project area are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4.106 Transportation A& MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed, SB 743 eliminates LOS as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA and provides a new performance metric, VMT. As a result, the State is shifting from measuring a project's impact to drivers (LOS) to measuring the impact of driving (VMT) as it relates to achieving State goals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encouraging infill development, and improving public health through active transportation. Based on the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT Guidelines), land use projects that meet at least one screening threshold criteria based on size, location, proximity to transit or trip - making potential may be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA and do not require a full detailed VMT analysis. The City of Menifee uses the Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Screening Tool which is a web based tool based on WRCOG's Riverside County Transportation Model (RIVCOM) that allows users to select one or more APN to determine if a project's physical location meets one or more of the land use screening thresholds. The Screening Tool uses RIVCOM to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ) within the region. The project site is located within TAZ 1050. Each of the screening criteria were evaluated for the proposed project and summarized in Appendix H2 Table 3. Based on the VMT Analysis, the project does not meet any of the VMT screening criteria; therefore, a VMT Assessment including VMT calculation is required. VMT Analysis Tool According to the City's VMT Guidelines, the WRCOG VMT Calculator can be utilized to analyzed VMT on routine projects. Routine projects are considered simple in nature and similar to other standard land uses in the City and model. The VMT calculator can estimate the project's VMT based on the project type, size, location, and average travel distance to the project site. Based on a review of the land uses within the project TAZ, the land uses are similar to the proposed project (i.e., residential). Therefore, the VMT Calculator has been used to evaluate the project's VMT. VMT Calculation For land use projects, the City's VMT Guidelines recommend using the Origin/Destination (OD) VMT per service population metric to compare the project -generated VMT to the City's adopted impact threshold. A project would result in a significant project -generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied: • The baseline project -generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population, or • The cumulative project -generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population. Table 4.17-11 summarizes the results of the VMT Calculator for the proposed project Table 4.17-11 WRCOG VMT Calculator Tool Summary General Plan Does the Project VMT Project TAZ Socioeconomic Buildout Project VMT exceed the General Parcel Data VMT Threshold (VMT/Service Plan No. (VMT/Service Population) Buildout VMT? Population) 331-250-028 2018 & 2045 RIVCOM Model 35.3 35.3 32.5 No 331-250-029 2018 & 2045 RIVCOM Model 32.5 No 331-250-030 2018 & 2045 RIVCOM Model 35.3 32.5 No July 2023 4-107 Transportation /h TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Source: Michael Baker International, DEV2022-002 (Tentative Tract Map No. 38346) VMTAssessment, Aprils, 2023; refer to Appendix H1. As shown, the project -generated VMT (32.5 VMT/service population) for all three parcel numbers within the project TAZ 1050 does not exceed the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT (35.3 VMT/service population). Therefore, the project -generated VMT impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction The project has the potential to result in safety hazards during the short-term construction process, Partial and full lane closures may be required for a limited period of time during materials delivery and water connection, respectively. During periods when partial or full lane closures are required, the applicant would be required to implement a temporary Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to minimize congestion and safety impacts during the construction process; refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1. The TMP would include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and use of construction flagperson(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among others. The TMP would provide congestion relief during short-term construction activities and ensure safe travel. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, construction -related impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Operations Queue Analysis The Traffic Study assessed the project driveway (Intersection No. 3 and Intersection No. 5) intersection queues to determine the adequacy of proposed storage lengths at the new intersections. Appendix H1 Table 8-4 summarizes the SimTraffic 95th percentile queues lengths and the available storage distances. As shown, all proposed driveway turn pockets are projected to accommodate peak hour queuing. In addition, the project would ensure that the distance between the call box and public right-of-way can accommodate a minimum of two (2) passenger cars at both driveways. Additionally, the queues at Intersection No. 4 (Menifee Road and Rouse Road) were also evaluated for the Opening Year With Project conditions. As shown in Appendix H1 Table 8-5, there is sufficient turn lane storage to accommodate projected queues at all but one movement. For the southbound right movement, queues are expected to exceed the available storage (174-foot queue length for AM Peak Hour and 180-foot queue length for PM Peak Hour within a 165- foot storage lane). These results reflect a No Right Turn On Red condition of approval for the southbound right turn movement at Intersection No. 4 (Menifee Road and Rouse Road). The results reflect worst case conditions. The City will observe operations and safety of the southbound right and eastbound left movements and may consider No Right Turn On Red restrictions in the future if needed. However, a storage lane length extension is still recommended to accommodate potential future conditions. Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would also be implemented to revise the project striping plan to provide a 200-foot southbound right turn lane plus taper at Intersection No. 4, Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation in this regard. July 2023 4.108 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT Ho Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Intersection Sight Distance Using the City of Menifee Standard Plan 81, The Traffic Study evaluated project intersections along Rouse Road and Menifee Road to determine the required sight distance and to confirm standard requirements. Appendix H1 Table 9-1 lists the sight distance requirements for given design speeds. As concluded in Appendix H1 Table 9-1, all intersections provide adequate sight distance with relatively unobstructed views. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: TRA-1 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for approval by the City of Menifee Traffic Engineer. The TMP shall include measures to minimize potential safety impacts during the short-term construction process if partial or full lane closures are required. The TMP shall specify that one direction of travel in each direction on adjacent roadways (i.e., Rouse Road and Menifee Road) must always be maintained during project construction activities. If full lane closures are required and one direction of travel in each direction cannot be maintained, the TMP shall identify planned detours. The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and use of construction flagperson(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. The TMP shall be incorporated into project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval. TRA-2 Intersection No. 4 Striping Plan Improvement. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Menifee Traffic Engineer shall verify that the project Applicant has revised the striping plan to include a 200-foot southbound dedicated right turn lane plus taper at the intersection of Menifee Road and Rouse Road (Intersection No. 4). d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated, the site would have one entry point from Menifee Road and one entry point from Rouse Road. The RCFD would review the proposed driveways and interior vehicular circulation network against the Department's requirements related to fire access and turning radius requirements. Further, should partial or full lane closures be required as part of project construction activities, implementation of a TMP would minimize congestion and ensure safe travel, including emergency access in the project vicinity; refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1. As such, project implementation would not interfere with the implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, impacts would be less than significant Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 July 2023 4-109 Transportation A& MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 4110 Transportation TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources j Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical ✓ resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 k), or 2) 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. As of July 1, 2015, California AB 52 was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project that may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to "begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project." Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called "tribal cultural resources." Tribal cultural resources are defined as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe" and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend regulations as part of AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September 27, 2016, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and these amendments are addressed within this Initial Study. July 2023 4.111 Tribal Cultural Resources Hir MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) 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. As detailed in Response 4.5(a), no historic resources listed or eligible for listing in a State or local register of historical resources are located on the project site, Therefore, no impacts related to historic tribal cultural resources defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, 2) 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. Less Than Significant Impact. In compliance with AB 52, on February 1, 2022 the City distributed letters notifying Native American Tribes that requested to be on the City's list for the purposes of AB 52 of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians were notified. Per AB 52, tribal governments have 30 days to respond to the City's request for consultation. All of the notified tribes responded and indicated that the project site is located within their tribal Traditional Use Area. Tribal representatives from the Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requested consultations with the City. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians requested copies of cultural resource documents for their review. Additionally, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians submitted a letter dated April 21, 2023, in which the Tribe requested the presence of an approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). The City also consulted with the Pechanga Band of Indians on April 19, 2022, July 14, 2022, and October 3, 2022, and with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians on April 25, 2022, July 25, 2022, and October 27, 2022. To avoid impacting or destroying tribal cultural resources that may be inadvertently unearthed during the project's ground disturbing activities, the project would adhere to the City's Standard Conditions of Approval (see Standard Conditions). Specifically, as discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. SC-CUL-1 requires the presence of the project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), who 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, etc. In addition, SC-CUL-4 would ensure inadvertent discoveries of Native American cultural resource are preserved -in -place, reburied on -site, or a combination of the two in consultation with the tribes. With implementation of the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, impacts would be less than significant. Standard Conditions and Requirements: Refer to SC-CUL-1 through SC-CUL-8 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-112 Tribal Cultural Resources TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MIENIFEE 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications ✓ facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during ✓ normal. dry. and multiple dry ears? _ 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 theprovider's existing commitments? d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or ✓ otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and ✓ reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? l a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Water The proposed development would be served by EMWD for water supply services. Private residential, irrigation, and fire lines would be constructed on -site to connect to existing water facilities in Rouse Road and Menifee Road. Payment of standard water connection fees and ongoing user fees would ensure that the project's impacts on existing water facilities are adequately offset. The proposed project is consistent with land uses anticipated for the area and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth; refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.14, Population and Housinq. Thus, it is not anticipated that project implementation would require construction of new or expanded water facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. Wastewater EMWD owns and operates five regional water reclamation facilities (RWRF) including the Perris Valley RWRF, which would provide wastewater collection and treatment services for the proposed development. On -site sewer laterals would connect to existing sewer facilities in Rouse Road. Compliance with the required sewer connections and wastewater discharge rate would be verified prior to issuance of building permits by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. July 2023 4.113 Utilities and Service Systems TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Further, the project would be required to pay the standard connection fees, ongoing user fees, as well as a Sewer Facility Charge (i.e., a one-time charge imposed on all new construction or expanded structures within the EMWD service area). Payment of these fees would fund improvements and upgrades to surrounding sewer lines as needed, and would offset the project's increase in demand for wastewater collection services. Following compliance with relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations, it is not anticipated that project implementation would require construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities that would result in a significant environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Stormwater According to the Hydrology Report, the project would include one drainage management area with a planned drainage system of which would collect on -site runoff and convey the flows to the southwest; refer to Appendix F1. The proposed drainage system includes catch basins inlets, storm drain lines, and a perforated CMP system. The CMP system would provide adequate detention for 2, 5, 10 and 100-year storm volumes. All on -site stormwater would be captured in accordance with MS4 permit requirements; refer to Section 4,10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open drainage channels and underground storm drains larger than 36 inches diameter are operated and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD); smaller underground storm drains are operated and maintained by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. It is anticipated the proposed drainage system would adequately provide drainage treatments, detention, and conveyance in accordance with City of Menifee and RCFCWCD requirements. Construction of the new storm drain improvements would be subject to compliance with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Dry Utilities The project site would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electricity services and Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) for natural gas services. It is noted that the project is bordered on the east and south by SCE aboveground transmission and distribution lines. The project would involve constructing new private on -site dry utility lines associated with such services. Payment of standard utility connection fees and ongoing user fees would ensure impacts to these utility services are adequately offset. The project's potential environmental impacts for construction in this regard are analyzed throughout this Initial Study. Construction of the project's dry utilities would also be subject to compliance with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws, ordinances, and regulations. As such, project impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. Water supplies for the project site would be provided by EMWD. 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 EMWD's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), imported water accounts for between 50 and 60 percent of the total water supply, while local potable groundwater, desalted water, and recycled water accounted for the rest.50 so water Systems Consulting, Inc., Eastern Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 1, 2021 July 2023 4.114 Utilities and Service Systems AAF MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration According to the 2020 UWMP, EMWD would be capable of providing adequate water supply to its service area under a normal supply and demand scenario, single dry -year supply and demand scenario, and multiple dry -year supply and demand scenarios through 2045. The 2020 UWMP water supply predictions are based on existing General Plan designations and account for increased demand as growth within the City occurs. Based on the General Plan, the project site is designated 20.1-24 R. The purpose of the 20.1-24 R designation is to provide for multi -family dwellings, including apartments, townhomes, and condominiums. The site is zoned HDR, which is intended for multi -family dwellings with a density range of 20 to 24 dwelling units per acre. As concluded in Section 4,11, the proposed townhome development is consistent with the allowed used under the 20.1-24 R designation, Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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 Significantlmpact. EMWD owns and operates five regional water reclamation facilities including the Perris Valley RWRF, which would provide wastewater collection and treatment services for the proposed development. On - site sewer laterals would connect to existing sewer facilities in the adjacent roadways. The RWRF currently has a current capacity of 22 million gallons per day (mgd) with a planned capacity of 100 mgd.51 As the project is consistent with the land use designation for the area, payment of standard sewer connection fees and ongoing user fees would ensure that sufficient capacity is available. As such, the project's potential impacts on wastewater treatment provider would be fully mitigated via payment of fees and EMWD's service commitment. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. Waste Management provides solid waste service to the City, including the project site, and is the primary disposal location for Waste Management Services. In 2019 (the most recent reporting year available), a total of 62,210 tons of solid waste were disposed in five permitted landfills serving the City.52 Among the six sites serving the City, Badlands Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill admitted the majority of City's waste. Construction Project construction activities are not anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste with the potential to affect the capacity of regional landfills. Further, construction activities would be subject to conformance with relevant Federal, State, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal. Specifically, the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to reduce, recycle, and re -use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible. AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. The project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the 2022 Green Building Code, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction -related waste through material conservation and other construction -related 51 EMWD, Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, January 2021. 52 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility With Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC), hftps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility, accessed November 17, 2022. July 2023 4.115 Utilities and Service Systems AAr TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE efficiency measures. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the project's construction -related solid waste impacts would be less than significant. Operation Based on CalRecycle's waste generation rates for residential development (12.23 pounds of waste per household per day), project operations are expected to generate approximately 0.99 tons per day, or approximately 361.58 tons per year.53 This represents less than one percent of any landfill's maximum daily permitted throughput capacity identified in Table 4.19-1, Landfills Serving the City. As such, the project is not anticipated to 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 in this regard would be less than significant. Table 4.19-1 Landfills Serving the City Amount Disposed by Maximum Daily Remaining Anticipated LandfilllLocation City in 2019 Throughput Capacity (cubic Closure Date (tonsiday) (tons per day) yards) Badlands Sanitary Landfill 31125 Ironwood Avenue 52.65 5,000 7,800,000 1/1/2059 Moreno Valley, CA 92555 El Sobrante Landfill 10910 Dawson Canyon Road Corona, 112.81 16,054 143,977,170 1/1/2051 CA 91719 Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill 16411 State Hwy 79 4.57 5,000 19,242,950 4/1/2032 Beaumont, CA 92223 Sources: 1 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility With Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility, accessed November 17, 2022. 2. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, SWIS Facility/Site Search, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed November 17, 2022. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.19(d) above. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939 and the City's solid waste reduction programs. Specifically, the project would be subject to AB 939, which requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced be recycled, reduced, or composted. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 53 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed November 17, 2022. July 2023 4.116 Utilities and Service Systems TTM 38346 PROJECT ® Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.20 Wildfire If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands I Potentially classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Significant project. Impact Less Than Significant Less Than No Impact With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or ✓ emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, ✓ pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate ✓ fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result ✓ of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Viewer, the project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ); however, the site is designated as a Local Responsibility Area.54 Therefore, the project would not impair an adopted emergency evacuation or response plan within an SRA or FHSZ. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a) above. The project site is not located in or near an SRA or FHSZ. Therefore, the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire within such areas. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a) above. The project site is not located in or near an SRA or FHSZ. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, 54 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed October 28, 2022. July 2023 4.117 Wildfire TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment within such areas. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 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? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a) above, The project site is not located in or near an SRA or FHSZ. Therefore, 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 within such areas. No impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. July 2023 4-118 Wildfire TTM 38346 PROJECT ® / Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant Impact With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As concluded in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, to reduce impacts to special status wildlife, the project would implement Mitigation Measure 1310-1, which requires a pre - construction survey for nesting birds. Mitigation Measure 1310-2 would require a pre -construction survey for burrowing owl within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activities, to verify the presence or absence of the species. With implementation of these mitigation measures, biological impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. As indicated in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, no archaeological or tribal cultural resources occur on -site. Should previously undiscovered cultural or tribal cultural resources be uncovered during project ground -disturbing activities, implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval SC-CUL-1 through SC- CUL-8 would reduce the project's potential effects to less than significant levels. As analyzed, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when July 2023 4-119 Mandatory Findings of Significance TTM 38346 PROJECT d Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project, in conjunction with related projects, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. As concluded in Section 4,1 through Section 4.20, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts in any environmental categories with implementation of the City's Standard Conditions of Approval as well as project mitigation measures. Implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures at the project -level would reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the proposed project to be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in this regard. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, following conformance with the existing regulatory framework and implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval and project mitigation measures. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in this regard. July 2023 4-120 Mandatory Findings of Significance AAF MENIFEE 5.0 References TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Adkan Engineers, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, LDW Menifee, TTM 38346, August 2022. Adkan Engineers, Hydrology Report for LDW TTM 38346, Menifee, County of Riverside, December 27, 2021. BCR Consulting, Inc., Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the TTM 38346 Project, March 29, 2023. Berger, Elliott H., et al., Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015. CaIEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Meteorological Information, https://www.arb.ca.gov/agmis2/agdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed April 3, 2023. California Department of Conservation (CDC), California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed October 26, 2022. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete -Grade Aggregate in the Temescal Valley Production Area, Riverside County, California, 2014. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022 with 2020 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 2022. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed October 28, 2022. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed November 17, 2022. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility With Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility, accessed November 17, 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Search, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed November 17, 2022. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed April 3, 2023. California Department of Transportation, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d8O7c46cc8e8O57116fl aacaa, accessed October 26, 2022. , Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp- dashboard/final/, accessed November 1, 2022. California Energy Commission, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast, February 2022. Southern California Edison 2020 Power Content Label, https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3902, accessed April 3, 2023. July 2023 5.1 References MENIFEE TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration _, 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy- policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed April 3, 2023. , Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Decarbonization, February 2022. City of Menifee, City of Menifee Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 2023-366, passed March 1, 2023. , Community Services Department, Parks, https://www.cityofinenifee.us/285/Parks, accessed November 2, 2022. General Plan, adopted December 18, 2013. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, December 18, 2013. County National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 87, Highway Noise Barriers, December 1981, http:/lonlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_87.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. Cyril M. Harris, Noise Control in Buildings, 1994, Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramatiic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000, hftps://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/asbestos/ofr-2000-019.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 1, 2021. , Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, January 2021. SAN 53 - WS20220000845 - APN: 331-250-028, -029, & -030 - TTM 38346, June 23, 2022.Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Service Center: National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Available at: hftps://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=menifee#searchresultsanchor, accessed November 2, 2022. Elliot H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010. Geosoils, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Percolation/Infiltration Feasibility Testing, Proposed Multi - Family Residential Development, July 26, 2021. Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, September 2018, Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991. McAlister GeoScience, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, LDW Development, Menifee, Riverside County, California 92585, May 3, 2021. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Soil Sampling Report, LDW Development, Menifee, Riverside County, California 92585, June 30, 2021. Michael Baker International, Tentative Tract Map 38346 Project Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis, February 2023. Tentative Tract Map No. 38346 Traffic Study, July 5, 2023. Tentative Tract Map No. 38346 VMT Assessment, April 5, 2023. July 2023 5-2 References TTM 38346 PROJECT N,dv Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE M.J. Hayne, et al, Prediction of Crowd Noise, Acoustics, November 2006. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Perris Valley Airport, July 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xi/rl113.pdf, accessed April 3, 2023. Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020. , Current Context: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, July 2017. Telephone Call: Lonny Olson, Division Chief, Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department, May 30, 2023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed April 3, 2023. U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-costs- and-savings, accessed April 3, 2023. Water Systems Consulting, Inc., Eastern Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 1, 2021, Written Correspondence: Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, Collections Technician, Western Science Center, dated February 2, 2023. July 2023 5-3 References UF TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE This page intentionally left blank. July 2023 5-4 References Ns' TTM 38346 PROJECT Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 6.0 Report Preparation Personnel LEAD AGENCY CITY OF MENIFEE 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 951-672-6777 Fernando Herrera, Associate Planner CEQA CONSULTANT MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92591 951-506-3523 Alicia Gonzalez, Project Manager Peter Minegar, AICP, Project Director Elizabeth Meyerhoff, QA/QC Krista Perine, Environmental Associate David Christie, AICP, Environmental Associate Milena LaBarbieri, Environmental Associate Eddie Torres, SeniorAQ/GHG/Energy/Noise Specialist Zhe Chen, Senior AQ/GHG/Energy/Noise Specialist Yiting Yuan, AQ/GHG/Energy/Noise Specialist Winnie Woo, AQ/GHG/Energy/Noise Specialist Carla Dietrich, Senior Transportation Engineer Dawn Wilson, Senior Transportation Engineer Tom Millington, Senior Biologist Arthur Popp, Senior Biologist Ryan Winkleman, Senior Biologist Kevin Oliver, GIS Technician GEOTECHNICAL SUPPORT GEOSOILS, INC. (GSI) 18451 Collier Avenue, Suite A Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Todd A. Greer, Engineering Geologist, CEG 2377 Stephen J. Coover, Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2057 July 2023 6.1 Report Preparation Personnel _ TTM 38346 PROJECT y Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE PHASE I AND PHASE II ESA SUPPORT IVICALISTER GEOSCIENCE 235 E. Broadway, Suite 1120 Long Beach, California 90802 David McAlister HYDROLOGY AND WQMP SUPPORT ADKAN ENGINEERS 6879 Airport Drive Riverside, CA 92504 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUPPORT BCR CONSULTING, LLC. 505 West 8th Street Claremont, California 91711 David Brunzell, Principal Investigator July 2023 6-2 Report Preparation Personnel TTM 38346 PROJECT HS Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring plan. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, and Table 2, Standard Conditions and Requirements Checklist, have been prepared for the TTM 38346 Project (the "project'). This Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the City of Menifee TTM 38346 Project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist and Standard Conditions and Requirements Checklist (Table 1 and Table 2). If an adopted mitigation measure or standard condition is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. August 2023 3.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TTM 38346 PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities, plan redesign to make any appropriate improvements, and/or modification, substitution or deletion of mitigation measures subject to conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. No change will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. August 2023 3.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program I-- c U _O LU O W U a (1) 0 v � M -� G is M 06 � a) � Z H ia) o .4 .F W LU LL _� - ` W 2 Y la E O C O w V G N c a) O > > C N i/� �E � •�_ U' �in U \/ d 0 -� i C s _ 7 7 to � T If C co .O U O �DC/)0 0 c _ .0 c > O 0 O> = a) p -0 c E a) = =a =-E -N E,���� oN Eo > a) a) — ._ 000d000 o �` w� m c CD a d m cm E w 1 ..a 0 00 L� U) W O N W J W _rn E O �Z m 2 7 O Q c� U a i cu -0rn op o j U = c Z O m U) cm U c = cn L O cu ca cn m — a) = y LD c � L a`) LL _> a) -0 a) NA U 2 E CU a) LO C O p �O M O � 0 >, c U cv r in = M = o c- E p cn O -6 x > Q M �••% CT OL H N O C O m C0 Q d U' 'O r>6 CM O -p = rn p N 7 0 N L _ p N O -O U = 0-0 C— O U p Co O p O 0 a) O c > c o o� �� C)Cl) �t�� �= 0 o 3 °) � a' cn cv cn >,.� p ca a3 ? in a) a)a) ca:t'f E p te r) Ltz i ` o c� U) = t . ) L -0 d : U .p M :3 OC.) cn C/5 c� Ej > -m i O c 0cc NB >ic _1C6O >, c CDO :cF •"CB D U ) a) a) CDQ ' O^. E C) c cn c 'cn M -0 cn .� E a) p _ co a) o o 0_ �> cca c) "> a) D � c t a m= m a) U 0�� O co m~ 0 is ._ s? � O in c C6 C6 O "� "� a) O U O 5 a3 Z3 00 o > C U .L-- M OU (4 .� C E Q O tZ OU O tan) r) r" 9 CV O N W cm y Y cc E O. w O! C F 07 I m W W ®W �z in � � __ O -O E L N C L i U (6 � ID C U O -O O .L 7 O -> O 2 .2 'C a) Q- .2 C a) _ U -0 () O C4 N O U O> cB a) p C o p N E O C d) � `—� a) "O U O C In — : •--, C .> C 0 E a) a) L L L a) CD m U [n C U O O m C m C cv a)ca-D O C C C1 a) Ca a) -2 E O a) L� E 7 0 L O C -0) CB p U U m� — E-Fu_ N U(D 0 -0 m p m a) L a O L C -O a) CV O— i -EO Q O O L L 0 CO C6 O C Cp U N 7 U N i U a) a) U p CB w C m A C a p 0 m m L ID Qm Q Cm -0-0— er U� ;- :a`)mo 00 C° m L- CU m a) C a C6 U0ULcu fn C C U O m a)C �C~ U Q O Q U E C a 0 0 -mo En En v U p a) O Oi C 0 C -C O C p U a) U O a) cB O a) i1 ain ins mE �Um co cat U in 0_0-(6 -o (D a) a a) a) a) > CB C0 m U _0)ZF O N E a U CC6 U C CAD j L CD a) cu ca •> U a) CCDcm cB U U L -� 0 (6 a) L 0 m M � �' ��� C m •� � _Q C U j U - p) M ) E�L.� p cB O mE p U.cy U :F U m V O_ a) CD p U 0 E O m 0 a a) L p a) m -0 O_ C O S -Q A Co pU a Q (6 Q U Q O a) O _0 in min = c .>' N E 0 a) O� O U O .V _Q) U Co (D Z3 a) 0 0 a) U -� a c E W 0 cn c a`) a) -N ca E a`� a) o a, & � a) c>u - = C H a? ca a) L U U U C (4 m O CU L _� U O cn E j Q O C6 O O — 0 � �� L UI U M F— C U .� W O co IX U a (1) 0 co a) v Oo co M Q 75 (6 C LL- W W ® LL W N Y ` cc E Q OC E 0 U w O C O .0.. � t07 :C > N :r C O) cB C c ccu C/) 0 0 D o 'U •� O .L-- c c m O O in .2 2 O := L O 6 C � C N � = 0 0 Q U 0 o � m Q c C u) � 0- E a) O. C o m c o E > N in a) .o o a) a) 0 m 0 0 0 d Y ub d C N 0 coU C 0) Ed' EL o Q 0 m U .O U E> O N � m ¢ L .o L a) U) D7 N= C N a "LO'' O O d7'C C U c6 0 ..L", Q~ 7 co L co — c6 O "a > Cl) Q) N C O= -� �O O .0 j N EO "C O N T u a= c O� C C O a U c6 N �_ -0-0 C L C L 7 Q E 0 tm — a -r- a) N cm ui L C D7 c6 O co N N a C a)>~ U a 0 O C U 0 a) a) L C O .? O U C C a) N O .3 O M C.J .0 a) U L E `�) a o a) a) N Q) cn L a3 o=— O —co .� 0� c co cn Q C O 5� "� L c CU 41 C m O7 O a) a) a) i O C co o C_ L _0 "� U a -E - 7 N 3 T a E C C> O N -2) "� a1 O m 0" C cn Q Un O' O O U a) = 0 C a) Q -C > a) H U U— _ O a 7 L p -C -D C -0 0co Q O a) � Um 0-,— ia:E CD> — C-O> ' -0 E CDOco N�a) a LLUaN �Na) O U (JLO C= n O C U E N O CD a cn E _ OL O Q0 m oU O OUN �Qa� LN D a) UC CO aH0) <o �i�0) O dC cNCo O O EaVOCIO O C o O Om aNr- o Q co d7 Np -p m i C u EO _0� O U U) E LC N n U N U . a CO .� LaLn cn U LL" =ca U i O U� ioLO� E a - c — N— a) 7 C c6 Q CnO' F; aa �) 2r O nCL O U�U L cn o C ` o y o Mm Z O m E m rn 0 IL rn c E 0 d 0 Q' c ea cm C C c 0 c 0 ca c6 Of m N 0 N y c rn 3 a U .o W -�5 2 O �° W U d (1) CO r � a) 00 M a a) � Z H � oo W * W LL W 2 CA C E P O a 80 d O C cn 0 U O C O ~ CO d a) � CU 0 O 4+' wa � N C O E 0 O C a) E (V O Cl) a) -0 0 ) U 3: L O IL- O CC Q O 'a 0 D- O a) = OC W O �p�N O-0 =a - ) m —U a U) ) a) �O _CoN U O N C o � cm E- 3 C °a O p w a a)a� Ucaa) -..CCUpQa`N-D � rn O p 7 U L --- _� co m N C U ca. _-0 O `� co a _U) c6 o 92 aC NN U O p O U)U O C6 �p.O ) :- 3 Q M. O @L aL L Ocoo c -p C6 y>C Q ?0 `m) (B SNO O Co n a) CD aU p a) cO U m -a Q 2 O a) da 3 0 .L- CC cn a) : O U ) � p a) � O mO cu 3 O O Q copUNOC a) >-O OQ 6 O a) p CNC V 0-0 > N O 7�5 cn� a) CO _L-0 -a -o N >6 c --Xa) c0 a O p 6 O H 3O)O0d -0 O ..0 N0 a) CB �mn V 0-6 Q a) > a)L .0 C15 cu o0o .N U a O Oa)Lc d .O zTU O a a) E U a �O_ � c o J QO p :- a >+>+ ) Cf) �a C U) M E a 07 caUE= -00 O U Ca - 0 7o U0C� Cc,:),- OU aO) vU R— O (6 a) CB m Qd� a) -0 Q a. 6C6 Z Q O y is E Cf O Z J W LU M N O N N 7 0) 7 Q I-- = U _o W O — a/ U a a) 0 v m a0 m 0 W W LL W Y E 12 O c d O t07 � � H R d7 C cm 0 m c cp is a -a) E = _- 7 "7 O cn . i(D01 a) c o E E E 0'c 0 _ 0 0' E o a "c N E > Q c o a) a) J 0 m n o Z' 2 c ` 0 eo E Viz' 'O (UO 0 `15 ._ a -U O =U Om()�=O a) ) L-0 ap -= E 0 a) co O0c0 -C = a)-� .0 - "CO C6"0=U� = = U, -O acn �N U c E ca m E 2 -_— U L a"Q0- cn O c0aCoB= ) _0)cnQ o p. O 0- cn E -o >, 0- a) " O OOaN a N a)U ()0U cn a) U O U c = —cn a _ " — c cu cu > is a) =`O o C a " 0-0 O 0 � C Oa) O o p �L O pOOCO "Vao)>aN O O_Oa a a)c -0 O p) �a) s o (D � a) ) o (n o -Q o .c> o) a m o Lp o — O Q " a_ (D co E io O E m o m ca =— C 2 o 1 0 o a) °) -0 a`) E in in E _ "m oo a) c- � o c a) d .E c o — c iu of a o a) rn E F o> cu — 0-.� o') a) L) a) a oo 0 0 �'E o O 0 O U p c— 0 m co O= O p 0 E a cn c6 -0 a o m.-0 in 0 Q— OL U O 0 0 1 L cn > Q of _in O Q - .� L o N ca ai TDa) CD _OEaca) �cn E a' o 0 O a)�.a)�o a O E O ) CU �ap p` a 0)o aa !E o>aE >? - CO a = O(D O N 3O O U OC6 O_7a QE CQO o a) 0- cn U m 0-c)) 0.0 mE o co _ En CD O O E O a) a) a) c c cu O CD = o- o o- c a C " -0 U m a) 0 CV 0 a) U m 01 c O E a m a) 0 a 2 o- a) E L Im 0 IL rn c 0 C. 0 c R rn C c O c O .5 co 2 M N 0 N U, a) USTTM 38346 PROJECT Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIFEE Mitigation Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Timing Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Number Responsibility Responsibility 1 enti ication and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving 4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens 5, Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City 6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays 7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any. 8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary 9. Fossil identification and curation procedures 10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material 11. All pertinent maps and exhibits 12. Procedures for reporting of findings 13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS August 2023 3.8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TTM 38346 PROJECT L' :J Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MENIIFEE Mitigation Number HAZ-1 l:r_rba F - Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility septic i anK ana urounawater vven Abandonment. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a professional geologist to verify the presence or absence of an abandoned septic tank and/or groundwater well at the former residential structure. In the event eitherfeature is identified, the former septic tank and/or groundwater well shall be abandoned and/or removed in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall verify these features have been abandoned and/or removed prior to ground disturbance activities. Contaminated Soils. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified Phase II specialist to conduct soil sampling to identify the presence or absence of lead -based paint and/or OCP-contaminated soils at the former residential structure. If found, removal of soils contaminated with lead -based paints or OCPs must be completed with an approved Health and Safety Plan prepared by a qualified Phase II specialist. Disposal of lead paints or OCP containing soils must be done at an approved disposal facility. The City of Menifee Building and Safety Department shall verify contaminated soils have been removed and properly disposed of prior to ground disturbance activities TRANSPORTATION Geologist Applicant]Qualified Phase II Specialist Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of Applicant TRA-1 grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for approval by the City of Menifee Traffic Enqineer. The TMP shall Monitoring Timing Responsibility Designated nor to 'rou Geologist] Disturbing Building and Activities Safety Department Phase II Prior to Ground Special istBuilding Disturbing and Safety Activities Department City of Menifee Prior to Issuance Traffic Engineer of Grading Permits Verification of Compliance Initials I Date I Remarks August 2023 3.9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program v .0 LU c G aC) k .2 R\ 2/ m § 3 m W W LL. ,�2 � W 2 k 0 § E . � 0 0 0 . � 2 > k 3 cm cQ c E 7 = � 3$3 boE � -0 § c / . � 0 Co cm �ƒ 0� �0 °F � f / $� am CDc CLCL co § 0 E . CL Ca- 4 a- -0 p a) -0 cQ c c- c= 0 _ cn� o= _ _ g=_= - % � _ _ c o 9 .o - 2 0 _ _ �. o - _ m§w��¥)¢%7�f7/ §3\/=0 33=3�=5�7��_=£ & J > �0 - w u =: o � ®o y p f » ) o = a= a_ co E/%/ 0=%§ 0 E) o / � o E E 2 o t.� o.- = 2 = - f 0 m 3ƒ/ 2 o - - 2 ƒ ± _ _-� a = = E G 2 = _ a ± m%(D _._ 7FD®Eoa663 2% 7 = �%� e.0)» a a e ■ w§ r o e 0 » c -0 t -0 c/ m= = 2 s»_- >� - aE�/Co>,a)0 7.7ƒ\kk � rae~3:co ///) t ��' E �m o� £_ -0 _- R-- o c-- / �_-7,".- _ e o %30�# 2 o S@ e/\) k\%/\ ° 2 6 _ £�02� 0 a ooe �±=cn § _ « - m § 5 = e _ ° b = � CL F-@ § G f /�0 O'joym0=oo±<2§2 w -c > c - = z = o @o _-�__- _- � � = 0.= e ='n C tea=-.=8 a) ®-0 -= (D o w= E/= =m9-9��-Rsg o� 2 7§§ e 2 R% --w_�a3 o a- = 0 o -0 - - \ % _ 0 = - J ° 0 - ® c a s / ± � e 2 ƒ o = : � § 3 f ƒ ~ / O e%/ $-ƒ / E/ � r¥% & F o¥ e G= 0 o 0 CU �7C,- 0±L)0ca- 2�ƒ�g�0 02 � E z a ƒ w m 0 C to J :5- � g 3 @ *0 c 0 E � _ � � � N 2 � $ ■ e 0 � c 0 � � � � c e � N _ k E 91Ir % 2 ra§ C3 E ca k 0 kZ U =72 0 0 ® S � S (D.G = c 2 = = b cn E � £ �2o/ak 7 D c E CI- k .g E> o c m Uec� / � .0 \/» 77E J/k -c;3- » £ / 6 e f 2 7 £ 7 a 'a :tf = 5 -_ a a o= 0 0 _ ._ o y CD-0= ._ _ _ .o 0 0 5-® $ / 3 0 7 E� a _a o _ 2 y c J y = E S ) » E 3 o= o a§ E b . 7 a� t 2 _ E= o 2- m n° §7 a 6= _® e=�ooa /Q'2% �t +-\2� _02¥ / ¢ 22 /cu � & c/£ U) 0 ) § § j % 0 0 % / / / § _/ g ° - 0 : L) 2 « \ 5 ®/ = ) 5 = � \ 2 y f» 2 2 E G g? 3£_ %/ E a 2 _ �.@ - = G= 3 o c = 0 �._ o o- - 4 �=- CD o�=o -k f/ 'e -077� e E-3 & 0-_- _�= _ 0 G 00->� o= 0 s eo -og c& = 0 cm CD 2\ 5= ®/ n e 0 f k 3 ° c� E J/ c o 0 0_% w . �= = k ®� _ a±�CM R7 cu-0 %= CU d--.� ® % \ -° ƒ ° J®® ° = = =% \ f y «=eL®y23» /_ = °0 0 kca 3 § 2 E ° -- uU a fM =§moo_-w _ 285k o o @ 7 Gay /� / E� ° o k% ¢ E a E oo�§� e = = CoE���J 8-0CU ±f�\/k o ._ 2 e 2-2 _ _ = o - _ -- /® o _ o - 2¥ E f\ _ J m a o °> _ = $.E §§ «&2a= e w£ca�U)_0 2/ e: /u0-0o / Q Q CO W W LL W 2 v Cc C ER C O V O C O +O+ C w R w+ C .0 H C w C C O O O- � d Q' O w = C Gl Q- G. R Ea C N fn C) @ Q (D [n -C cn C — C) C) T C) O -C p C) N C O cn O -C U Co -C :s L=m O L C O p U) E Z'O U n 01 d -N c6 -C pC pC cn2-C 6 p OVcn N UON N E O O L co m C 12 c6n E O U p E O -C (� O O-0 mc - cn EQ CD OC R N ? c6 .� _ C cn -cU' C C N � n _O gy� 0 ui C-) -p Ocn O U O O E U) n O O N- � Q 6 dc Oa) : O dC-)N cn cOa - Co O 0 Up-0 O U YL c, L m cn O N d C i C N CV NO N U C-O LQ CU pd E aO O ULO U cu` L a O� j C ) >Q� O Q a) m �oo M o mc_�a pc6 _O C p s dQ -O CO —m> � L OU O U .O U O �' .E _cuC— 2 � N � � C cn co O cn _ C L O) '"' N U N i O _ CO U cp 4J C L E ;- cB O� 0 L a d N N Q� L""' O L O > O: i U N yC+ _O U Q) _O �,�, .` a) EO N (h aj N t L L oo L _ O cn O O to C W .L-- � -a) Lo o 0 —5 , H 3 U ca Q 2 m E = 2 po cu � � _� � 00 CO O U U (C4 (UO C) Q t Q.C4 .E M C o ` 0 E U z 2 N M CM N O N y 7 3 Q F. C U .0 LLI O C° W U d a) 0 co M O 00 N M C� � N � Z H � a) is T U) V I Y C ER C L jr C F— tn, o C d ca d E 1 D>i U Y fn !n U -0 a) U O U a) (D a) 7 O � -- > a) .= a) a) i C6 C -O 3: E `O a)F -�(n 0 O >O 0) 0 UjO NQ U= =C6 CE -0 i a Cu > a) § C6 .0 (O a) mU a) a O a) o ca CU c p cn T O _ H- O N U U 0-cn co in E o -� DY LaQo CNCEC6 dL UU UC6 cn -0v T ) cu cu O O a U o 1 cn cm UJ —U - C(a6 O > O aU3: OT co )=cn a) C O -C' C O ) CD U O L a C O O c O c Y a) c > cop U c6 U a) U 7 Co U CU O L m m L H U m -0 Cll U •� U .0 ooa c O E a) Q E m o=" E > � E O a) a) ca U 0 0 CL O U C� C O U cn a) o U >. m a) -� O C U a) cn _> -o -0.= a)-0O E: _0 — ca O— O E= m a) U a) Z CD CD"= O c� E o- L .� a) .--cnC Vl CV 0 O> j U> Uj ,O o a) .� U CB CT o) a) � C.)-� L-- cu 72 .0 0 O - O Q o C Ur C (6 C 0 C 0 C m m� 7 M p cu cn C o U J .E C6 L a) O C O ea 0 o cn E U L-0 c� -- V C - _ cu J I c C �L C6L mU O— L 2 0 a) Q C 'Op a) co �. C 0 O cu 0) L O i ]., � CD cn N U) d _ U) T� 0 O E` cCn U)) V O L L L U a) X U-) �O C 6 coC0 a) N o 0 f`7 U C CD -p Q �. a) '� V U _0 a) - E 0-0 C E cu L a) Y Ca a) � Z� Q cn 0-0- U U cu a) co N J U CO v M M N O N • w rn W W LL W G v C Emu E O U O C O .O. "v G :C W w c _C O E D N j= o � c C -N U Boa Z% C 0 �_ e _n N > ` O rC >+ C O Q. c C E Q O c m CU E > Q C 0 0 a_ Off'. ++ w c �-yy .0 C ✓ � ' C E ` '� d _O pCL E CB N O � U C .0O Q �'> a) O (B (D a) a L M o -c O L d c4 L O "C N L C c c O O (D C O` .L-- Q C O OC C rL-- O U) C N >, E �) � c cv C > C O -O O o -0 = in o (O N a) E E v) `� O a ) N o Q o 0) U a) N O OO a) U cLn O O U c a) > O N E _� L cB N O C U 0 CUUN ca) 0 dca O D U� _ -O -0 �-0US >, U M a)v) " (B O i U U '� 'OQ O p (n (0 U d> O O > C O O O N N cmO-UOO UN U (O0) U �C oQ O 01 OEQ i oc o tN _CR > y A_ O O O N U �cu OL-a) c o C --0 E= -0 m a) � EOUO O U d co 2 a) u a) o - oNa 3 N E > w p U cm U) '0d Op Q LO O `E" 0 C (n C E (D O O Cc6 Un O O -0O -O C Q O_ CB CU L C U - N a m C,— 0 Q C U E O o a)-0 rn N >> 2 o O= C a)O EQ) L "� ) 02 O > C C UL N-0 oC( 'O 01 > p L C U O L (n Q -0 U .L-- cc �_ U i c O c¢ C.)) C -O -0 m (U6 C.)CU6 O O -� OU -- C w m C = 0 Z U U U E cv 0 0 a- m m N O N N rn Q 0 .2 � 7 22 a_A k .2 R7 �2 �-0 CD . I-- r . 2 CL �2 I 1�2 §' CL I0 \ o m / _ £ S / » 0 7 / ± f / ƒ� c f u 0/ 7 7% \.2 e y 2 -- 3\ e m= 2 4 r 0 - G a-0_-0 0 a- . 0 i $ ®� 'E Gƒ%\ 2\ 0® 3 2 3 G S° 2 5� CD ®Z G 3 ° J n g § m 2 ) O - E ® y= c-y 0 _ £ c E E § / + a g 7 e\ƒ ' f) Cl)a \ a y\/ a tƒ ¥ » 3) -0) t e / _ & 7 � k 2 ) a : �_ m o 2 0 @ 3 = G 0/ U 2% ®± E ® ° f 2- = a L f ® % 0� 2/ k 0 2 ± ° ~ ® ° e ° 0 = ® § n e k a/ / 3 £ G f/ m 2* ° a °®§% e® g G S e ®w E 0 5 a 3 a f-$= c = c&± o -0 0 = E 0 % f/ - » a C = / 2ƒ/± 2 » 2~ 8 E/$ - a¢ 0 0- = e 7 3 f 2 o §\ ƒ 3$ q o 0 G 2ƒ c£ ®- e t = 7 y G Eƒ =§ a E 7 �� a) a) rn 5 \ƒ§ 7 / k 7 k 0 0/§ - a« E 0- a ® =-' k b J� e ¥ % J» z- m% -- e O 2 k E° 3 0 3 0 E c g 2 G o = e e 0 S 0 0 k) 0 a §-2 f\ � a G 3 3 \ a• e= 2 c y± y 2% b J E O 2 a 3 E= w a- y g& a A w E _ > > z W 'k 2 �0§ \%LL z ^mow �0 �- k k 2 § � _ / 7 / c . g = U) Raf 0 Q < 0 c - ,:D QS . S 0- E cm § � �� % / C)k3ƒ §z. � E cr 0 k § k � cc § 2 § 0#/.2 7 V,/ j5-0 2 E -0 E - o $� U a m E-0 � 2 (D= 2 \ )\/ 0 kƒ 0 cn co 0 2 0= 0- g 3 3 / / % _ o - o c _ CoLn ° - + = ) e 7 \[ E 3 u) %= 7 a e E a ƒ - m 0 d k-0 G�_ 7 )=v/® ƒ w ? 0 7 o $ ) / k ±- eC,32 2_0 3 J £ 7 « /'ƒ G / j £ -0 = § b - e 5 / 5 0 3&± w/ E k 0 a°= S £ 3(D a E 0- 5 0 g a O 2% J a% 3 y m 5222 ¥U5± ¥EFL �6 »2�2/2 G - : % - U J - § \ » - o / f � o � U) U) U) ®� 0 0 0 ® 7@ § * 2 a 5) = a / p¥ 2 .2 % a mRa 7 0 S/ e t> E 0 E& e G k0 j �_� o a m\ 2± 2\ k / 0 S c./ 0 o.=--o=Om7cSE e a 4 o y 9 2 _= g 0-® / m® 0- o a 7 a-0� 2/ G ƒ n w k 2 ° $ G a =3 k° 0 2 = G0 /� y k 2 § § 2 § § 0 ) / c § / E£$ _ 5 0\ 9 L e E a a -0 o m a m 2 E c c -0 = > O o > ± » 2 may. Q2gau= > = o.= m\ . �� 22 �LL (C� Z W C/) cm U) J 7-- co LL. e � § E -&1 J � E � g E �0 o� a2 = = _ c = 2 e 2 ƒ § ƒ = 0 ƒ ƒ ƒ 7 ƒ a m 0 - -\ƒ 2 2 S 2 3 -� ƒ 2 2 ±-E a)e k%§%§ G 2 3 E» R 2 = E e= G-0/ t e§ E 2 f E 2=¥_ $ 2 w iE /-/ t= q a 0 7 a) a s §m a J\ §5 - 5== J 0 m a G 9 8 2-/ E= S E 7 G cn cn» f�°~ 3 2 e S y a± 2 2 o/ U -� »� 0= m m k�� §@ E® 3® 7 E E 7- n=)$ -// » 7 M S 3 3 7 2 7 2� 0& k 8 ®5 ƒ / % 7 ¥ / ƒ \ 7 \ ƒ o - s E- c o G- -E U« a e e.9 7 m.g e» E± E f 2` e g o 2 0 2 0 -} 2 5 2 k 0-\ 5 E k 0 0 k 0 2 r 0- G n± e a a k m o o± o± 2 W k L ? E �ul 0z � / 2 f15 / § / 7 ± / a E § � o f . 7 § cm » % h � ) � J $ ± ] q 2 2 - E o e ƒ E / k a § G' ®a 3 f-\ O b 7 m = .§ _ CD LD 0CD 3 e = 2 = 0 = _ ° r ) k ) _ u $ / / \ e » § / 2 / - 7 0 0 7 y 0. f 2D: ) cu§ a b 7\/ k L q = 0 3± 7 f E w e F- c V _o w O ce U a 0 m a) v > M - Go M a d � Z co C LU LU LL Z LU 2 C 0) C H O -C/) U 0 0 Q C O1 O C "O ._ Q) C Q O C o N z QE cm E - -- C 1-- c LOUo 0 0 m c a) 000d cow o �' c � N C _E C. W E � H Q) _ O L .� U O d pLO O O0O o E M _0 —>O " Q > O a) a CB Up� C dOOvN :E p m u) Q(D � (D Oto U O Up CQ co O (D O D .L am0= 16 0 O o o- O_ �-06 O m m m O C O c .0 io >' L c > c0 O r c d O( co d 0 U) O -O M E N L_ p- U N .L o E U -0-0 L O Q E ~a)a)-� U LCn n c o p - M M "_ai') O�� w — cn 0 0-c'(Dr E 7 .Va a) o O 2 N O O n O D a) Ep O U Oca- N uj t° d _ aU) LO cpa o m 0- o 0 Cl Z30(D p E -0_ M O E Od � o a) En m (D UfO) c pz -QO m CUW4: as N O-0-( O� l�4 CS in N_ O "L L O E m> pU Z E-6 E-6 E —O Up] N L U W L L C .2 v E C 0 Z C/) co M N 0 N N 7 U _O LLI 0 U d a) � d M -� c M 6 � a) � Z H C6 C M S E r o C d C. E N C N E Q C R a) O c O C.� ca M C w t::i O 75 C_ C cn L.L _O o) -2-- U C O O C1 _ = .(n U D Cl Q cn a C O CT O L C N Q) a) E C D_ E 0) i� E E C = C2 E 03 O C E LjJ O T C O O C 0 E > C1 -O O_ O C E > a cu m JD0d c�v0 U��n `o c n -0 0 C L C CZ � V E +L--' O :- U' C6 _(O C a) (D sZ O O a) O L U sZF O O d 70 0 "=Q EO 'O --0 U D O a) v cn 0 o c>-() a)m _ O _cn : 0.)0- =U QCO O C O J �--% M� a) co _M 76 _ m C COmU (D U iU QL' O- Q "N O Q Oo) Y C O—M '6 " = O Z• N _=LO D .0) C .O. _E > `a0M-0�a)L � --E n �oo> � _0 a) a) OL U U OOa EM(D 6 O T.O L L a) (O N aCj E 4- -"-' C 0 U -O O Cp -cn O O -C 2 U -c6 (DO ,C6 d O O cn a) C LR O cn M> O- 0 O O C O> U O Z E -6 E-6 E a (n am C) Lu 2i =v ca U (D Q o a) cn >+ L (D CM a) a) C a) O O� O O C C L _.2 cn a)"(D C� E S N 'C Ca i Q O-0 Cn E O> +-' 0 -0 0 a co O- U a) a) O '� O d (a Q a�j O to Nv=�U-70 �p a) m— r"i a) '- 0-- Q T- a) = U) '--' C -- O O O Q) N > dcl � O 5 O 0 p O 0 41 cn"adQiO U "E>m (D �:-- Q O m _ a) >o a) `E E 0 C a) O _= 0�U000) a)O L a) UUN !E O tM OO N U) m 61 Q �, a) O CO (Dof U L U 'cC a) (D.� cB = U E C ca- .L--. O 0 0 U O L a t a) Q sZ O .� in ca O W c W o y co 'ALL E > L V COu M T M M N 0 N H rn Q I.- c V _O w cu w C-) a (1) c �o co � E M MG cm O � O V Z a) c ca O . _ 7Oa c Ca is c IL c E H c L to c c O O O- N o o — c d to c C C E "E,c N E .3 Q c O O c c O V c N W c W �LL cE V Z W 2 c 0 c � O m Q CD c ai O m 0 C) Q 0 c 0 a) C C) CC (D E O G C� O C E> Q c i O a) o o 0 U Cl 0-U U u1 C c O ca O O U 2 Q E�5 a) C a) O w ca cn Q) Q) a) >+ C C c O La a) =L— O a) �m() O a) a 11 C cn C/) O O a) O O CU L a) O co c m n �. U o o—= L U) Q •� `Ln Q -0 cco > °� c cca O N O °° aci U aEi U °� ( _- 8-0 N- c E o 0 E c U Co U)rn cn CL Um U oQ U) crn CD a) m CDo�Cj c �� °� �mo��U >— E �Qt mEcn ca a) ca U o Ii Lo E a) ca E a a) • - U) a) a) co E cn Z o a) E co a`) U a) E a) a) o z Q> Cn E 2 (6 �_ C O cn 0 cu O N 0 O O O Y a) U- �p U) OU CU6�O Ccn CaLO "�_ >.— O O EU L U to N c a) a) m U a) E c E m ca a) Q) `� a) i W a a) CUO N C= U) L N` S U E N ' c m m o t or a) m� — o a) cn () c a) E o o - is - a a) > o - c (i a`) 3 cn c = c�) D a) Cnn � m a aa)i a) "UU—) CCD aa) E .o c p a) 1 > >, — � a) c`a � -cam E .S Q 2 -E .c.) o- ca c C cn L_ cn o U c E O �a 0 0— aoi "o o c E> _ _ U U C) C a) = L C O a) O O O a) 0 0 v) �U 2 a)tl c cd cncFL-oZ oLU� E c.) R a) OO (B d C a) O Na) O Q (D O c a L U) O I ? Z O U a) N E CEO CCOO U i c o00 cu O o 6 > c a) c a) lyC L N N o c 3 cn C75CU rn c cn .a) o C o E ate) O o Q a) U 0- p Cn X a) > O ~ 0 V U c c Q c m o 75 _O o a Q-.a ca n ai N E .o E (D m a) • Z W of W .S� =D w O U cn Z Z cU/) CUn 0 N M C"f N O N w 3 a 7-- CO 3 E E W �W �LL Z W dc � § § CL 0 tee. ■ C3 a � 7 c E E \ Ft k0 �t ° oo �_ / % 0-0 �0 $ 5 O 3ImcoA 2 § 2 2 £ §§ § CL y ¥ E� / co ¢0 6 F $ § f / ° a 2 — a G o # -a v�20\2 -- �\ E = E ® � a- cn % R � k © \ Q ° § CO 6 = = � ± § § 2\ 7 » 0 2 R E /_ k ) o e ¥ ° 0 3 gc 0 » £= E 0» �+ k U)-k---gig 0- ®� ® \ & _ \ f � q 2®c� &2 + } k - j / u f / / k m/ 7 D§ 3§ 2 k 2 j 2 9 § ® a)~ y © a � k = t \ 2 v E y / p �� .R 2 a §= 2 0 M $ .g -% E.g a Zr E 2 ® 2 \ 0 ° g »> 3 z ƒ 2 = ƒ § -°£ / w§% § Q 2 Q w 2 � = D - - 75 © a & e - © .2 = - - _ _ � I-s ' CD § § § a e 02 CN 0 § Uz E / 0- k C � m 2 \ 0 $ k m k k J E W of O d rn c O C. 0/ w v c m rn c 0 .r O c O �a rn m N N A 0 N N 7 rn a STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF MENIFEE ) I, Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the foregoing Planning Commission Resolution No. PC23-603 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 91h day of August, 2023 by the following vote: Ayes: Diederich, Long, Madrid, Thomas, LaDue Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None