Loading...
24-1408 Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 329 Lead Agency: City of Menifee Community Development Department 29844 Haun Road Menifee, California 92586 Prepared by: MIG, Inc. 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106 Riverside, California 92507 Addendum to the EIR December 18, 2023 - This document is designed for double-sided printing - Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 i City of Menifee Table of Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 – Addendum Analysis ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 – Findings .................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 – Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 3 2 Project Description................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 – Project Title ............................................................................................................. 5 2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................ 5 2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number ........................................................................ 5 2.4 – Menifee North Specific Plan Area and Location ....................................................... 5 2.5 – Menifee North Specific Plan Background................................................................. 5 2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation ........................................................................ 7 2.7 – Zoning District ......................................................................................................... 7 2.8 – Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 7 2.9 – Project Description .................................................................................................. 7 2.10 – Required Approvals ................................................................................................. 8 2.11 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required .................................................. 8 3 Determination ........................................................................................................................ 19 3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected ...................................................... 19 3.2 – Determination ........................................................................................................ 19 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 21 4.1 – Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 23 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 27 4.3 – Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 31 4.4 – Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 36 4.5 – Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 40 4.6 – Energy ................................................................................................................... 44 4.7 – Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 47 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 53 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................... 57 4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 62 4.11 – Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 71 4.12 – Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 73 4.13 – Noise ..................................................................................................................... 75 4.14 – Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 78 4.16 – Public Services ...................................................................................................... 80 4.18 – Recreation ............................................................................................................. 85 4.19 – Transportation ....................................................................................................... 88 4.20 – Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 94 4.21 – Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................ 97 4.22 – Wildfire ................................................................................................................ 106 4.23 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 109 5 Applicable Mitigation ............................................................................................................ 111 6 References .......................................................................................................................... 119 6.1 – List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 119 6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ................................................................ 120 6.3 – Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 121 Table of Contents ii Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 List of Tables Table 1 EIR No. 329 Approved Emissions from Construction Equipment ................................. 32 Table 2 EIR No. 329 Approved Operational Emissions ............................................................. 32 Table 3 Emissions from Cumulative VMT ................................................................................. 34 Table 4 Project Generated VMT ............................................................................................... 91 Table 5 Project Effect on VMT .................................................................................................. 91 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map .................................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 2 Specific Plan Area Map .............................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 3 Tentative Tract Maps ................................................................................................. 13 Exhibit 4 Approved and Proposed Land Use Maps ................................................................... 17 Appendices Appendix A Environmental Impact Report No. 329 Appendix B Trip Generation, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Supplemental Memorandum Appendix C Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analyses Appendix D Cultural Resources Studies Appendix E Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Appendix G VMT Analysis Appendix H Hydraulic Analysis Reports Appendix I Tribal Consultation Letters Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 1 City of Menifee 1 Introduction This Addendum, its appendices, and related supporting environmental documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the City of Menifee’s (“City”) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR No. 329” or “PEIR”, Clearinghouse No. 1989100207) prepared for the Menifee North Specific Plan (See Appendix A) remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 (“proposed Project” or “Project”), or whether additional documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.). EIR No. 329 was approved for the Menifee North Specific Plan in March 1993 and concluded that all potentially significant impacts associated with the Specific Plan would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. A General Plan Amendment was requested and approved as part of the process for adoption of the Specific Plan in 1993 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (prior to City incorporation). The Specific Plan area included 1,439 acres and 2,990 dwelling units, 156 acres of business park use, 91 acres of commercial use, 197 acres industrial use, and 143 acres or parks and open space. The S pecific P lan has been amended four times since the 1993 PEIR was approved; the most recent being in June 2020. The Project includes Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) 38132, TTM 38133, and Specific Plan Amendment No. PLN21-0276. The City of Menifee is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project under CEQA. 1.1 – Addendum Analysis This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). This Addendum evaluates the Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects previously disclosed in EIR No. 329 to determine whether any of the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent CEQA review have occurred. EIR No. 329 is available for review at the City’s Community Development Department, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, California 92586. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that the lead agency “shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Subsection (c) further provides that an “addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR,” and subsection (e) states that a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included” in the addendum, the agency’s findings, or elsewhere in the administrative record. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) provides that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR will be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR” and that “[w]hether a later activity is within the scope of a Program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.” Subsection (c)(4) further provides that “[w]here the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the Program EIR.” Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (cross referenced by Sections 15164 and 15168) provides that (a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1 – Introduction 2 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;1 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Per the above, this Addendum functions as both an “addendum” and a “written checklist,” as called for in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164(a) and 15168(c)(4). As such, this Addendum analyzes the proposed Project’s potential environmental effects in light of those effects disclosed in EIR No. 329 consistent with Guidelines Section 15162. As detailed in this Addendum, no further CEQA review is required for the proposed Project beyond EIR No. 329 and this Addendum because (1) the Project will not have new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in EIR No. 329, (2) all applicable mitigation measures in EIR No. 329 will be incorporated into the Project’s approval, and (3) the Project will not require any new mitigation measures. This Addendum and its supporting documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required prior to approval of the Project. 1.2 – Findings The proposed Project reflects minor changes and additions to the project described in the certified PEIR. There are no substantial changes resulting from the proposed Project or in the circumstances in which the Project will be undertaken that require major revisions of EIR No. 329. The proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to either the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “... a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, wa ter, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance...” (se e also Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21068). 1 – Introduction Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 3 City of Menifee significant effects. As illustrated herein, the proposed Project is consistent with EIR No. 329 and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate CEQA compliance for the proposed Project. 1.3 – Conclusions The City of Menifee may approve the proposed Project based on this Addendum. The impacts of the proposed Project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in EIR No. 329 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). The proposed Project does not require any major revisions to EIR No. 329. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed Project have occurred since the certification of EIR No. 329. Therefore, the previous CEQA analyses completed for the certified PEIR remain adequate. The applicable mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval from EIR No. 329 would be imposed on the proposed Project as described herein. 1 – Introduction 4 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 5 City of Menifee 2 Project Description 2.1 – Project Title Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address City of Menifee Community Development Department 29844 Haun Road Menifee, California 92586 2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number Brandon Cleary, Associate Planner 951-723-3761 2.4 – Menifee North Specific Plan Area and Location The City of Menifee is located in western Riverside County, approximately 30 miles southeast of the City of Riverside, and is bound by Perris to the north, Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore to the west, Wildomar and Murrieta to the south, and the community of Winchester to the east (See Exhibit 1, Regional Context Map). The Menifee North Specific Plan area is located in the northeastern portion of Menifee Valley, just one mile east of Sun City (See Exhibit 2, Specific Plan Area Map), in the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The Planning Area is located immediately east of Interstate 215 (I-215) and approximately 4 miles west of Diamond Valley Lake. Tract 38132, which is within Planning Area 9 (PA-9) of the of the Specific Plan area, is located at the northeast corner of Palomar Road and Cider Street (APNs: 329-100-003 & 329-100-010) and Tract 38133, which is within PA-22 and PA-23A of the Specific Plan area, is located at the southwest corner of Watson Road and Malone Avenue (APNs: 327-3230-001, 327-320-014, 327-320-015,327-320-017, & 327-320-018) (See Exhibit 3, Tentative Tract Maps). • Cross Streets: Palomar Road and Cider Street/ Watson Road and Malone Avenue • Latitude 33° 44’ 53.18” North, Longitude 117° 09’ 38.28” West/ Latitude 33° 44’ 52.92” North, Longitude 117° 08’ 23.78” West • APNs: 327-320-001, 327-320-014, 327-320-015, 327-320-017, 327-320-018, 329-100-003, & 329-100-010 2.5 – Menifee North Specific Plan Background In 1993, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approved the Menifee North Specific Plan No. 260 and certified its’ Environmental Impact Report (“EIR No. 329” or “PEIR”). The adopted Specific Plan provided for the development of 2,390 residential units on 1,635.3 acres between the communities of Homeland and Romoland in southwestern Riverside County. The adopted Specific Plan also included areas with Commercial, Business Park, and Commercial/Business Park uses. EIR No. 329 was intended to serve as the Master Environmental Document for the Menifee North Specific Plan and all subsequent development projects undertaken pursuant to and within the Specific Plan boundaries. EIR 2 – Project Description 6 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 No. 329 analyzed 2,654 dwelling units, although the plan was approved for only 2,390 units. To date, the Specific Plan has been amended four times as described below. • Amendment No. 1: In 2004, Amendment No. 1 and its accompanying Addendum was approved by the County of Riverside, which increased the number of residential units to 2,602 and deleted Planning Area 1, which was originally designated for 18 acres of Commercial/Business Park use, to reflect its annexation into the City of Perris. A portion of commercial land uses were eliminated to allow for additional residential and Planning Area 32 was re-designated Medium High Density Residential from Medium Density Residential. • Amendment No. 2: In 2008, Amendment No. 2 and Environmental Assessment No. 40275 was approved by the County of Riverside. Amendment No. 2 reduced the Specific Plan acreage by approximately 30 acres (from 1,635.3 acres to 1,604.6 acres), increased the number of residential units by 213 units (from 2,602 to 2,815), modified the Land Use Designations and unit counts in Planning Areas 7, 8, 10, 20, 23, and 48, and modified the Circulation Plan to reflect the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan adopted in 2003. The City of Menifee was also incorporated in 2008 and establishment of the City’s boundary at Briggs Road resulted in the approximately 775-acre portion of the adopted Specific Plan, west of Briggs Road, remaining within the City’s jurisdiction. • Substantial Conformance No. 1: In January 2016, Substantial Conformance No. 1 to Amendment No. 2 (SP260A2-SC1) was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to modify the Specific Plan boundary and removed all areas west of Briggs Road from the Menifee North Specific Plan. The revised limits of the Menifee North Specific Plan were reduced to approximately 829.2 acres east of Briggs Road, west of Juniper Flats Road, south of Alicante Drive, and north of Matthews Road, continuing to allow for a wide range of land uses includin g 2,025 residential units. The balance of 816.2 acres and 889 residential dwelling units resided within the City of Menifee. • Substantial Conformance No. 2: On March 17, 2020, Substantial Conformance No. 2 to the Menifee North Specific Plan (SP260A2-SC2) was adopted to modify Planning Areas 24, 25, 26 and 28 boundaries, acreages, and residential dwelling unit counts to reflect approved Tentative Tract Map No. 29322 and proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 37533, which were processed concurrently. SP260A2-SC2 maintained the approved maximum of 2,025 residential units permitted on 829.2 acres, and reduced the minimum lot sizes within Planning Area 25 from 6,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet; re-allocated 22 dwelling units from Planning Areas 26 and 28 (TTM 29322) to Planning Areas 24 and 25 (10 dwelling units and 12 dwelling units respectively) to be consistent with TTM 37533; revised the locations of the water quality basins and mini-park sites within Planning Areas 24, 25, 26, and 28; and reduced the overall acreage of major roads within the overall SP area from 77.1 acres to 74.8 acres in the Specific Plan text and graphics. SP260A2-SC2 also included a technical correction for the land use designations of Planning Areas 26 and 28, from “Medium-High Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential”, so that the designations would be consistent with previously approved TM 29322. • Amendment No. 3: On July 1, 2020, Amendment No. 3 to the Menifee North Specific Plan and its accompanying EIR (SCH #2019029123) was adopted by the City of Menifee. Amendment No. 3 modified Planning Areas 11, 12, 13, and 14 and formally removed those portions of the Specific Plan outside the City boundaries from the document, however a final comprehensive document reflecting the approved modifications was not created. • Amendment No. 4: In 2022, Amendment No. 4 to the Menifee North Specific Plan and its accompanying EIR (SCH #2021060247) was approved to modify the boundary and increase the acreage Planning Area 2 from 138.8 acres to 145.2 acres, to reflect TTM 38156. 2 – Project Description Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 7 City of Menifee 2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation Menifee North Specific Plan 2.7 – Zoning District PA-9 (MDR)/ PA-22 (MHDR) & PA-23A (HDR) 2.8 – Environmental Setting Menifee North is a master planned community, and infrastructure and other public facilities have been sufficiently sized to meet the needs of the entire community at full build-out. The Specific Plan area was proposed for urbanization in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, representing a logical extension of development into an area where utilities were available. The Planning Area was utilized for agriculture before development of the Specific Plan, and archeological and historical resources in the area have most likely been disturbed as a result. Menifee North is an internally oriented, self- contained community that combines residential, commercial, business park, industrial, parks, and open space uses. The area is relatively flat and slopes slightly from northwest to southeast with an elevation ranging between approximately 1,400 and 1,600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed Project site is vacant and contains limited vegetation and shrubs. There are no trees on the Project site. Much of the drainage in the vicinity of the Project site has been channelized, but historically, the drainage pattern has been in a westerly direction toward Perris Valley and ultimately, the San Jacinto River. For the most part, stormwater flows are intermittent, occurring only as the result of seasonal precipitation. 2.9 – Project Description The proposed Project includes Specific Plan Amendment No. 5, Tentative Tract Map (“TTM”) No. 38132, and No. TTM 38133. Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 proposes to amend the Menifee North Specific Plan No. 260 by modifying the acreage, unit count, density, and designation of Planning Area 9 (PA-9) and modifying the Planning Area boundary, acreage unit count, density, and designation of PA -22 (See Exhibit 4, Approved and Proposed Land Use Maps). The proposed Project represents Amendment No. 5 of the approved Menifee North Specific Plan. The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to modify the uses, configuration, development standards, unit counts, densities, and Land Use Designations of PA-9, PA-22, and PA-23A. The amendment to PA-9 will establish: a designation of Medium High Density Residential Zone on a 29.4 acre property at 5.8 dwelling units per acre yielding 170 allowed dwelling units and a minimum lot size of 4,300 square feet. The amendment to PA-22 include: consolidation of PA-22 and PA-23A into one residential planning area (PA-22); and establishes designation of Medium High Density Residential on a 26.5 acre property at 5.5 dwelling units per acre, yielding 145 allowed dwelling units. TTM 38132 (PA-9) proposes a subdivision of 29.4 gross acres into 169 residential lots, five (5) open space lots, and a water quality basin. The subdivision would have a proposed density of 5.8 du/ac. TTM 38133 (PA-22) proposes a subdivision of 26.5 gross acres into 145 residential lots, six (6) open space lots, and a water quality basin. The subdivision would have a proposed density of 5.5 du/ac. 2 – Project Description 8 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Lastly, the proposed Project includes revisions to the Zoning Ordinance text of the Specific Plan to reflect the proposed Project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in any reductions to the number of allowed dwelling units within the two Planning Areas (from 315 allowed as currently approved and 315 with proposed SPA No. 5). Required Approvals The Project would require the following approvals: • Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 5 • Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 38132 • Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 38133 2.10 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required • None Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 9 City of Menifee Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map 2 – Project Description 10 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 11 City of Menifee Exhibit 2 Specific Plan Area Map 2 – Project Description 12 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 13 City of Menifee Exhibit 3 Tentative Tract Maps 2 – Project Description 14 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 15 City of Menifee 2 – Project Description 16 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 2 – Project Description Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 17 City of Menifee Exhibit 4 Approved and Proposed Land Use Maps 2 – Project Description 18 Addendum to the EIR September 5, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 19 City of Menifee 3 Determination 3.1 – Environmental Categories Potentially Affected The environmental categories checked below were identified in EIR No. 329 as being a ‘Potentially Significant Impact,’ and the following sections of this Addendum will identify to what degree the proposed Project contributes to these previously identified significant impacts. Aesthetics □ Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology /Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources Noise □ Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.2 – Determination □ The Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ Although the 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. □ The Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □ The 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. The Project could have a significant effect on the environment, but all of its potentially significant effects (a) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. As such, no further environmental documentation (e.g., a subsequent EIR) is required. 3 – Determination 20 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 21 City of Menifee 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the CEQA environmental checklist categories in terms of any changed conditions from the approved PEIR (EIR No. 329), including any subsequent addendums, to the proposed Project (e.g., project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance) that may produce a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15164, and 15168(c). As such, the Addendum’s checklist analysis uses the standard environmental categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the considerations listed in Guidelines Section 15162(a). Mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 329 and applicable to the proposed Project are discussed under each environmental section and are listed in Section 5 – Applicable Mitigation Measures. As discussed in the following sections, the proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified by EIR No. 329. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES (COLUMNS) Effect Not Examined in Program EIR? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(1), this column indicates whether the Project would have effects that were not previously examined by EIR No. 329, in which new effects could necessitate subsequent CEQA review. EIR No. 329 is nearly thirty years old; therefore, there are several impact areas that were not examined as part of the original environmental analysis. Since 1994, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated numerous times requiring analysis of several new impact areas that were not included in EIR No. 329. Significance Conclusion in Program EIR? This column identifies the conclusion of EIR No. 329 concerning the environmental issue listed under each topic with respect to its significance. Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether any changes represented by the proposed Project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by EIR No. 329or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to EIR No. 329 due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 22 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time EIR No. 329 was certified, shows any of the following: (A) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous PEIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous PEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of EIR No. 329 remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “No,” and no subsequent environmental review would be required. DISCUSSION FOLLOWING CHECKLIST EVALUATION A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers regarding the proposed Project in relation to EIR No. 329. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the Project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Applicable mitigation measures from EIR No. 329 that apply to the proposed Project are listed under each environmental category. Conclusion Each section ends with a summary of the conclusion of the preceding analysis. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 23 City of Menifee 4.1 – Aesthetics Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No c) In non-urbanized area, 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? No Not Analyzed No No No d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Scenic Vistas. The Canyon Lake Reservoir lies adjacent to the west City boundary. EIR No. 329 noted that the Planning Area does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas which require preservation, which would eliminate the need for interpretive displays. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined the Menifee North Specific Plan would have less than significant impacts and no mitigation was required. The proposed Project includes modifications to the acreage, unit count, density, and designation of PA- 9 and modifications to the Planning Area boundary, acreage unit count, density, and designation of PA -22. The Project would result in a net decrease in the number of built residential units within the Specific 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 24 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Plan Area, and because the Planning Area does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas, Amendment #5 would not result in a change to the number of allowed residential units. Therefore, the proposed Project would have similar less-than-significant impacts to scenic vistas. (b) Visual Resources within a State Scenic Highway. EIR No. 329 noted that approximately 306.8 acres of the Menifee North Specific Plan borders Highway 74, an Eligible State Scenic Highway. EIR No. 329 also noted that the entire 306.8 acres is contained within Specific Plan Planning Areas proposed for Commercial, Business Park, and combined Commercial/Business Park land uses. However, EIR No. 329 found that the Menifee North Specific Plan is intended to mitigate any potential impacts to Highway 74 through implementation of landscaping, that would delineate the community boundary and act as a noise barrier. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no officially designated scenic highways in or near the City of Menifee. State Route 74 (SR - 74) passes along the southern boundary of the Planning Area and is considered an “Eligible State Scenic Highway – Not Officially Designated” by the California Department of Transportation. The nearest designated state scenic highway to the City is a portion of SR-74 in the San Jacinto Mountains about 17 miles east of the City (Caltrans, 2010). However, because none of these resources are located within the Specific Plan area, the proposed Project would have similar less-than-significant impacts on scenic resources. (c) Degrade Existing Visual Character. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts to the existing visual character of the sites and surrounding area because it was not required by CEQA when EIR No. 329 was certified in 1993. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about aesthetics impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to degradation of the visual character of the area was readily available to the public. Today the Specific Plan area is mostly built out with a combination of residential and supportive commercial uses. The proposed Project would be developed consistent with the design and development requirements of the Specific Plan. The size and scale of the proposed buildings would be consistent with existing development in the surrounding area. The Project would not develop any hillside areas. The overall appearance of new buildings within the Project would be consistent with the scale and size allowed under the Specific Plan with applicable specific plans and zoning requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and would have less than significant impacts. No mitigation is required. (d) Light and Glare. EIR No. 329 found that the development of up to 2,654 residential units and 599.3 acres of commercial, business park, and industrial use would result in the installation of streetlights as required by Riverside County. Entry monumentation and signage may also require illumination. EIR No. 329 found that these lighting requirements could potentially result in a condition known as "skyglow" which interferes with the use of the telescope at the Palomar Observatory. As such, mitigation was incorporated requiring use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for street lighting, orientation and shielding of light to prevent direct upward illumination, and compliance with County Ordinance No. 655 regulating light pollution. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. The proposed Project would require the installation of street lighting. Sources of light and glare in the Specific Plan area include building lights (interior and exterior), security lights, sign illumination, and 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 25 City of Menifee parking-area lighting. Other sources of nighttime light and glare include street lights and vehicular traffic along roadways. Menifee’s night skies benefit from being surrounded by uses that emit little or no light: open space lands, vacant land, farmland, and rural residential development. In addition, land uses that generate significant amounts of light pollution, such as shopping centers, are limited and concentrated in limited areas in the City. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 9.210 (Lighting Standards), which requires exterior lighting to be minimized to prevent glare and minimize reflected, ambient light so as to maintain visibility of the night skies. Chapter 9.210 also requires all exterior lighting to be shielded as to avoid light spillover on adjacent properties . Therefore, compliance with existing regulations, including EIR No. 329 mitigation measures, would ensure the proposed Project’s light and glare impacts would be less than significant and no new mitigation is required. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.11.1 Because of the property’s location with respect to Palomar Observatory, low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for street lighting will be used. MM-D.11.2 Other potentially lighted areas (i.e., entry monumentation, commercial, business, and industrial signage) shall orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. MM-D.11.3 The project will be subject to County Ordinance No. 655 regulating light pollution. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for housing, as is occurring in most of Riverside County, and that a number of other major projects were pending in the project area at the time of certification. EIR No. 329 also noted that including the Menifee North Specific Plan, the other major developments in the area cumulatively proposed approximately 32,500 dwelling units, generating an estimated population of 84,175 persons. In addition to the residential elements of these projects, EIR No. 329 found that these projects included an estimated total of 850 acres of Town Center, Commercial, Business Park and/or Industrial use. EIR No. 329 found that the 2,654 units proposed by the Menifee North Specific Plan constitute 8.2% of the total dwelling units proposed and approved in the City. While the individual projects may contribute marginally to growth in the area, EIR No. 329 determined that the collective projects would cumulatively create an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the Sun City/Menifee Valley and Romoland/Homeland region. EIR No. 329 also determined that the overall increase in units and related demands along neighborhood roads and for local services and utilities would cumulatively impact the area. In addition, the development of these projects in what was once a semi-rural/ agricultural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjoining lands to similar uses, particularly agricultural and open space uses remaining in the area. Therefore, ultimate urbanization of the project vicinity could potentially indirectly influence expansion throughout the area. However, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project site with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 26 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 City’s zoning code lighting standards relating to light and glare. Therefore, the cumulative aesthetic impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion As analyzed in EIR No. 329, the proposed Project would comply with the City’s night-time light regulation and would thus have less than significant impacts. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 27 City of Menifee 4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? 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? Yes Significant Unavoidable Impact No No No b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Not Analyzed No No No e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in Yes Significant Unavoidable Impact No No No 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 28 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Designated Farmland. EIR No. 329 which was certified in 1993 noted that implementation of the Menifee North Specific Plan would remove from use an estimated 1,050 acres of farmable land used for the production of oat/hay, alfalfa, wheat, potatoes, barley, and grain, and further contribute to the decline of such uses in Riverside County. With the exception of the 112.0 acres of natural open space proposed within the southeastern portion of the Planning Area and the 80.8 acres of parks, EIR No. 329 found that project development would eliminate existing open space and the rural atmosphere currently present on-site, and Project approval would constitute continuation of the trend towards a commitment to urban development in the area, as embodied by the proposed Menifee Ranch and Menifee Estates Specific Plans to the south, the approved Menifee Village Specific Plan which is south of Menifee Ranch, and the proposed Menifee East Specific Plan which is southeast of Menifee Village. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that Project implementation would result in urban development on "Prime" soils, and loss of Prime soils was considered a significant impact of project development. However, no mitigation measures were proposed for the discontinuance of farming on-site and the loss of Prime Farmlands. The Specific Plan area is rapidly urbanizing and the proposed Project is within the scope of what was proposed in the original Specific Plan. Specific Plan Planning Areas 9, 22, and 23A do not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Project has no potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐agricultural use and no impact would occur in this regard. (b) Williamson Act. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to Williamson Act contracts. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about agricultural and forest resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects to Williamson Act lands was readily available to the public. According to the Riverside County Parcel Report for the Project, the site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. The site is designated as Specific Plan in the City’s General Plan. There is no agricultural zoning or uses within the Specific Plan area and the Project is within the scope of the original Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (c) Forest Zoning. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to forest zoning. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about agricultural and forest resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to forest zoning was readily available to the public. The current General Plan land use designation for the site is Specific Plan. The Project site does not contain any forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production, nor are any forest lands or timberlands located on or nearby the Project site. Because no lands on the Project site are 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 29 City of Menifee zoned for forestland or timberland, the Project has no potential to impact such zoning. No impact would occur. (d) Loss of Forestland. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to loss of forestland. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about agricultural and forest resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to loss of forestland was readily available to the public. The Project site and surrounding properties do not contain forest lands, are not zoned for forest lands, nor are they identified as containing forest resources by the General Plan. Because forest land is not present on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. (e) Conversion of Land. As discussed in response 4.2.a above, EIR No. 329 determined that development of the Menifee North Specific Plan would preclude future use of the site for agricultural use. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that Project implementation would result a significant. However, no mitigation measures were proposed for the discontinuance of farming on-site and the loss of Prime Farmlands. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the Project site as Farmland of Local Importance. Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing or has the capability of production; but does not meet the criteria of Prime, Statewide or Unique Farmland. The site can be considered to be Fallow Agricultural Land. The description of this habitat and vegetation communities is based on the definitions found in MSHCP Section 2.1.3 and A Manual of California Vegetation: Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Fallow Agricultural Land includes fallow fields that have been recently disked, plowed, or are no longer used to produce crops and are slowly being encroached by non-native herbaceous plant species. In some cases, native annual wildflowers become established in fallow agricultural lands. The Project site is not currently providing active agricultural land of use to the local economy. In addition, the Project site has been planned for residential and open space uses by the County of Riverside since 1993 and the City of Menifee since 2013 and this type of development has been anticipated for the Project site. Therefore, no unanticipated impact would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for housing, as is occurring in most of Riverside County, and that a number of other major projects were pending in the project area at the time of certification. EIR No. 329 also noted that including the Menifee North Specific Plan, the other major developments in the area cumulatively proposed approximately 32,500 dwelling units, generating an estimated population of 84,175 persons. In addition to the residential elements of these projects, EIR No. 329 found that these projects included an estimated total of 850 acres of Town Center, Commercial, Business Park and/or Industrial use. EIR No. 329 found that the 2,654 units proposed by the Menifee North Specific Plan constitute 8.2% of the total dwelling units proposed and approved in the area. While the individual projects may contribute marginally to growth in the area, EIR No. 329 determined that the collective projects would cumulatively create an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the Sun City/Menifee Valley and Romoland/Homeland region. EIR No. 329 also determined that construction of various projects in the vicinity would continue the trend towards development of agricultural lands in Riverside County, which would involve some land designated as "Prime Farmlands" on the Countywide Agricultural Resources Map. EIR No. 329 found that the Menifee North Specific Plan 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 30 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 and the Menifee Ranch Specific Plan would redevelop "Prime Farmlands", resulting in a significant impact both on a project basis and cumulatively. In addition, the development of these projects in what was once a semi-rural/ agricultural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjoining lands to similar uses, particularly agricultural and open space uses remaining in the area. Therefore, ultimate urbanization of the project vicinity could potentially, indirectly influence expansion throughout the area. However, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative impacts to agricultural resources. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project site with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a non- farmland use and would not result in the loss of forest resources. Therefore, the cumulative agricultural impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion There are no agricultural or forest related resources in or near the Project area that would be impacted. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. No subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation measures are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 31 City of Menifee 4.3 – Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 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? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Not Analyzed No No No d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No Not Analyzed No No No A Trip Generation, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supplemental Memorandum was prepared for the proposed Project by MIG, Inc. (See Appendix B). The information in this section was taken from the Trip Generation, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supplemental Memorandum. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Conflict with AQMP. EIR No. 329 evaluated project consistency in the context of the 1989 AQMP. The EIR identified that the Menifee North Specific Plan would add approximately 2,654 dwelling units and increase population by approximately 10,616 people. The 2,654 dwelling units would be within the 280,000 units (consisting of 89,200 existing dwelling units and 168,800 additional projected dwelling units) forecasted for the Central Riverside Subregion for 2010. Since certification of EIR No. 329, SCAQMD has released updated AQMPs, with the 2022 AQMP currently in effect. The proposed Project would result in one less housing unit than the project evaluated in EIR No. 329, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by EIR No. 329. The proposed Project would remain consistent with land use designations and population projections used to prepare the 2022 AQMP and would not conflict with the control 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 32 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 measures in the AQMP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan, and would result in a less than significant impact. (b) Cumulative Increase in Air Pollution. EIR No. 329 estimated construction emissions from grading activities and equipment, and operational emissions from motor vehicles and the combustion/ consumption of gas and energy. The EIR determined that there were significant impacts for CO, NOx, PM, and ROG. The EIR estimated construction impacts would average 11.07 tons/day of particulate matter from grading activities for the 1,546.2 acre project. The EIR also estimated the emissions associated with operating two diesel powered scrapers for eight hours per day, shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 EIR No. 329 Approved Emissions from Construction Equipment Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) CO 10.8 NOx 46.0 SOx 3.4 Particulates 3.0 HC 4.7 The EIR identified that motor vehicles would be the main source of operational emissions. The project would generate 138,250 vehicle trips per day and 1,382,500 VMT per day. Electricity and natural gas consumption for residential and commercial uses would also contribute to operational emissions. The EIR’s operational emissions estimates from mobile sources, electricity, and natural gas are shown in Table 2. Table 2 EIR No. 329 Approved Operational Emissions Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) CO 12,320 NOx 3,533 SOx 32 Particulates 830 ROG 1,014 The proposed Project would not result in an increase in emissions for several reasons. First, the Project would result in one less housing unit and no measurable difference in VMT (Translutions 2022). Second, on and off-road equipment emissions have improved over time as new emission standards have been adopted (e.g., Tier 1-4 off road emission standards, and vehicle fuel efficiency improvements). Third, the proposed Project would follow air quality regulations that have been passed since the approval of the EIR, such as the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Equipment Program and On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. Finally, the mitigation measures from EIR No. 329 would still apply to the proposed Project. MM-C.6.1 and MM-C.6.2 listed below would reduce Project construction emissions. MM-C.6.1 would reduce particulate matter through its required and recommended dust control actions and could reduce other pollutants by its recommended actions of maintaining construction equipment and using low sulfur fuel. Maintaining construction equipment would reduce all criteria pollutants by preventing inefficiencies that would result in the combustion of additional fuel. Using low sulfur fuel would reduce 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 33 City of Menifee SOx emissions. MM-C6.2 would reduce VOC emissions through the use of low VOC emitting paints. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact greater than those identified in EIR No. 329 would result from the proposed Project. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-C.6.1 The quantity of particulate matter and other pollutants emitted during the grading and construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced through watering graded surfaces end planting ground cover as dust palliatives, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Though not required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the following additional mitigations are recommended to minimize construction activity emissions: Water site and equipment morning and evening; spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas; operate street-sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site; reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering; pave construction access roads, clean up the access roads and public roadways of soil, if necessary; and implement rapid cleaning up of debris from streets after major storm events. The following mitigations are recommended to reduce construction equipment emissions: wash off trucks leaving site; require trucks to maintain two feet of freeboard, i.e., the distance between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides; properly tune and maintain construction equipment, and use low sulfur fuel for construction equipment. MM-C.6.5 Low VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) emitting paints should be used. (c) Sensitive Receptors. EIR No. 329 did not directly evaluate the Menifee North Specific Plan’s construction and operational impacts on the sensitive land uses that existed in 1993 when the EIR was written. There have been no substantial changes to the Project site’s surrounding environment, although some of the development from the approved Menifee North Specific Plan has occurred and resulted in new sensitive receptors near PA-9 and PA-22. The proposed Project would not change the number of allowed residential units, however it would increase the residential units in PA-9 and decrease the residential units in PA-22. Prior to the proposed amendment, SPA-260 allowed 315 units between PA 9, 22 and 23A. SPA No. 5 proposes 315 allowed units within PA 9 and 22. PA-9 is located approximately 60 feet east of residential receptors across Palomar Road, and borders residential land uses to the north. The proposed Project would reducethe size of PA-9 by 1.1 acres (30.5 acres to 29.4 acres) and allow up to 170 (from 106 to 170), which would result in more construction activity in this planning area; however, this would not result in increased pollution levels at nearby sensitive receptors because, as described above in section a), construction equipment is subject to stricter standards that would reduce emissions compared to 1993 levels. Furthermore, the addition of 64 residential units on flat land would not result in the type of heavy construction that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. Adding residential units would not result in more construction activity in close proximity to receptors. Most construction activity would not take place along the border of the site. Most construction would occur several hundred feet from sensitive receptors. The proposed Project would result in 64 fewer residential units in the consolidated PA-22 (56 units in PA-22, 153 in PA-23A), which is approximately 230 feet west of Harvest Valley Elementary School, 50 feet east of residential receptors across Malone Avenue, and 90 feet south of residential receptors across Watson Road. Less intensive construction would result in less exposure for receptors at the school than the project evaluated in EIR No. 329. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 34 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 EIR No. 329 did evaluate the placement of sensitive land uses, which it defined as schools, hospitals, convalescent homes and agricultural areas, near major roadways or heavy industrial areas. EIR No. 329 identified the park site in Planning Area 38 and the school in Planning Area 21 as sensitive land uses. Consistent with EIR No. 329, the proposed Project does not place schools, hospitals, convalescent homes and agricultural areas near major roadways or heavy industrial areas. A portion of PA-22 does place residential areas along Briggs Road; however, it would not expose receptors to substantial levels of pollution from the roadway as there is approximately 80 feet of separation between the building and the road. In addition, the proposed Project would result in less development in PA-22, so fewer residences would be placed near Briggs Road as compared to the 1993 EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would remain less than significant. (d) Other Emissions Such as Odors. EIR No. 329 did not evaluate impacts from exposure to odors from the project. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about air quality impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects due to odor was readily available to the public. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). The proposed Project does not involve such land uses. For this reason, the proposed Project would not generate other emissions or odors that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 found that construction and operation of the four proposed Menifee Specific Plans would result in cumulative air quality impacts. EIR No. 329 found that the greatest cumulative impact would result from increased vehicle traffic. Table 3 shows the estimated emissions from the projected 1,529,352 VMT per day. Table 3 Emissions from Cumulative VMT Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) CO 41,097 NOx 4,547 Sox 808 Particulates 1,077 HC 3,604 The proposed Project would result in less residential development and would not increase VMT. In addition, vehicles would emit lower levels of pollution than those evaluated in the 1993 EIR. Therefore, the Project would not emit higher levels of pollution than what was evaluated and approved in EIR 329. Conclusion EIR No. 329 indicated that development of the Specific Plan would result in significant air quality impacts, both as an individual project and cumulatively in terms of air pollutant emissions that exceeded 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 35 City of Menifee then-established standards. The Project would not result in greater emissions than were evaluated and approved in EIR No. 329. The Project proposes less development in the Specific Plan area compared to that evaluated in EIR No. 329, and vehicles and equipment would emit lower levels of pollution. Refer to Appendix B for the Project’s Trip Generation, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supplemental Memorandum for additional information. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 36 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.4 – Biological Resources Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? 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? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or No Not Analyzed No No No 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 37 City of Menifee 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? No Not Analyzed No No No A Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis was prepared for both Project parcels by Searl Biological Services (See Appendix C). The information in this section was taken from the MSHCP Consistency Analyses. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Listed or Sensitive Species. EIR No. 329 found that development of the Specific Plan would require the removal of most of the existing vegetation in the Specific Plan area and that conversion of cultivated/agricultural biotic communities to urban uses would reduce habitat for wildlife. However, EIR No. 320 determined that these areas are not considered to be of significance in this regard. Therefore, it was determined that the loss of this habitat would not be significantly adverse. EIR No. 329 also noted that the majority of the vegetation was found in areas that were being dryland farmed, where there would be no significant impact. It was further noted that coastal sage scrub in the Specific Plan would be protected. EIR No. 329 also found that no other portions of the Planning Area possess sensitive biological resources whose loss would be significantly adverse . Due to the absence of significant impacts, no measures to mitigate the loss of vegetation and wildlife were implemented by EIR No. 329. However, it was recommended that project-specific mitigation measures be considered related specifically to Stephen’s kangaroo rat. With the requirement for project-specific measures to mitigate impacts to Stephen’s kangaroo rat, impacts were determined to be less than significant. The MSHCP Consistency Analyses prepared for the Project parcels found that both parcels are consistent with the goals and objectives of the MSHCP, that no MSHCP Section 6.1.2 resources are present on the Project parcels, and no burrowing owls are known to be on the Project parcels. However, the Project would be required to perform a 30-Day Pre-Construction BUOW Survey as part of the Project’s Conditions of Approval (COA) prior to ground disturbance due to the presence of suitable BUOW habitat. With the implementation of 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl surveys on the Project parcels, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-C.11.1 As the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat is on the Federal Endangered Species list, the project will be required to participate in the County's Interim Mitigation Plan, requiring payment of $1,950 per acre of land within SKR range in spite of the fact that SKR was not found onsite during two separate SKR surveys. Within the Habitat Conservation Plan, these funds will be utilized for acquisition of replacement habitat to compensate for the on-site loss of this endangered species. The l0A permit which allows the "incidental taking" of this species is subject to the six-month allocation of available habitat in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulations. In order to receive this allocation, the project shall comply with all aspects of the Habitat Conservation Plan. This mitigation has been 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 38 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 deemed to be a sufficient mitigation measure relative to the incidental taking of the species by the County of Riverside. (b) Riparian or Sensitive Habitat. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about biological resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects on riparian and sensitive habitat was readily available to the public. The MSHCP Consistency Analyses prepared for the Project parcels found that neither of the Project parcels contains riparian/riverine features. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community. (c) Wetlands. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts to wetlands. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about biological resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects on wetlands was readily available to the public. The MSHCP Consistency Analyses prepared for the Project parcels found that there are no wetlands on the Project parcels and no evidence of vernal pools on the Project parcels. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands. (d) Wildlife Movement. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts to wildlife movement. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about biological resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects on wildlife movement was readily available to the public. The Project parcels are not known to contain any natural habitat or community that could support the movement of wildlife. The Project parcels are not known to be used as part of any wildlife corridor. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. (e) Local Policies. EIR No, 329 did not analyze impacts related to conflicts with local policies protecting biological resources. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about biological resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects on local policies adopted for the purpose of protecting biological resources was readily available to the public. As previously noted, the Project site does not contain any natural habitat or community, does not contain any riparian/riverine areas, and does not contain any wetlands. The Project site does not contain any trees and the proposed Project would not include the removal of any trees. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a local policy protecting biological resources. (f) Habitat Conservation Plans. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about biological resources 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 39 City of Menifee impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential conflicts with the MSHCP was readily available to the public. The MSHCP Consistency Analyses prepared for the Project parcels found that no MSHCP Section 6.1.2 resources are present on the Project parcels, and the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the MSHCP, with the implementation of 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl surveys. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that the loss of rural/agriculture habitat from the Menifee North project site is not significant in itself. However, EIR No. 329 found that the Project would contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources in the region as a result of past and planned developments, including an overall reduction in the native and naturalized biotic resources of the region. In regard to the Federally listed endangered Stephens' kangaroo rat, EIR No. 329 found that loss of potential on-site habitat would be incremental for individual projects; however, the cumulative loss of its habitat from the region contributes further to its decline. EIR No. 329 noted that the four ''Menifee" Specific Plan projects are proposed on sites that primarily support rural/agricultural biotic communities, and the Menifee North, Menifee East, and Menifee Ranch projects all preserve as natural open space the areas of coastal sage scrub vegetation found on-site. EIR No. 329 noted that the "Menifee" Specific Plan projects would be required to participate in the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Interim Mitigation Plan, requiring payment of $1,950 dollars per acre, and that the 3,582 acres of land encompassed by these proposed Specific Plans would require the payment of $6,984,900 in SKR fees. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that no significant biological impacts would occur with the payment of fees. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project site with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, the cumulative impact on biological resources from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion The Project site does not contain wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive plants or animals, or other important biological resources. With implementation of 30-day pre-construction burrowing owl surveys, potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. In these ways, the Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee North Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 40 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.5 – Cultural Resources Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section15064.5? No Not Analyzed No No No b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No A Cultural Resources Study was prepared for each of the Project parcels by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (See Appendix D). The information in this section was taken from the Cultural Resources Studies. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Historical Resources. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts to historical resources. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about cultural resources impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects on historical resources was readily available to the public. The Cultural Resources Studies for the proposed Project note that aerial imagery shows the property has been largely disturbed by agricultural use since the 1960s. Since at least 2005, the properties have been used for the dumping of soils and construction debris, likely associated with nearby residential developments. The pedestrian survey indicated that the entirety of the Project parcels have been disturbed by historic agricultural use, vegetation clearing, disking, and the development of the surrounding area. Modern trash and building material consisting of gravel, asphalt, and concrete fragments were noted throughout the property. The survey did not result in the identification of any cultural resources, and no historic or prehistoric resources were observed during the survey. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an impact on the significance of any historical resources. (b) Archaeological Resources. EIR No. 329 noted that a review of the archaeological site records on file at the Eastern California Information Center (ECIC) showed three archaeological sites previously identified and one new site located during field investigations for a total of four archaeological sites 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 41 City of Menifee within the Specific Plan area. EIR No. 329 noted that other sites surround the project, but are too distant to be impacted by the Specific Plan. As such, EIR No. 329 determined that because no subsurface artifacts were recorded on or near these identified archaeological sites, no mitigation was recommended. However, EIR No. 329 noted that given the element of uncertainty of any archaeological survey due to the "underground" dimension, a Condition of Approval would be included which required that should archaeological materials be found during grading activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained for their evaluation. Therefore, with the requirement to retain a qualified archaeologist to properly evaluate any potential archaeological materials discovered during grading activities, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. According to the Cultural Resources Studies for the proposed Project, the Phase I archaeological assessments for the Project parcels were negative for the presence of cultural resources. However, it is noted that visibility of the Project parcels was extremely poor due to dense non-native grasses and weeds and, therefore, it was not clear if any cultural resources have ever existed on the Project parcels. The studies note that the current status of the Project parcels appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts. In addition, given that the prior agricultural use within the Project might have masked archaeological deposits, and based upon the limited visibility during the survey, the Cultural Resources Studies determined that there is a potential that buried archaeological deposits are present within the Project parcels. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM-C.15.1 has been incorporated requiring implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during grading of the Project parcels. Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is required to ensure that if buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they would be handled in a timely and proper manner. With incorporation of MM-C.15.1, impacts to archaeological resources from the proposed Project would be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-C.15.1 Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is recommended to ensure that if buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they will be handled in a timely and proper manner. The scope of the monitoring program is provided below: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that a certified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency. 2) The project applicant shall provide Native American monitoring during grading. The Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances and search for cultural materials. 3) The certified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. 4) During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) and tribal representative shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist, to perform periodic inspections of the excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated. 5) Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 42 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 6) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The lead agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the lead agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. 7) Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The project archaeologist shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. 8) All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. 9) A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the satisfaction of the lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. (c) Human Remains. EIR No. 329 did not address the disturbance of human remains. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section5097 et. seq. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In addition, standard conditions of approval have been incorporated requiring implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during grading of the Project parcels. Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is required to ensure that if buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they would be handled in a timely and proper manner. These standard conditions of approval would ensure that discovered human remains are properly treated. Compliance with established health and safety regulations, and stand conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that development of the area may disturb existing unknown archaeological or paleontological resources because of grading and excavation activities unless these areas are preserved as natural open space. However, EIR No. 329 noted that if a certified archaeologist or 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 43 City of Menifee paleontologist is present, where necessary, during the grading operations, these impacts may be largely mitigated. EIR No. 329 also noted that this impact may be considered positive due to the discovery of resources which would have not otherwise been evaluated or uncovered because it is possible that grading and excavation in the area could uncover valuable resources which would contribute to the paleo-environmental and archaeological record of the southwestern Riverside County area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that the Specific Plan would not have adverse cumulative cultural resources impacts. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project site with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. While there are no known historical or cultural resources on the Project parcels, mitigation has been incorporated in the unlikely event that potential cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities. The proposed Project would be required to incorporate mitigation requiring archaeological and Native American monitoring during all-ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the cumulative cultural resources impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion Impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. Impacts to archaeological resources can be reduced to less than significant with implementation of a comprehensive grading monitoring program. Additionally, compliance with established health and safety regulations would reduce potential human remains impacts to less than significant levels. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee North Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts with incorporation of mitigation. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 44 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.6 – Energy Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Energy Consumption. EIR No. 329 found that there was a less than significant impact to energy conservation after mitigation requiring passive solar heating and compliance with Title 24 energy conservation measures. EIR No. 329 analyzed emissions from energy demand, using the number and size of dwelling units to estimate electricity and natural gas consumption. EIR No. 329 found that residential units would consume approximately 6,081 kwh/unit/year, and the project, which consisted of 2,654 units, would consume approximately 16,138,974 kwh per year from residential uses. Total project electricity consumption, including business park and industrial uses, was found to be approximately 96,543,940 kwh. In addition, EIR No. 329 found that each residential unit would consume approximately 6,665 cubic feet of natural gas per month, with total project natural gas consumption estimated to be approximately 17,688,910 cubic feet of natural gas per month for residential uses and 38,244,635 cubic feet per month for all land uses. The proposed Project would consume diesel and gasoline fuel during construction, and gasoline, electricity, and natural gas during construction. This energy consumption would be necessary for the development and operation of the Project. On-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would primarily consume diesel fuel, and construction worker trips would primarily use gasoline. These vehicles would be subject to state regulations that have been adopted since the approval of EIR No. 329, including increased fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles and medium and heavy- duty trucks. As a result, heavy duty trucks used during Project construction and passenger vehicles used in construction and operation of the Project would consume less energy than vehicles evaluated in EIR No. 329. The proposed Project would result in one less residential unit than the project evaluated in EIR NO 329 and would therefore result in less energy consumption. In addition, energy efficiency improvements have occurred since the approval of EIR No. 329. The amount of electricity generated by renewable sources in the State has increased over the last few decades. Projects built in the State would also now be subject to the 2022 Title 24 Building Code, which contains standards that are more energy eff icient 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 45 City of Menifee than previous building codes. Fuel efficiency standards for on-road vehicles have also improved due to new regulations at the State and federal level. Finally, the mitigation measures from EIR No. 329 would reduce Project energy use and ensure consistency with California code. MM-C13.1 recommends passive solar heating techniques that would reduce operational energy consumption and MM-C13.2 requires compliance with energy efficiency requirements in the California Administrative Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts from energy consumption would be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-C.13.1 Passive solar heating techniques will be encouraged whenever possible within the project. Passive systems involve orienting buildings properly, planting trees to take advantage of the sun, seeing that roof over hangs are adequate, making sure that walls are properly insulated and installing simple heat storage systems. MM-C.13.2 Building energy conservation will largely be achieved for residential, commercial, business park and industrial units by compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe installation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604(0 and 1601(b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. (b) Conflict with Local Plan. EIR No. 329 did not directly evaluate the Menifee North Specific Plan’s consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, EIR No. 329 found that the Menifee North Specific Plan would be consistent with the Land Use Standard from the County’s General Plan, which encouraged the use of solar energy for water heating and required project design layout to facilitate passive and active solar systems. As described above in Section a), EIR No. 329 required compliance with Title 24. The proposed Project would result in one less dwelling unit than the Menifee North Specific Plan approved by EIR No. 329, and would not interfere with the implementation of state or local energy plans. As described below in 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, many energy efficiency programs, including those from the Riverside County General Plan EIR, have gone into effect that would reduce energy consumption from the proposed Project. The City has not adopted a specific document for the purposes of addressing renewable energy or energy efficiency; however, the proposed Project would be consistent with the County General Plan policies related to energy efficiency and comply with statewide regulations, including 2022 Title 24 building standards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and would result in a less than significant impact. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization. EIR No. 329 would have an estimated cumulative total of 32,500 dwelling units in the project area, resulting in approximately 197,632,500 kwh/year and approximately 216,612,500 cubic feet per month of natural gas for residential uses. The proposed project would result in less residential 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 46 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 development, and would use less energy than evaluated in EIR No. 329. Therefore, the cumulative energy impact is less than significant. Conclusion EIR No. 329 found there was a less than significant energy impact with the implementation of mitigation measures that would reduce operational energy consumption. The Project would result in energy consumption; however, because it includes one less residential unit and would comply with stricter state requirements, the proposed Project is expected to consume less energy than the Specific Plan analyzed in EIR No. 329. Therefore, energy impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 47 City of Menifee 4.7 – Geology and Soils Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No iv) Landslides? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 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? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in No Not Analyzed No No No 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 48 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), 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? No Not Analyzed No No No f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared for each the proposed Project parcels by LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (See Appendix E). The information in this section was taken from the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a.i) Fault Rupture. EIR No. 329 determined that the Specific Plan area is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. However, the Project site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (i.e., Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Act Zone) and no active faults are known to cross the site. A fault is considered “active” if evidence of surface rupture in Holocene time (the last approximately 11,000 years) is present. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the sites. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct the proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. The City’s Building and Safety Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. (a.ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. As described in EIR No. 329, the Planning Area lies within Groundshaking Zones II and III per the Seismic/Geologic Map, and the Specific Plan proposes Essential and Normal-Low Risk Land Uses. EIR No. 329 noted that the degree of suitability for Normal-Low Risk land uses relative to Groundshaking Zones II and III range from generally suitable to provisionally suitable and provisionally suitable to generally unsuitable respectively. EIR No. 329 found that the proposed Normal-Low Risk Land Uses would be considered compatible with these Groundshaking Zones. However, EIR No. 329 noted that proposed Essential Land Uses (school sites) range from generally unsuitable to provisionally suitable to restricted in these zones. However, EIR No. 329 noted 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 49 City of Menifee that Project structures and foundations would be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance with the criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations. The proposed Project parcels are located in a seismically active area of Southern California and are expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct the proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. The City’s Building and Safety Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with the CBC as verified by the City’s review process, would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. (a.iii) Liquefaction. As described in EIR No. 329, liquefaction hazards are considered low within the Planning Area due to the depth of groundwater (over 100 feet). Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Based on a review of the County of Riverside Liquefaction Maps (RCIT, 2018), the Project parcels are located in an area depicted as having a “low” potential for liquefaction. In addition, site soils are not generally susceptible to liquefaction due to a lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet and generally dense nature of the onsite soils. Therefore, impacts from the proposed Project related to liquefaction would be less than significant. (a.iv) Landslides. EIR No. 329 determined that landsliding is not considered to be a potential hazard in the Planning Area due to the lack of slopes in the area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. Review of readily available geologic resources and field observations of the surficial conditions do not indicate the presence of landslides on the Project parcels or in the immediate vicinity. Topographically, the site is relatively flat and is not considered susceptible to landslides, seismically-induced landslides, or other mass wasting processes (debris flows, rock falls, etc.). Therefore, the proposed Project’s impacts would be less than significant. (b) Erosion/Loss of Topsoil. EIR No. 329 found that Implementation of the Menifee North Specific Plan could result in short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts during project grading. EIR No. 329 also found that Project grading could result in the creation of temporarily exposed ground surfaces, thereby creating the potential for erosion and sedimentation of local drainage courses. However, In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District, EIR No. 329 noted that the Project would employ erosion control devices during grading, such as temporary berms, culverts, sand-bagging or desilting basins. Also, EIR No. 329 noted that Grading Plan Development Standard No. 2 of the Specific Plan requires a Grading Plan be prepared that includes techniques employed to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan area. Reduction of the erosion potential can be accomplished through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices for temporary erosion controls. Such measures typically include temporary catch basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 sediment transport within the Project site. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Building and Safety Department, prior to provision of permits for the Project, and would include construction BMPs. With adherence to existing regulations, this potential impact would be considered less than significant. (c) Unstable Geologic Unit. EIR No. 329 noted that the primary cause of subsidence is due to decline in static water levels caused by removal of large quantities of ground water. However, EIR No. 329 found that no evidence for significant static water level declines beneath Menifee North have been indicated by ground water data. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined impacts would be less than significant. The Project parcels are relatively flat and there are no slopes on the sites that are susceptible to lateral spreading. Due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet, the low potential for liquefaction, and lack of a nearby “free face” condition, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. Detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. Compliance with the recommendations of the site specific geotechnical study for soils conditions is a standard practice and would be required by the City Building and Safety Department. Compliance with the requirements of the California Building Standards Code as identified in a site specific geotechnical design would be reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion, as part of the building plan check and development review process. Therefore, this would reduce the potential for the above-described seismic issues to a less than significant level. (d) Expansive Soils. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to expansive soils. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about geology and soils impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to expansive soils was readily available to the public. The Project site is generally underlain by soils that are not considered to be expansive. In addition, detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code are required prior to approval of construction. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. (e) Septic Systems. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to septic systems. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about geology and soils impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to septic tanks was readily available to the public. The Project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, soils impacts related to underground septic systems would not occur. (f) Paleontological Resources. EIR No. 329 determined that the Menifee North Specific Plan could expose fossils through grading and other developmental activities, but at the same time, could destroy these same remains. As such, EIR No. 329 determined that this would have a significant adverse impact on the paleontological resources of the region, and mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce the adverse impact of development and protect the paleontological resources of the area. With adherence to these measures EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 51 City of Menifee The proposed Project has the potential to uncover and possibly destroy previously undiscovered paleontological resources. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measure MM-C.15.2, which incorporates the mitigation plan adopted in EIR No.329. With incorporation of mitigation measure MM-C.15.2, impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-C.15.2 Since the palaeontologic sensitivity for the site is very low, there is no need to have a grading monitor present on the property for near surface grading. However, earthmoving occurring at depths greater than 10 feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist, along with older alluvium deposits which occur at depths of less than ten feet. Monitoring on a part-time basis should be satisfactory for the Project given the relatively low sensitivity of the sediments. If fossils are found by the owners of the property, their agents, contractors, or subcontractors during the development of the property, they shall be reported immediately to a qualified, professional paleontologist for evaluation. If grading of older alluvium occurs or earthmoving occurs at depths of more than ten feet, or if fossils are encountered on the property during development, the following mitigation procedures shall be followed: 1) The project paleontologist shall immediately evaluate the fossils which have been discovered to determine if they are significant and, if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. 2) A paleontologic monitor shall be immediately retained to be present during earthmoving on the property. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect excavation equipment if additional fossils are found to allow evaluation and removal of them if necessary. The monitor shall be equipped to speedily collect specimens if they are encountered. 3) The monitor, with assistance if necessary, shall collect individual fossils and/or samples of fossil bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal species are encountered, the most time and cost efficient method of recovery is to remove a selected volume of fossil bearing earth from the grading area and stockpile it oft' site for processing by screen washing. 4) Fossils recovered during earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing of sediment samples shall be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus reducing storage costs. 5) A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the public agency responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental impacts upon completion of mitigation. This report will minimally include a settlement of the types of paleontologic resources found, the methods and procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens recovered, and a settlement of their scientific significance. 6) The paleontological specimens recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded long term preservation to allow future scientific study. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 52 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that impacts resulting from grading for construction of development projects in the area would alter the natural topography of the region, and cut and fill operations would be necessary in areas designated for development of lots and pads. EIR No. 329 also noted that this may, in some cases, require extensive cut and fill operation which could impact landforms. In addition, EIR No. 329 found that because of the presence of regional faults, the potential exists for impacts as a result of a seismic episode. Finally, EIR No. 329 noted that the four "Menifee" Specific Plan projects (North, Ranch, East and Estates) propose a total of approximately 13,310,200 cubic yards of earthwork in the area. However, EIR No. 329 determined that the proposed Specific Plans are located on relatively flat terrain, resulting in limited impacts to hillside areas. For these reasons, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative geologic impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and are designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to implement the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation and comply with the seismic design guidelines of the California Building Code. Therefore, the cumulative geology and soils impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion The proposed Project would either have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to geologic and soil constraints with implementation of standard grading, dust control, and erosion control measures and adhering to existing regulatory compliance. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the Specific Plan area; however, mitigation is required to ensure impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 53 City of Menifee 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No Not Analyzed No No No b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Not Analyzed No No No A Trip Generation, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supplemental Memorandum was prepared for the proposed Project by MIG, Inc. (See Appendix B). The information in this section was taken from the Trip Generation, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supplemental Memorandum. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a-b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. EIR No. 329 did not specifically address GHG emissions or climate change impacts; however, EIR No. 329 did conclude “climate and air quality” would have a significant impact (pg. V-156). However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about air quality and energy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to greenhouse gas emissions was readily available to the public. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as Greenhouse Gases (GHG). GHG that contribute to climate change are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate change is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. The six most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the corresponding effects of global climate change (e.g., rising temperatures, increased severe weather events such as drought and flooding). Although EIR No. 329 did not specifically address GHG emissions, the Air Quality analyses contained in these documents did include several mitigation measures pertaining to construction emissions, energy resources and vehicle miles travelled (VMT). MM-C.6.1 includes a requirement to properly maintain construction equipment, which would lower GHGs by avoiding inefficient combustion. MM- D.1.2 requires the addition of a bikeway, and MM-D.1.3 and MM-D.1.4 recommend the addition of bus stops and park-n-rides, respectively. MM-D.1.2 to MM-D.1.4 would reduce VMT and GHGs by providing 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 54 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 alternatives to single occupancy vehicle trips. MM-C.13.1 and MM-C.13.2 encourage passive solar heating techniques and requires compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, respectively, which would lower GHGs by reducing energy consumption. Over the last couple of decades, the State of California has implemented numerous plans, policies, and regulations to curtail GHG emissions and address the effects of climate change. Many of these actions are enacted at the State level; however, local air districts provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of project GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. The following regulatory actions would result in the reduction of GHG emissions past what would have been estimated when EIR No. 329 was approved in 1993. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act) and Related GHG Emission Reduction Goals In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes the caps on statewide GHG emissions proclaimed in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 and established the timeline for meeting State GHG reduction targets. The deadline for meeting the 2020 reduction target is December 31, 2020. As part of AB 32, CARB determined 1990 GHG emissions levels and projected a “business-as-usual” (BAU)ii estimate for 2020, to determine the amount of GHG emission reductions that would need to be achieved. In 2007, CARB approved a statewide 1990 emissions level and corresponding 2020 GHG emissions limit of 427 million MTCO2e (CARB 2007). In 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which projects 2020 statewide GHG emissions levels of 596 million MTCO 2e and identifies numerous measures (i.e., mandatory rules and regulations and voluntary measures) that would achieve at least 174 million MTCO2e of GHG reductions and bring statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB 2009). EO B-30-15, 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, set a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030. To achieve this ambitious target, Governor Brown identified five key goals for reducing GHG emissions in California through 2030: • Increase renewable electricity to 50 percent. • Double energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner. • Reduce petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. • Reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. • Manage farms, rangelands, forests, and wetlands to increasingly store carbon. By directing State agencies to take measures consistent with their existing authority to reduce GHG emissions, EO B-30-15 establishes coherence between the 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals set by AB 32 and seeks to align California with the scientifically established GHG emissions levels needed to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius. To reinforce the goals established through EO B-30-15, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197 on September 8, 2016. SB 32 made the GHG reduction target (to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) a requirement, as opposed to a goal. AB 197 gives the Legislature additional ii BAU is a term used to define emissions levels without considering reductions from future or existing programs or technologies. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 55 City of Menifee authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions are implemented, and requires CARB to, “protect the State’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities …[and] consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order B-55-18, AB 1279, and SB 1020 On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, to achieve carbon neutrality by moving California to 100% clean energy by 2045. This Executive Order also includes specific measures to reduce GHG emissions via clean transportation, energy efficient buildings, directing cap- and-trade funds to disadvantaged communities, and better management of the State’s forest land. On September 16, 2022, Governor Newson signed into law AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, and SB 1020, the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022. AB 1279 codified California’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal and established a GHG emission reduction target of 85% below 1990 levels. SB 1020 set targets for the retail sale of electricity of 90% clean electricit y by 2035 and 95% by 2040, and 100% by 2045. It also set a target for 100% clean electricity for electricity serving state agencies by 2035. CARB Scoping Plan The CARB Scoping Plan is the comprehensive plan primarily directed at identifying the measures necessary to reach the GHG reduction targets stipulated in AB 32. The second update to the scoping plan, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan update (CARB 2017b), was adopted by CARB in December 2017. The primary objective for the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is to identify the measures required to achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target for 2030 (i.e., reduce emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) established under EO B-30-15 and SB 32. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan was released in May 2022. The plan presents a scenario for California to meet the State goal of reducing GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (CARB 2022b). The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan is expected to be finalized in the fall of 2022. City of Menifee Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policy and Implementation Strategies The City of Menifee adopted the proposed GHG Reduction Policy and Implementation Strategies as part of the City’s General Plan (City of Menifee 2013a). As part of City review, the proposed Project would need to be consistent with the General Plan, including the GHG Reduction Policy and Implementation Strategies. The proposed SPA No. 5 keeps the same number of allowed dwelling units proposed in SP-260 however, TTM 31832 proposes one less unit than PA 9 allows (169 proposed from 170 allowed) and does not include any substantial changes. In addition, the State has implemented regulations to reduce GHGs and vehicles and energy have become more efficient since the approval of EIR No. 329. Therefore, it is expected that the Project would result in lower GHG emissions than Menifee North Specific Plan analyzed by EIR No. 329. Furthermore, as described below, the GHG emissions from the proposed Project would not be considered new information of substantial importance. New Information of Substantial Importance Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) The potential effects of GHG emissions and climate change were generally known when the original 1982 MCSP EIR and the amended 1994 MCSP IS/MND were prepared by the City. For instance, in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the United States Supreme Court explained the issue of global climate change began garnering governmental attention long before the City certified the 1982 MCSP EIR. The opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) states: “In the late 1970’s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 56 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 President to establish a program to `assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications,’ [citation]. President Carter, in turn, asked the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to investigate the subject. The Council’s response was unequivocal: `If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. . . . A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.'" (549 U.S. at pp. 507-508.) In addition, the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, in C.R.E.E.D. v. City of San Diego (2011), found a Supplemental EIR is not necessarily required instead of an Addendum to an EIR on the basis of GHG emissions, since information on the effects GHG emissions have on climate change were known long before the City of San Diego approved the 1994 EIR for a development project. Furthermore, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. the City of Dublin (2013), the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, found the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information of substantial importance if the underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was certified. Since the effects of GHG emissions associated with EIR No. 329 could have been raised by the public and agencies in 1993 when the City considered the EIR, the analyses contained in this memorandum do not constitute new information of substantial importance. For the reasons outlined above, there is no new information of substantial importance pertaining to the proposed Project, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the City certified EIR No. 329, which shows: • The proposed Project will have one or more significant GHG effects not discussed in EIR No. 329; • The proposed Project will result in substantially more severe significant GHG effects than previously examined in the EIR No. 329; • There are no mitigation measures or alternatives found to be infeasible in EIR No. 329 that are now feasible and will substantially reduce significant effects of the proposed project, but are being declined for adoption by the proponent or the City; and • There are no mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those identified in EIR No. 329 needed to substantially reduce significant effects of the proposed project, but are being declined for adoption by the proponent or the City. Conclusion EIR No. 329 did not analyze GHG emissions. The proposed Project consists of a reduction in dwelling units and does not involve substantial changes that require major revisions to EIR No. 329. Therefore, GHG impacts from the proposed Project would be significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 57 City of Menifee 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 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? No Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No 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 No Not Analyzed No No No 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 58 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Not Analyzed No No No h) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Not Analyzed No No No A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for each of the proposed Project parcels by Hillman Consulting (See Appendix F). Much of the information in this section was taken from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan would not generate any toxic waste. EIR No. 329 also noted that the industrial, commercial, and business park land uses proposed in the Planning Area require submittal of a Plot Plan, which requires applications to contain the following information: 1) A description of the proposed industrial operation in sufficient detail to fully describe the nature and extent of the proposed use. 2) Plans or reports describing proposed methods for handling traffic, noise, glare, odor, vibration, hazardous gases, liquids and other materials. 3) Plans or reports showing proposed method for treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial and toxic waste materials. EIR No. 329 noted that mitigation of any potential impacts associated with toxic substances would be addressed at the Plot Plan stage of project development. However, EIR No. 329 noted that it is not anticipated that future industrial tenants would generate toxic substances within the Planning Area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts would be less than significant. During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include, but is not limited to, fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, and other building materials. Federal, state, and local regulations associated with construction sites and use of associated hazardous materials include routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up. These uniformly applicable standards would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would develop residential subdivisions. The proposed Project consists of residential uses that do not require the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed residential uses also do not generate toxic waste. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. (b) Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 59 City of Menifee materials into the environment. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions was readily available to the public. The proposed Project would not include demolition of any existing buildings or structures that could possibly contain asbestos or lead. According to the project Phase I ESA, there are several stockpiles of soil on the northwest portion of Planning Area 9 that would require sampling before removal off-site. In addition, this portion of Planning Area 9 is included on the city of Menifee’s Permitted Biosolids/Sludge Application Map as a Composite Field. However, a review of the Phase I ESA boring and trench samples shows no indication whatsoever of past sludge dumping, and there are no visible piles, truck tracks, or drainage changes in the historical aerials that would suggest sludge dumping has occurred on the site. Furthermore, this portion of the planning area is not shown on any governmental database entries for any solid waste or disposal activities. As such, no further soil sampling or testing is necessary and preparation of a Phase II ESA is not required. Finally, as a residential land use the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mandatory federal, state, and local regulations would reduce the risk to the public or environment from upset and accident conditions to a less than significant level. (c) Proximity to Schools. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information a bout the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to use of hazardous materials near schools was readily available to the public. Romoland Elementary School and Harvest Valley Elementary School are located within one-quarter mile of the Project area. As stated in section 4.9.a above, construction activities resulting from the proposed Project may involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous waste materials. However, construction activities are subject to uniformly applicable standards set forth by federal, state, and local agencies. Operational activities resulting from the proposed residential uses would not emit any hazardous emissions or result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As a result, potential Project impacts from emitting hazardous emissions, handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools would be less than significant. (d) Government Code Section 65962. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to Government Code Section 65962. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to Government Code Section 65962 was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is not located on a site listed on the State Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the State that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses. Based upon review of the Cortese List, the Project site is not: 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 60 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 ▪ listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)(Cortese List), ▪ listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), ▪ listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB, ▪ currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) as issued by the SWRCB, or developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (e) Airport Land Use Plan. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to airport hazards. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to projects located within an airport land use plan was readily available to the public. There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the Project site. The nearest airport is the Perris Valley Airport, which is more than three miles to the northwest of the Project area. No impacts related to airport hazards would occur. (g) Emergency Plans. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to impairment or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to impairment of emergency plans was readily available to the public. Pursuant to state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space would have to be provided around the proposed residential structures for emergency personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation. All Project elements, including landscaping, would be sited with sufficient clearance from proposed structures so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from structures. The proposed Project also includes improvements to Palomar Road in order to provide access to TTM 38312.The Project also includes extension of Malone Avenue south of Watson Road to Varela Lane and the extension of Calle de Caballos in order to provide access to TTM 38133. However, the Project does not propose the closure of any roadways. The Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Menifee Municipal Code. Internal roads within the proposed residential subdivisions would allow emergency access and evacuation from the site and would be constructed per California Fire Code specifications. The proposed Project would provide adequate maneuvering space for emergency response vehicles (e.g., fire trucks). Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (h) Wildfire Risks. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to wildfire risks. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to wildfire risks was readily available to the public. According to the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is not 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 61 City of Menifee designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 did not analyze cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project site with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste and materials. Therefore, proposed Project’s cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion As outlined above, the Project has no impact or less than significant impacts related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, or wildfires. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation measures are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 62 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water supply? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 63 City of Menifee iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Not Analyzed No No No e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Not Analyzed No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Degrade the Water Supply. EIR No. 329 noted that due to the present agricultural use of the Planning Area, it is anticipated that runoff would likely contain agricultural pollutants, such as fertilizers, pesticides, etc. EIR No. 329 also noted that runoff entering the storm drain system would contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. EIR No. 329 found that this runoff, typical of urban use, would contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream. Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, EIR No. 329 found that a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit would apply to all construction activities within the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 noted that the developer or builder would be required to obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities, and all development within the Specific Plan boundaries would be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to water quality or degradation of the water supply would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations. The proposed Project could have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the Project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or if the Project would cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body. For the purpose of this issue, a significant impact could occur if the proposed Project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the proposed Project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These regulations include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce construction and post-construction water quality impacts. A project-specific WQMP would be prepared for Project parcels to address water quality impacts from operational activities. The WQMP would be prepared consistent with the requirements contained in the Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Region or other requirements as established by the RWQCB (Santa Ana Region). Implementation responsibilities for the measures contained in the Project-specific WQMP must be clearly detailed. A discussion of the proposed Project’s construction and operation water quality impacts is provided below. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 64 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Construction Impacts Three general sources of potential short-term, construction-related stormwater pollution associated with the proposed Project include: 1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; 2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and 3) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment. The proposed Project would disturb approximately 60 acres of land and would be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. Pursuant to the Menifee Municipal Code Sec. 15.01.015, new development or development projects shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The Project applicant is also required to prepare an SWPPP designed to reduce construction-related stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable. Implementation of the Project SWPPP would ensure that construction-related water quality impacts are less than significant. Operational Impacts Construction of the proposed Project would permanently increase impervious area on the Project site. The proposed Project would be subject to post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address increases in impervious surfaces, methods to decrease incremental increases in off-site stormwater flows, and methods for decreasing pollutant loading in off-site discharges as required by the applicable NPDES requirements. Common post-construction BMPs include filtering stormwater through vegetated areas or into collection ponds prior to discharging into the City’s storm drain system. The proposed residential uses would not generate hazardous wastewater that would require any special waste discharge permits. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) outlines site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to protect water quality. Site design BMPs include directing primary flow to water quality basins prior to discharge in offsite storm drains, preserving the existing secondary drainage pattern (which flows in a northeasterly direction), and minimizing impervious area to the extent feasible and replacing with planting/landscaping. Source control BMPs include the following: providing integrated pest management (IPM) information to new owners, lessees, and operators; installing grease interceptors for drains located within food service operations; designing site drainage to flow away from trash enclosures and minimize runoff from trash enclosures; and sweeping plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots regularly to prevent accumulation of litter and debris and to prevent trash entry into the storm drain system. Treatment control BMPs include removing pollutants of concern via bioretention basins. Water quality basins would be highly effective at removing the following pollutants of concern: bacterial indicators, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds (solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons), and sediments. With implementation of a combination of site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs, water quality impacts related to operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Implementation of these measures would ensure that the proposed Project complies with federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant levels. (b) Groundwater Supplies. EIR No. 329 noted that several water lines exist in the Planning Area, and development of the Specific Plan would require the existing water system to be expanded by placing new water mains on all proposed streets as well as extending new mains on existing streets to complete a looped watermain system. It was also noted that EMWD indicated that the Menifee North Specific Plan would be required to participate in the cost of the construction of a 5 million gallon water storage tank. A preliminary Plan of Services, dated November 19, 1992 was prepared by Eastern Municipal Water District. This Plan of Services provides updated estimates of project related water demands by pressure zone. It also provides preliminary design concepts for the provision of domestic and reclaimed water and sewer service to the Menifee North and Menifee Ranch Specific Plans. EIR No. 329 also anticipated that EMWD would require the Specific Plan to construct a system of "dry" reclaimed water 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 65 City of Menifee lines so the Specific Plan can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation upon completion of the necessary facility construction bringing reclaimed water near the area. EIR No. 329 noted that the District was constructing reclaimed water system facilities which include Winchester area holding ponds located at the intersection of Simpson and Leon Roads (approximately one-half to one mile southeast of the subject project), a transmission pipeline aligned generally along Winchester and Leon Roads extending from the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF) (located in the City of Temecula) to the Winchester area holding ponds, and pumping facilities located along the transmission pipeline. EIR No. 329 found that the design and construction of off-site and on- site reclaimed water system improvements would be necessary to accomplish the delivery of reclaimed water to the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 noted that developers must submit information that describes estimates of reclaimed water demand, and landscape/irrigation conceptual plans to the District for evaluation. At the time of the District's evaluation, a determination would be made regarding District requirements for reclaimed water use and system improvements by the developer. EIR No. 329 found that the District's facilities Master Plan indicated that off-site pipelines would be aligned along Simpson Road west of Leon Road, and logically along Briggs Road and/or Menifee Road north of Simpson Road to the Planning Area. Also, a pipeline may be aligned along the AT&SF railroad extending from the PVRWRF, through the Planning Area, to Menifee Road. EIR No. 329 determined that the payment of fees to EMWD would prevent any negative financial impacts to the District. It was noted that EMWD would collect a maximum of $3,500 per unit from developers in the area for construction of the Romoland Treatment Plant Expansion, all lines would be designed per EMWD requirements, and the infrastructural system would be installed to the requirements of the County's Engineering Department. In addition, it was noted that the following State laws require water efficient plumbing fixtures in structures to minimize water use in the Planning Area: • Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. • Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(0 (Appliance Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, etc. • Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 160l(b) (Appliance Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. • Title 24, California Adminisl:1-ative Code Section 2-5307(b) (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. • Title 24, California .Administrative Code Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. • Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. • Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water. Additionally, EIR No. 329 found that water demands would be further mitigated through implementation of Water and Sewer Plan Development Standards of the Specific Plan. For these reasons, EIR No. 329 determined that water-related impacts would be less than significant. If the proposed Project removes an existing groundwater recharge area or substantially reduces runoff that results in groundwater recharge such that existing wells would no longer be able to operate, a potentially significant impact could occur. Impacts to groundwater could also occur if the proposed Project substantially depletes groundwater supplies. However, Project-related grading would not reach 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 66 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 groundwater depths and no disturbance of groundwater is anticipated. The proposed Project would increase impervious surface coverage in the area, thereby reducing the total amount of infiltration. However, infiltration of irrigation water through soil and water from runoff through infiltration basins would ensure continued groundwater recharge in Menifee as impervious surfaces increase. The Specific Plan area is not utilized for groundwater recharge and would include landscaped areas that would serve as infiltration. Because this Project area is not managed for groundwater supplies and the Project would provide landscaped areas for continued infiltration, this change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on groundwater table level. For these reasons, Project-related impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (c.i) Substantial Erosion or Siltation. EIR No. 329 noted that implementation of the Menifee North Specific Plan would alter the composition of surface runoff by grading site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. However, EIR No. 329 incorporated mitigation requiring erosion to be controlled by positive drainage of the Planning Area and planting of erosion-resistant vegetation. With incorporation of mitigation, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to drainage would be less than significant. Development of the proposed Project would affect the drainage system and would result in greater areas of impervious surfaces (such as streets, sidewalks and parking lots) in the Specific Plan area. Instead of absorbing into the ground, water on impervious surfaces runs-off and drains into the local drainage system, potentially increasing the amount of storm water runoff. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the proposed Project results in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-C.2.1 through MM-C.2.5. The Project would include stormwater and drainage improvements that would direct stormwater into the municipal stormwater collection system. Project roadways would include a series of stormwater conveyance pipes and proposed residential developments would include stormwater drainage that would direct stormwater into the stormwater conveyance system beneath the roadways. Therefore, the drainage pattern would not be substantially altered in a manner that could cause increases in erosion off-site. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be included in the Project design and implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, the Project would consist of impervious surfaces and would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. Finally, the Project would not alter the course of a river or stream. With incorporation of mitigation measures MM-C.2.1 through MM-C.2.5, impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-C.2.1 Positive drainage of the site shall be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any cut and fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided by planting erosion resistant vegetation, as the native soils are susceptible to erosion by running water. MM-C.2.3 Maximum inclination of all cut and fill slopes shall be 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. MM-C.2.4 Final determination of the foundation characteristics of soils within on-site development areas shall be performed by a geotechnical engineer. MM-C.2.5 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a seismic refraction survey shall be conducted to evaluate the rippability characteristics of the bedrock on-site indicating the approximate rippability of the bedrock materials at various depths for grading purposes. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 67 City of Menifee (c.ii) Flooding from Runoff. EIR No. 329 noted that there were no existing storm drain facilities located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan at the time it was written. However, EIR No. 329 noted that south of State Highway 74 and near the eastern end of the Planning Area were three separate underground reinforced concrete pipe systems between Sultanas Avenue and Leon Road, which acted to de-water existing development as well as off-site flows. It was noted that these systems discharge their flows into the existing golf course channel located east of the Planning Area, as shown on Figure III-5, Regional Drainage Plan of the Specific Plan. EIR No. 329 also noted that Line 1C of the Homeland Master Drainage Plan (MDP), reaching from Mapes Road north to Alicante Avenue, existed as a concrete lined trapezoidal channel with a depth of four feet, bottom width of four feet, and 1.5:1 side slopes. It was also noted that there existed approximately 850 lineal feet of Line 1B reaching from Alicante Avenue to the south, constructed as a concrete lined trapezoidal channel. ln addition, several low flow pipe culverts were noted to exist at various locations along State Highway 74 conveying storm flows underneath the roadway. However, it was found that these culverts were interim in nature and were not considered adequate to handle flows from a major storm event, and that the construction of proposed MDP facilities could mitigate this drainage problem. EIR No. 329 found that development of the Menifee North Specific Plan would result in increased runoff due to the creation of impervious surfaces, and it was estimated that for the developed condition, 100- year storm flows would increase by 15-20%, increasing downstream flows in the San Jacinto River. EIR No. 329 noted that Figure V-7, Master Drainage Plan of the Specific Plan, depicts the proposed MDP for Menifee North, which had been designed to accommodate on-site and tributary flows, providing protection from 100-year storm. It was noted that plan proposed alternative alignments to those shown on the Romoland and Homeland MDPs at the time, but that the Specific Plan proposed the construction of MDP improvements. In addition, EIR No. 329 found that due to increased runoff, on-site retention basins would be required to be constructed. EIR No. 329 noted that all improvements would be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD), and the Specific Plan incorporates MDP improvements designed to reduce the impacts of increased surface runoff and provide 100-year flood protection to the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 anticipated that many of those facilities would be constructed as part of the conditions of approval and at the discretion of the RCFCD. It was further noted that credit against drainage fees would be given to developer for all ADP facilities constructed to serve the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 found that the Planning Area lies within the boundaries of the Homeland and Romoland Area Drainage Plans and would be subject to a per acre assessment fee, thereby contributing to regional drainage mitigation programs in the area. If required by RCFCD, EIR No. 329 noted that a floodplain analysis for existing conditions would be performed to the satisfaction of the RCFCD and utilizing the Corps of Engineers HEC-2 computer program. As development occurs within the floodplain, EIR No. 329 noted that the alteration of the floodplain must also be determined under developed conditions. As such, it was anticipated that the RCFCD may require that the MDP's for Homeland and Romoland be revised to better reflect changes in land use, zoning and changes in hydrological data used to calculate peak flow rates, and the MDP's should be revised to work in harmony with the proposed Specific Plan. Finally, EIR No. 329 found that the Area Drainage Plan for both MDP's should also be revised to reflect new costs in construction of proposed storm drain facilities, consequently updating the drainage fee schedule. In order to mitigate potential downstream impacts resulting from increased project flows, EIR No. 329 noted that the use of detention basins would be required. Therefore, with adherence to the standards of the RCFCD, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts would be less than significant. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the proposed Project results in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation, substantial flooding, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. The 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 68 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Salt Creek Flood Control Channel and its tributaries can effectively control flood hazards in the area. The Project would include drainage facilities that would be designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to safely convey additional stormwater flows and thereby ensure that no habitable structure would be placed within a 100-year floodplain as shown on the FEMA Insurance Rate Maps. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be less than significant. (c.iii) Stormwater Drainage Capacity. EIR No. 329 noted that all improvements would be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD), and the Specific Plan incorporates MDP improvements designed to reduce the impacts of increased surface runoff and provide 100-year flood protection to the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 anticipated that many of those facilities would be constructed as part of the conditions of approval and at the discretion of the RCFCD. It was further noted that credit against drainage fees would be given to developer for all ADP facilities constructed to serve the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 found that the Planning Area lies within the boundaries of the Homeland and Romoland Area Drainage Plans and would be subject to a per acre assessment fee, thereby contributing to regional drainage mitigation programs in the area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to stormwater runoff would be less than significant. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the proposed Project results in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Development of the proposed Project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing storm drain system would likely occur . However, the proposed Project would include stormwater improvements. Stormwater would be collected on-site in storm drains, retained on site if necessary, and conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system as capacity allows. The drainage improvements would be constructed in accordance with the MDP and the RCFCD’s requirements. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system would be obtained prior to construction of the proposed Project. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval. Therefore, the increase in discharges would not impact local storm drain capacity. In addition, the proposed Project is not an industrial use and therefore would not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Impacts related to polluted runoff would be less than significant. (c.iv) Impede or Redirect Flood Flows. EIR No. 329 noted that, if required by RCFCD, a floodplain analysis for existing conditions would be performed to the satisfaction of the RCFCD and utilizing the Corps of Engineers HEC-2 computer program. As development occurs within the floodplain, EIR No. 329 noted that the alteration of the floodplain must also be determined under developed conditions. As such, it was anticipated that the RCFCD may require that the MDP's for Homeland and Romoland be revised to better reflect changes in land use, zoning and changes in hydrological data used to calculate peak flow rates. Finally, EIR No. 329 noted that MDP's should be revised to work in harmony with the proposed Specific Plan. With adherence to these measures, EIR No. 329 determined that flooding impacts would be less than significant. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the proposed Project impedes or redirects flood flows. Development of additional residential uses in the Specific Plan area must comply with existing programs aimed to reduce flooding hazards. These programs include: 1) participation in the National Flood Insurance Program; 2) coordination with the RCFCWCD to ensure maintenance of flood control channels and completion of necessary repairs to RCFCWCD-owned facilities on an as-needed basis; and 3) maintenance of emergency procedures in accordance with Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code. With adherence to these measures, impacts related to impediment or redirection of flood flows from the proposed Project would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 69 City of Menifee (d) Other Water-Related Risks or Pollution. Impacts related to flood hazards are discussed in response 4.10.c.i – 4.10.c.iv above. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to tsunami, seiche zones, or risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to other flooding related risks was readily available to the public. The City is not exposed to tsunami hazards due to its inland location, and there are no reservoirs are waterbodies located in the vicinity of the Project that could result in seiche. The Project site is, however, located in the dam inundation zone of the Diamond Valley Lake. There are three dams that make up Diamond Valley Lake – East Dam, West Dam, and Saddle Dam. Failure of any of these dams would cause the Project area to be inundated, and there is a high hazard potential given the extent of development in this area (Menifee, 2010). Diamond Valley lake is the largest reservoir in southern California, with a capacity of 800,000 acre feet of water. The most likely cause for dam failure is a large earthquake occurring on one of the nearby active faults, such as the San Jacinto fault zone. According to the City of Menifee General Plan DEIR (page 5.9-23), “at capacity fill, the three dams that impound the reservoir were each designed to withstand an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude along the San Jacinto Fault or an earthquake of 8.0 magnitude along the San Andreas Fault”(Menifee, 2013a). In addition, the “Metropolitan Water District of Southern California carries out continuous automated monitoring of the dams and their foundations for deformation due to the weight of the dams, water pressure, and the effects of wetting of dam materials. The design and construction of the dams for earthquake resistance, in combination with monitoring of the dams, reduce risks of dam failure due to earthquakes.” Therefore, impacts related to dam inundation would be less than significant. (e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to conflicts with water quality or groundwater management plans was readily available to the public. The Regional Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. Development allowed by the Project would be required to adhere to requirements of the water quality control plan, including all existing regulation and permitting requirements. This would include the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. Development of the Project would also be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing General Plan policies related to water quality would also be applicable to the Project. General Plan Conservation Element, Objectives 7.1 and 7.2 and their associated policies would limit potential water quality impacts to surface water and groundwater resources. General Plan Policy 7.2.2 requires all projects to comply with the discharge permit requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of these policies, in conjunction with compliance with existing regulatory programs, would ensure that water quality impacts related to the Project would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 70 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that Drainage patterns and the quality, velocity and composition of runoff would be altered by large scale grading of areas planned for construction, as well as the creation of impervious surfaces (such as roadways, driveways, parking lots, etc.) It was further noted that runoff could increase flows in the Salt Creek and ultimately the San Jacinto River, potentially impacting downstream capacity. Runoff entering Salt Creek and the San Jacinto River would contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, thereby impacting the downstream water quality in the area, including the Lake Elsinore State Recreation Area. EIR No. 329 found that siltation resulting from exposed ground surfaces from grading also may affect downstream water quality, and infiltration of water used for irrigation of landscaped areas throughout the vicinity may affect the abundance and distribution of groundwater. EIR No. 329 anticipated that storm drain systems would be constructed in accordance with the County's Master Drainage Plan in order to mitigate impacts on local drainage patterns. EIR No. 329 found that the Menifee North Specific Plan and the Menifee Ranch Specific Plans are within the boundaries of the Homeland/Romoland Area Drainage Plan and would be subject to drainage fees established by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. EIR No. 329 noted that preparation of a water quality impact analysis for all subdivisions in the San Jacinto River drainage area is considered beyond the scope of a single developer, and that Section 15130(c) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act states that, "With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis". As such, EIR No. 329 determined that water quality impacts related to sedimentation would be controlled through the use of erosion control devices during grading, and long term water quality impacts related to urban pollutants could best be mitigated through ordinances or regulations, rather than on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts could be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the requirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project site with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, the cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion EIR No. 329 concludes that development of the Menifee North Specific Plan, including the proposed Project parcels, would not have significant impacts on hydrology, water quality, and other water-related resources and constraints with adherence to existing regulations, and no mitigation was recommended. With regulatory compliance, the preceding sections have demonstrated the proposed Project would also not have any significant water-related impacts. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 71 City of Menifee 4.11 – Land Use and Planning Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Physically divide an established community? No Not Analyzed No No No 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? No Not Analyzed No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Divide an Established Community. EIR No. 329 did not analyze whether the Specific Plan would physically divide an established community. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about land use policy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to physical division of an established community was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. The Project site consists of approximately 60 acres of undeveloped land that is adjacent to existing development, roadway features, and open space. TTM 38132 would improvements to Palomar Way, but would not include extension of any roadways. TTM 38133 includes improvements to Malone Avenue and extension of Calle de Caballos, which would be the access point to the site. However, the Project does not propose the closure of any roadways or the construction of any new roadways or features that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. (b) Conflict with Applicable Plans. EIR No. 329 did not analyze whether the Specific Plan would 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. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about land use policy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and includes slightly less development capacity than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. The proposed Project is therefore consistent with the growth limits evaluated in EIR No. 329. The Project is also consistent with the permitted land uses in the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts related to land use plans are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 72 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for housing, as was occurring in most of Riverside County, and that a number of other major projects were pending in the project area at the time of certification. EIR No. 329 also noted that including the Menifee North Specific Plan, the other major developments in the area cumulatively proposed approximately 32,500 dwelling units, generating an estimated population of 84,175 persons. In addition to the residential elements of these projects, EIR No. 329 found that these projects included an estimated total of 850 acres of Town Center, Commercial, Business Park and/or Industrial use. EIR No. 329 found that the 2,654 units proposed by the Menifee North Specific Plan constitute 8.2% of the total dwelling units proposed and approved in the City. While the individual projects may contribute marginally to growth in the area, EIR No. 329 determined that the collective projects would cumulatively create an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the Sun City/Menifee Valley and Romoland/Homeland region. EIR No. 329 also determined that the overall increase in units and related demands along neighborhood roads and for local services and utilities would cumulatively impact the area. In addition, it was noted that development of these projects in what was once a semi-rural/ agricultural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjoining lands to similar uses, particularly agricultural and open space uses remaining in the area. Therefore, it was found that ultimate urbanization of the project vicinity could potentially indirectly influence expansion throughout the area. However, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative land use and planning impacts. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community or 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 . Therefore, the proposed Project would not create adverse cumulative land use and planning impacts. Conclusion The Project is consistent with the Specific Plan evaluated in EIR No. 329, and includes slightly less development potential than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Therefore, impacts related to land use plans are less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 73 City of Menifee 4.12 – Mineral Resources Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? 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? Yes No Impact No No No 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? Yes No Impact No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Designated Mineral Resources. EIR No. 329 did not identify any mineral resources within the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 also noted that the Mineral Resources Element of the General Plan does not indicate the presence of resources within the Planning Area. Additionally, EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan does not propose any future land uses which impact mineral resources in Riverside County. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined there would be no impacts to mineral resources. The California Department of Conservation Mineral Lands Classification map for the Specific Plan area shows the area is located within a mineral resource zone area classified as MRZ-1. Areas classified as MRZ-1 are defined as areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence . The Specific Plan area was historically used for agriculture prior to development and there are no known mineral resources in the immediate vicinity. There are no mining operations in the Specific Plan area, and implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources. (b) Local Mineral Designations. EIR No. 329 did not identify any mineral resources within the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 also noted that the Mineral Resources Element of the General Plan does not indicate the presence of resources within the Planning Area. Additionally, EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan does not propose any future land uses which impact mineral resources in Riverside County. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined there would be no impacts to mineral resources. The California Department of Conservation Mineral Lands Classification map for the Specific Plan area shows the area is located within a mineral resource zone area classified as MRZ-1. Areas classified as MRZ-1 are defined as areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The Specific Plan area was historically used for agriculture prior to development and there are no known mineral resources in 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 74 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 the immediate vicinity. There are no mining operations in the Specific Plan area, and implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 did not analyze cumulative impacts related to mineral resources. EIR No. 329 did not identify any mineral resources within the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 also noted that the Mineral Resources Element of the General Plan does not indicate the presence of resources within the Planning Area. Additionally, EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan does not propose any future land uses which impact mineral resources in Riverside County. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would not result in the loss of mineral resources. Therefore, the cumulative mineral resources impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion The Specific Plan area does not contain identified mineral resources either at a state level or local level that can be reasonably extracted given existing onsite and surrounding land uses. Therefore, there would be no impacts regarding mineral resources. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation is required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 75 City of Menifee 4.13 – Noise Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? 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? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Not Analyzed No No No 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? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Noise Exceeds Standards. EIR No. 329 evaluated noise from construction, off-site traffic, and on-site traffic. Construction Noise EIR No. 329 found that construction noise would be short-term and would be reduced by limiting construction hours. There have been no substantial changes to the environmental setting of PA-9 and PA-22, although Plan development has proceeded over time. Potential sensitive noise receptors continue to be located approximately 60 feet west of PA-9 across Palomar Road, and at the border of PA-9 to the north. Residential receptors are approximately 50 feet west of PA-22 across Malone Avenue PA-22 and approximately 90 feet north of PA-22 across Watson Road. Harvest Valley Elementary School is approximately 230 feet east of PA-22. EIR No. 329 concluded the potential construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM-C.5.1, as follows: 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 76 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 MM-C.5.1 Construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction should not be allowed on weekends or federal holidays. Since certification of EIR No. 329, the City has incorporated, adopting a General Plan and Municipal Code provisions. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 8.01.010, as follows: • 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. The continued incorporation of MM-C.5.1 and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would limit the time when construction activities are permitted occur and ensure the proposed Project does not result in a new or more severe construction noise impact than identified in EIR No. 329. Operational Off-Site Traffic Noise EIR No. 329 found that the development of the Menifee North Specific Plan could increase traffic noise levels along Antelope Road, Mapes Road, and Route 74 to levels above 65 CNEL, which was considered a significant and unavoidable impact to existing residences along the roadways. As shown in Table 5.12-3 of the 2013 Menifee General Plan EIR, 65 CNEL is still conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. Based on the location of the proposed Project, trips from PA-9 and PA-22 would primarily be added to Route 74. According to the 2013 Menifee General Plan EIR, which incorporates the growth evaluated in EIR No. 329, traffic noise levels on the road segments of Route 74 along PA-9 and PA-22 are predicted to exceed 65 CNEL under existing and 2035 conditions. However, the proposed Project would result in less VMT as compared to EIR No. 329 (Translutions 2022). With less traffic, the proposed Project would not contribute a greater incremental share to cumulative traffic noise levels than was approved in EIR No. 329. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe noise impact. Operational On-Site Traffic Noise Using a threshold of 65 CNEL for outdoor residential exposure and 45 CNEL for indoor noise levels, EIR No. 329 found that residences along Menifee Road, Briggs Road, and Route 74 could be exposed to significant and unavoidable traffic noise levels. Since the certification of EIR No. 329, traffic levels have increased, and so the proposed Project would continue contribute to potentially unacceptable traffic noise levels. However, as discussed in Operational Off-Site Traffic Noise above, the proposed Project would result in lower trips and VMT as compared to EIR No. 329, and so would not contribute more to traffic noise levels than what was approved in EIR No. 329. Additionally, traffic noise modeling for the 2013 Menifee General Plan EIR indicates that residences at PA-9 and PA-22 would not be exposed to traffic noise volumes exceeding 65 CNEL. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe noise impact. (b) Excessive Vibration. EIR No. 329 did not directly evaluate vibration levels. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about land use policy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to physical division of an established community was readily available to the public. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 77 City of Menifee The proposed Project would not include substantial construction or operational activities that could generate sustained groundborne vibration levels at existing residential buildings that could result in building damage or sustained human annoyance. Construction would not involve equipment, such as pile drivers, that would be likely to cause substantial vibration. Equipment would at worst-case operate adjacent to the site’s property lines and within approximately 25 feet of the nearest residential building (to the north) of PA-9, but would generally take place 100 feet or more from the nearest residential building. In PA-22, the nearest residential buildings are across Malone Avenue to the west and across Watson Road to the north, over 50 feet from the property boundary. The nearest school building is over 230 feet to the east of PA-22. The incorporation of MM-C.5.1 and compliance with City Municipal Code requirements (see Section a. above) would limit construction hours adjacent to existing residential development to daytime periods only when people are less sensitive to potential groundborne vibrations. Once operational, the proposed Project would not have any large equipment that would generate vibration. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and would result in a less than significant impact. (c) Airport/Airstrip Noise. Based on the County of Riverside Airport Noise Impact Area Map, which used a 1979 study to establish noise contours, EIR No. 329 found Planning Areas 4, 5, 6 and 9 were within the 65 CNEL zone for March Air Force Base (March AFB), and that a significant impact would occur. However, since certification of EIR No. 329, new information has been developed that indicates the City of Menifee (including PA-9 and PA-22) is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of any airport, including March AFB (City of Menifee 2013). March AFB is located approximately 10.4 miles northwest of PA-9. There are no airports located within two miles of PA-9 or PA-22. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, and would result in a less than significant impact. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 expected that cumulative construction noise would be mitigated, as a result of the physical distance between proposed projects. EIR No. 329 found that the projects would result in higher traffic volumes, which would increase noise levels along major roadways. Cumulatively, EIR No. 329 estimated that a significant (3dBA) noise increase would occur along State Route 74, I-215, Menifee Road, Encanto Drive, Antelope Road, Mapes Road, Watson Road, Briggs Road, Lindenberger Road, McCall Boulevard, Simpson Road and Newport Road. Traffic volumes associated with cumulative Project impacts were estimated to exceed 65 CNEL along Antelope Road, Mapes Road and Route 74, and could expose residences along Route 74 to noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL. EIR No. 329 stated that all proposed development in the area would be required to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL and outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL, and may use mitigation such as sound walls or building sound insulation. The proposed Project would not result in an incremental increase in Project or cumulative traffic noise levels as compared to EIR No. 329, for the reasons discussed in Section a) above. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a new or more severe cumulative noise impact. Conclusion EIR No. 329 found that implementation of the Menifee Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. The proposed Project would involve less intense development than what was evaluated in EIR No. 329, and would not result in additional noise or vibration impacts. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 78 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.14 – Population and Housing Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? 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)? No Not Analyzed No No No b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Not Analyzed No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Induce Population Growth. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to the inducement of substantial unplanned population growth in the area. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about land use policy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to physical division of an established community was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in slightly less development potential than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. In addition, the proposed Project would remain consistent with land use designations and population projections used to prepare the 2022 AQMP. The proposed Project is part of a development trend that is needed to meet the continuing demand for housing in the Menifee area and Riverside County. The proposed Project would be consistent with the development anticipated under the Specific Plan and the potential impact would be considered less than significant. (b) Displace Housing. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing because the Specific Plan area did not contain any housing or development at the time. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about land use policy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to physical division of an established community was readily available to the public. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 79 City of Menifee The proposed Project parcels do not contain any existing residential housing. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not displace existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 did not analyze potential cumulative population and housing impacts. EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for housing, as was occurring in most of Riverside County, and that a number of other major projects were pending in the area at the time of certification. EIR No. 329 also noted that including the Menifee North Specific Plan, the other major developments in the area cumulat ively proposed approximately 32,500 dwelling units, generating an estimated population of 84,175 persons. In addition to the residential elements of these projects, EIR No. 329 found that these projects included an estimated total of 850 acres of Town Center, Commercial, Business Park and/or Industrial use. EIR No. 329 found that the 2,654 units proposed by the Menifee North Specific Plan constitute 8.2% of the total dwelling units proposed and approved in the City. While individual projects may contribute marginally to growth in the area, EIR No. 329 determined that the collective projects could cumulatively create an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the Sun City/Menifee Valley and Romoland/Homeland region. EIR No. 329 also determined that the overall increase in units and related demands along neighborhood roads and for local services and utilities would cumulatively impact the area. In addition, the development of these projects in what was once a semi-rural/ agricultural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjoining lands to similar uses, particularly agricultural and open space uses remaining in the area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 found that ultimate urbanization of the Planning Area could potentially indirectly influence expansion throughout the area. However, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative impacts related to population and housing. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area or displace any persons. Therefore, the cumulative population and housing impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion The Project would result in direct population growth in the area. However, the amount of population growth that would result from the proposed Project would be slightly less than what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Moreover, the Project is not expected to result in the displacement of any existing City residents (population) or housing by its development. Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 80 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.16 – Public Services Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Fire protection? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No b) Police protection? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No c) Schools? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No d) Parks? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No e) Other public facilities? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Fire protection. EIR No. 329 noted that the Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection provided fire protection services to the Planning Area and all of Riverside County. It was also noted that there was an existing station serving the Planning Area located at 25730 Sultanas Road. EIR No. 329 found that this station was staffed with two full time (24 hours a day) fire fighters augmented by a volunteer company, and equipped with a standard 1000 GPM pumper. Additionally, it was found that a complete fire station complex located north of Newport Road and west of Lindenberger Road was proposed for construction, would be staffed with two 24-hour firefighters augmented by a volunteer company, and would also be equipped with one 1000 GPM pumper and one 125 ft. ladder truck. It was also noted that according to response time, travel distance and staffing/workload levels established in the Riverside County Fire Protection and Emergency Plan, that the Specific Plan was within an acceptable response distance/travel time from this planned fire station. Finally, EIR No. 329 noted that according to Michael E. Gray, Deputy Fire Marshal, adequate fire protection could be provided to the Planning Area by the existing fire station, and the fire complex proposed north of Newport Road could act as a back-up station once it was 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 81 City of Menifee constructed. As such, no fire protection measures beyond those specified in the Uniform Building Code were incorporated into EIR No. 329 and impacts related to fire protection services were determined to be less than significant. The City of Menifee continues to contract with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for fire protection and emergency medical response services. RCFD Station No. 76, located at 29950 Menifee Road, is located approximately 4 miles south of the Project parcels. This station would serve the Project parcels. Development of the Project would impact fire protection services by placing an additional demand on existing Riverside County Fire Department resources should its resources not be augmented. To offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Project would be conditioned by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for fire protection facilities. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional fire protection facilities. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives, and this potential impact would be considered less than significant. (b) Police protection. EIR No. 329 noted that Police protection in the Planning Area was provided by the Riverside County Sheriff Department at the time the EIR was written. It was also noted that the station that served the Planning Area was located approximately 11 miles away at 117 S. Langstaff, in the city of Lake Elsinore. EIR No. 329 found that this station was operating with a total of 65 sworn officers, response time to the Planning Area was approximately 10 minutes. EIR No. 329 found that the department used population and development information to calculate future population projections with law enforcement needs so that the Department could remain current with County growth, and that future personnel and equipment needs would be met through fund allocation by the County Board of Supervisors in its yearly budget. Finally, EIR No. 329 noted that developers would be required to cooperate with the Sheriff’s Department to assure proper protection, facilities, and personnel would be available. Developers would also be required to incorporate certain design concepts within the Planning Area in accordance with the Land Use Development Standards of the Specific Plan. With these measures in place EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to police services would be less than significant. The Menifee Police Department currently provides police protection services to the Specific Plan area. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in slightly less development capacity than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. The Menifee Police Department is located at 29714 Haun Road, approximately 4.5 miles from the Project parcels. The Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing for police protection facilities. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional police protection facilities, if necessary. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Therefore, potential impacts to police protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. (c) Schools. As described in EIR No. 329, the Romoland School District indicated that the District would require additional school sites within the Specific Plan area, and the Perris Union High School District indicated that the District would soon be overcrowded and would have to re-evaluate temporary as well 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 82 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 as permanent solutions to the growth problem. EIR No. 329 noted that the Specific Plan was being planned in conformance with Land Use Standards, in that the applicant was working with the Romoland and Perris Union High School Districts to mitigate the student impact from the Specific Plan. It was also noted that the Specific Plan included 26.7 acres of designated school sites to serve the Romoland and Perris Union High School Districts. Finally, mitigation measures were incorporated requiring agreements with the school districts and payment of fees to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated it was determined that impacts to schools would be less than significant. The proposed Project is currently located within the Romoland School District and the Perris Union High School District. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in slightly less development potential than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the School Districts’ development mitigation fee schedule, which requires a fee payment to assist the Districts in providing for school facilities. Payment of these fees would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional school facilities. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-D.5.1 and MM-D.5.2. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-D.5.1 and MM-D.5.2, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities and this potential impact would be considered less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.5.1 The project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with both involved school districts to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy. MM-D.5.2 The applicant shall be required to pay school impact mitigation fees or fund school site acquisition and/or facility construction with proceeds from the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Community Facilities District (CFD) 91-1 has been formed which covers the entire Romoland School District. The CFD Report specifies the amounts of school fees to be paid, provides methods of tax apportionment and establishes the maximum amount of bonds to be sold. The project applicants has agreed to comply with the terms of the Resolution of Formation of the CFD. (d) Parks. EIR No. 329 noted that development of the Menifee North Specific Plan would increase the County population by approximately 6,874 people (2.59 persons per dwelling unit), in turn increasing the demand for park and recreational facilities. In order to compensate for this increased demand on park and recreational facilities, EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan proposed the inclusion of four neighborhood parks totaling 30.3 acres, 112 acres of natural undisturbed open space, and a ten-foot wide regional hiking/riding trail. It was also noted that the County had adopted provisions within Ordinance No. 460 implementing the Quimby Act, including the Act’s standard of providing three acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons. EIR No. 329 found that the 2,654 residential units proposed by the Menifee North Specific Plan would generate an estimated population of 6,874 persons, based on the County's factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit. In order to meet Quimby Act standards of three acres of park for each 1,000 persons, EIR No. 329 found that 20.6 acres of neighborhood and community parks would be required. However, EIR No. 329 noted that the 30.3 acres of actual developed parkland proposed in the Specific Plan would satisfy Quimby Act standards as well as satisfying the Valley-wide Recreation and Park District, which also utilized the 3-acre per 1,000 population standard. Additionally, EIR No. 329 found there could be some impact on both the Lake Elsinore and Lake Perris State Recreational Areas, due to the close proximity of the SRA's to the Specific Plan area, and because with the rapid growth in the region, overcrowding had become a concern along with the requirement of more frequent maintenance. EIR No. 329 determined that these impacts could not be fully mitigated by park and recreation development within the Menifee North 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 83 City of Menifee Specific Plan as the recreation opportunities at SRA's differs from those commonly provided by neighborhood parks. As such, it was noted that the Specific Plan included an extensive recreational program, that it was anticipated that these facilities could adequately mitigate impacts associated with the increased recreational demand generated by the future residents of Menifee North, and that mitigation measures were incorporated requiring land dedication and/or the payment of in-lieu fees for park and recreation facilities. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in slightly less development than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The proposed Project would result in the potential for more households with children and adults who want to use parks and recreation facilities. Development of the Project, therefore, would have the potential to increase use of local park facilities. However, all new development, including the proposed Project, would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-D.6.1 and MM-D.6.2. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-D.6.1 and MM- D.6.2, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.6.1 The project applicant shall satisfy the Quimby Act and the Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District park requirements which include land dedication and/or the payment of in- lieu fees. MM-D.6.2 A Master Homeowner's Association, County Service Area, or the Valley-wide Recreation and Park District will maintain the Neighborhood and Community Parks, Open Space and the Drainage Channel. (e) Other public facilities. EIR No. 329 noted that Public Library facilities serving the Planning Area were provided by the City and County of Riverside and were located at 28081 Bradley Road. It was also noted that implementation of the Menifee North Specific Plan would increase the area’s population and the demand for library services. However, it was found that adequate library service could be guaranteed through the collection of taxes by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, payable at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that the payment of fees would reduce impacts to less than significant. The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Menifee Library, which is located at 28798 La Piedra Road in the City of Menifee. The proposed Project would result in an increase in residents that would generate additional demand for public facilities such as libraries. However, all new development, including the proposed Project, would be subject to pay development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost of facility expansion. Therefore, impacts related to expansion of library facilities would be less than significant with payment of development fees. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that Increased development in the Planning Area would incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services, including police and fire protection, school and park facilities, and other public facilities such as libraries. This increased demand may be viewed as a growth- inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated projects. However, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 84 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative impacts to public services. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to pay development fees to contribute to expansion and maintenance of public services facilities. Therefore, the cumulative public services impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion The Project would increase the need for fire and police services, but not to the extent that new facilities would be required. The Project applicant would be required to pay all applicable development impact fees to reduce impacts to schools and parks. With payment of fees potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee North Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 85 City of Menifee 4.18 – Recreation Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? 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? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No 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? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Increased Park Use. EIR No. 329 noted that development of the Menifee North Specific Plan would increase the County population by approximately 6,874 people (2.59 persons per dwelling unit), in turn increasing the demand for park and recreational facilities. In order to compensate for this increased demand on park and recreational facilities, EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan proposed the inclusion of four neighborhood parks totaling 30.3 acres, 112 acres of natural undisturbed open space, and a ten-foot wide regional hiking/riding trail. It was also noted that the County had adopted provisions within Ordinance No. 460 implementing the Quimby Act, including the Act’s standard of providing three acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons. EIR No. 329 found that the 2,654 residential units proposed by the Menifee North Specific Plan would generate an estimated population of 6,874 persons, based on the County's factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit. In order to meet Quimby Act standards of three acres of park for each 1,000 persons, EIR No. 329 found that 20.6 acres of neighborhood and community parks would be required. However, EIR No. 329 noted that the 30.3 acres of actual developed parkland proposed in the Specific Plan would satisfy Quimby Act standards as well as satisfying the Valley-wide Recreation and Park District, which also utilized the 3-acre per 1,000 population standard. Additionally, EIR No. 329 found there could be some impact on both the Lake Elsinore and Lake Perris State Recreational Areas, due to the close proximity of the SRA's to the Specific Plan area, and because with the rapid growth in the region, overcrowding had become a concern along with the requirement of more frequent maintenance. EIR No. 329 determined that these impacts could not be fully mitigated by park and recreation development within the Menifee North Specific Plan as the recreation opportunities at SRA's differs from those commonly provided by neighborhood parks. As such, it was noted that the Specific Plan included an extensive recreational program, that it was anticipated that these facilities could adequately mitigate impacts associated with 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 86 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 the increased recreational demand generated by the future residents of Menifee North, and that mitigation measures were incorporated requiring land dedication and/or the payment of in-lieu fees for park and recreation facilities. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in slightly less development than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The proposed Project would result in the potential for more households with children and adults who want to use parks and recreation facilities. Development of the Project, therefore, would have the potential to increase use of local park facilities. However, all new development, including the proposed Project, would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-D.6.1 and MM-D.6.2. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-D.6.1 and MM- D.6.2, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.6.1 The project applicant shall satisfy the Quimby Act and the Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District park requirements which include land dedication and/or the payment of in- lieu fees. MM-D.6.2 A Master Homeowner's Association, County Service Area, or the Valley-wide Recreation and Park District will maintain the Neighborhood and Community Parks, Open Space and the Drainage Channel. (b) Need for New Parks. EIR No. 329 noted that the Menifee North Specific Plan proposed the inclusion of four neighborhood parks totaling 30.3 acres, 112 acres of natural undisturbed open space, and a ten- foot wide regional hiking/riding trail. With these amenities included in the Specific Plan, EIR No. 329 determined that sufficient parks and recreation facilities would be provide and impacts would be less than significant. The Project includes a small park but does not require the construction or expansion of new or existing recreational facilities. The proposed Project would result in the potential for more households with children and adults who want to use parks and recreation facilities. As previously mentioned, all new development, including the proposed Project, would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance. Therefore, there would be no adverse physical effect on the environment caused by expansion or construction of outdoor recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that Increased development in the Planning Area would incrementally increase the demand for park facilities, and this increased demand may be viewed as a growth-inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated projects. However, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative impacts to parks and recreation facilities. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 87 City of Menifee The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to pay impact fees towards the expansion and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the cumulative parks and recreation impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion The proposed Project does include residential uses; however, any increase in park or recreational facility usage associated with construction of the Project would be considered minimal with payment of applicable parks related development impact fees. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee North Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. The potential recreation impacts from the proposed Project are considered to be less than significant. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 88 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.19 – Transportation Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Not Analyzed No No No c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Not Analyzed No No No A VMT Analysis was prepared for the proposed Project by Translutions, Inc. (See Appendix G). The information in this section was taken from the VMT Analysis. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Circulation Plan Consistency. EIR No. 329 noted that the proposed Project would comply with the Land Use Standards of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General plan relative to circulation through the design of the Project circulation system. EIR No. 329 also noted that the Circulation Plan Development Standards of the Specific Plan would insure proper roadway design through dedication and construction of public roads. In order to ensure proper implementation of the Circulation Plan Development Standards of the Specific Plan, EIR No. 329 incorporated mitigation pertaining to signalization, alternative transportation modes, design standards, and development impact fees. With incorporation of mitigation, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to the circulation system would be less than significant. The proposed Project includes improvements to Palomar Road in order to provide access to TTM 38312.The Project also includes extension of Malone Avenue south of Watson Road to Varela Lane and the extension of Calle de Caballos in order to provide access to TTM 38133. However, development of the proposed Project would not require closure of any roadways and would not have a significant 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 89 City of Menifee impact on the local transit system, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. Because the Project would result in a reduction of one unit less than the SP-260 allows, the Project is estimated to generate slightly less traffic and slightly less impacts when compared to what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-D.1.1 through MM-D.1.6 and MM- D.1.8. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-D.1.1 through MM-D.1.6 and MM-D.1.8, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impact on the circulation system. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.1.1 Signalization. For cumulative traffic conditions with the project, traffic signals are anticipated to be warranted at the following study area intersections (see Figure V-18, Circulation Recommendations): Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road; Sherman Road at Watson Road; Sherman Road at Ethanac Road; Sherman Road at McLaughlin Road; Antelope Road at Mapes Road; Antelope Road at Watson Road; Antelope Road at Street "A"; Antelope Road at State Route 74; Palomar Road at Street "A"; Palomar Road at State Route 74; Menifee Road at Mapes Road; Menifee Road at Watson Road; Menifee Road at Street "A"; Menifee Road at State Route 74; Malaga Road at State Route 74; Briggs Road at Watson Road; Briggs Road at Street "A"; Briggs Road at State Route 74; Briggs Road at Street "B"; Briggs Road at Palomar Road; Sultanas Road at State Route 74; Leon Road at State Route 74; and Juniper Flats Road at State Route 74. The project applicant will either be directly responsible for provision of the above signals or shall participate on a fair-share basis for the funding of these facilities. The extent of their responsibility shall be based upon the extent of utilization of these intersections by project- related traffic. MM-D.1.2 Alternative Transportation Modes. The Menifee North Specific Plan shall provide a system of bicycle trails within open space corridors, flood control and utility easements, where possible. Sidewalks or pathways in residential and commercial areas that allow a safe environment for pedestrians shall also be provided. MM-D.1.3 Although the study area is currently not served by a transit service, bus turnout and potential future bus stop locations have been recommended by the Traffic Engineer (see Figure V-19, Bus Turnout and Stop Locations). As recommended, bus stops are spaced to maximize passenger accessibility, convenience and safety, while minimizing undue delay or traffic interruptions. Bus stops are generally spaced 800 feet to 1,200 feet apart on roadways surrounding the project (see Appendix F of EIR No. 329 for additional criteria that was the basis for these recommendations). Bus turnouts shall be constructed at these recommended locations that are located within the project boundaries. MM-D.1.4 To encourage ridesharing/transit ridership and reduce commute trip impacts on access routes to the I-215 Freeway, a portion of the commercial parking area in Planning Area 8, on-site shall be designated for Park-N-Ride and carpool/vanpool parking use on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. MM-D.1.5 Project roadways shall be aligned and sized as illustrated in Figure V-18, Circulation Recommendations. MM-D.1.6 On-site access improvements shall adhere to the following design guidelines: 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 90 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 • traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project; • sight distance at each intersection should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/County of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans; • the traffic signals required within the study area at buildout should specifically include an interconnect of the signals to function in a coordinated system. MM-D.1.8 The project applicant shall participate in any fee programs established within the study area to provide for the improvement of key roadway links and interchange facilities. The project shall contribute to the installation of traffic signals when warranted through the payment of traffic signal mitigation fees. If a trip ceiling and trip bank is established, then as a development phase is approved, the total number of trips it generates shall be subtracted from the trip ceiling or trip bank, leaving a total of remaining trips that the Specific Plan can generate. For tract maps, final map recordation will be when the projects' generated trips will be deducted from the trip bank. The County Transportation Department will maintain the official "trip bank" for the Specific Plan and will provide an annual update on project trip status. (b) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about air quality impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to VMT was readily available to the public. Specifically, while no impact determination was made relative to VMT, the air quality analysis included a quantification of VMT for the purpose of assessing potential impacts from emissions of criteria pollutants. The proposed Project would result in a reduction in the number of residential units when compared to what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. The City of Menifee has adopted guidelines to help ensure that land use development projects comply with the latest requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The guidelines provide the City with standardized criteria and established thresholds of significance to be used for analyzing transportation impacts for CEQA. Based on the City of Menifee Guidelines, a project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population, or 2. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population The proposed Project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in either of the following conditions to be satisfied: 1. The baseline link-level Citywide boundary VMT per service population to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition, or 2. The cumulative link-level Citywide boundary VMT per service population to increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition. Since the proposed Project is an amendment to an approved Specific Plan, this analysis compares the VMT from the approved Project with the proposed Project and evaluates if the proposed Project would result in higher VMT impacts than the approved Project. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 91 City of Menifee Base Year Project Generated VMT. Based on documentation from the City, the base model year VMT for the City of Menifee is 33.6 VMT/SP. As shown in Table 4, the VMT generated for the approved Specific Plan is 53.2 VMT/SP while that of the proposed Specific Plan is 53.0 VMT/SP. Both the approved and proposed plans have a higher VMT/SP than the City threshold of 33.6 VMT/SP. However, the proposed Specific Plan results in a slight decrease in VMT/SP when compared to the approved Specific Plan. Base Year Project Effect on VMT. As shown in Table 5, the Citywide segment level VMT under “no project” conditions is 16.7 VMT/SP. The Citywide segment VMT under the approved Specific Plan is 15.9 VMT/SP, and that of the proposed Specific Plan is also 15.9 VMT/SP. As such, both the approved and proposed plans result in a lower VMT/SP than the threshold of 16.7 VMT/SP. Future Year Project Generated VMT. The future year VMT threshold for the City of Menifee is based on the base year threshold of 33.6 VMT/SP. As shown in Table 4, the VMT generated for the approved Specific Plan is 52.3 VMT/SP while that of the proposed Specific Plan is 52.1 VMT/SP. Both the approved and proposed plans have a higher VMT/SP than the City threshold of 33.6 VMT/SP. However, the proposed Specific Plan results in a slight decrease in VMT/SP compared to the approved Specific Plan. This is potentially due to the increased density in the proposed Specific Plan and the slight reduction in development potential. Future Year Project Effect on VMT. The Citywide segment level VMT under “no project” conditions is 15.3 VMT/SP. The Citywide segment VMT under the approved Specific Plan is 14.8 VMT/SP, and that of the proposed Specific Plan is also 14.8 VMT/SP. Therefore, both the approved and proposed plans result in a lower VMT/SP than the threshold of 15.3 VMT/SP. Table 4 Project Generated VMT Source: Translutions, 2022. Table 5 Project Effect on VMT Source: Translutions, 2022. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 92 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Conclusion Based on the above analysis, the Project-generated VMT for the proposed Specific Plan under both the base year and horizon year conditions are lower than the approved Specific Plan. Therefore, no new or more severe VMT impacts than those of what was analyzed in EIR No. 329 would result from the proposed Project. In addition, the Project effect on VMT shows no measurable difference between the approved Specific plan and the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan are no greater than those of the approved Specific Plan, and would remain less than significant. (c) Circulation Design Hazards. EIR No. 329 noted that through-traffic movements would avoid streets through residential neighborhoods, curves and roads would permit safe movement of vehicular traffic at the road's design speed, and intersections would be designed to assure the safe passage of through- traffic and the negotiation of movements. It was also noted that final design and offers of dedication would occur at the land division stage. For these reasons, EIR No. 329 determined that the circulation system under the approved Specific Plan would provide for safe access to all portions of the Planning Area and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in slightly less development potential than what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. As previously stated, the proposed Project includes improvements to Palomar Road in order to provide access to TTM 38312. The Project also includes extension of Malone Avenue south of Watson Road to Varela Lane and the extension of Calle de Caballos in order to provide access to TTM 38133. However, development of the proposed Project would not require closure or reconfiguration of any roadways. The proposed Project would utilize existing public streets and controlled intersections and has been designed to avoid any substantial hazards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to design hazards. (d) Emergency Access. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to emergency access. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about land use policy impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to physical division of an established community was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan and would result in less overall development potential than what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. The proposed Project has been designed to provide adequate emergency access at all Project access points and within internal roadways. The proposed Project plans would be reviewed prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all design requirements. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space would be provided around the proposed residential buildings for emergency personnel and equipment to access. Project development would be required to comply with the California Fire Code in terms of emergency access. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that ultimate development of the Planning Area would generate an increase in local and regional traffic volumes, and that traffic generated by the developments would impact existing roadways, necessitating the expansion and improvement of existing and construction of new regional roadway networks in order to accommodate additional traffic flows. It was further noted that within developments it would be necessary to install circulation systems with sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated, in coordination with the regional roadway system. EIR No. 329 found that the cumulative impact of the four proposed "Menifee" Specific Plans was estimated at 224,720 trips 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 93 City of Menifee per day. Of this number, EIR No. 329 found that the Menifee North Specific Plan would generate 138,250 trips per day, or 61.5% of the total. It was further found that in the area surrounding the Specific Plan, a significant need existed to forecast traffic volumes for buildout of the area to demonstrate the ultimate capacity requirements of the circulation system. In order to better manage the impacts to the circulation system, EIR No. 329 noted that mitigation measures and improvement requirements for actual development would be determined in subsequent studies at the tentative tract or plot plan level. Finally, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative projects constructed within the Specific Plan area and conforming to County General Plan and zoning designations would have impacts anticipated by the General Plan EIR, and would not create adverse cumulative impacts to the circulation system. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative transportation impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would result in less development potential than what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Therefore, the cumulative transportation impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion EIR No. 329 determined that transportation-related impacts were less than significant. A VMT analysis of the currently proposed Project shows that the Project would have less than significant impacts based on its current design because the proposed Project would result in slightly less development capacity than was analyzed in EIR No. 329. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee Village Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 94 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.20 – Tribal Cultural Resources Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a Cultural Native American tribe, and that is: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or No Not Analyzed No No No b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public 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. No Not Analyzed No No No A Cultural Resources Study was prepared for each of the Project parcels by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (See Appendix D). The information in this section was taken from the Cultural Resources Studies. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a-b) Listed or Eligible Resources/Significant Resources. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014 and added the above-listed thresholds to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, at the time EIR No. 329 was certified in 1994, AB 52 was not in place and EIR No. 329 did not evaluate this threshold. Notwithstanding, EIR No. 329 included an extensive analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources. EIR No. 329 noted that a review of the archaeological site records on file at the Eastern California Information Center (ECIC) showed three archaeological sites previously identified and one 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 95 City of Menifee new site located during field investigations for a total of four archaeological sites. EIR No. 329 noted that other sites surround the area, but are too distant to be impacted by the Specific Plan. As such, EIR No. 329 determined that because no subsurface artifacts were recorded on or near these identified archaeological sites, no mitigation was recommended. However, EIR No. 329 noted that given the element of uncertainty of any archaeological survey due to the "underground" dimension, it would be required that should archaeological materials be found during grading activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained for their evaluation. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. The Cultural Resources Studies note that aerial imagery shows the property has been largely disturbed by agricultural use since the 1960s. Since at least 2005, the properties have been used for the dumping of soils and construction debris, likely associated with nearby residential developments. The pedestrian survey indicated that the entirety of the Project parcels have been disturbed by historic agricultural use, vegetation clearing, disking, and the development of the surrounding area. Modern trash and building material consisting of gravel, asphalt, and concrete fragments were noted throughout the property. The survey did not result in the identification of any cultural resources, and no historic or prehistoric resources were observed during the survey. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an impact on the significance of any historical resources. According to the Cultural Resources Studies for the proposed Project, the Phase I archaeological assessments for the Project parcels were negative for the presence of cultural resources. However, it is noted that visibility of the Project parcels was extremely poor due to dense non-native grasses and weeds and, therefore, it was not clear if any cultural resources have ever existed on the Project parcels. The studies note that the current status of the Project parcels appears to have affected the potential to discover any surface scatters of artifacts. In addition, given that the prior agricultural use within the Project might have masked archaeological deposits, and based upon the limited visibility during the survey, the Cultural Resources Studies determined that there is a potential that buried archaeological deposits are present within the Project parcels. Therefore, standard conditions of approval have been incorporated requiring implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during grading of the Project parcels. Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is required to ensure that if buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they would be handled in a timely and proper manner. AB 52 was signed into law on September 25, 2014, and requires a Lead Agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a project site, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The legislature declared that AB 52 “shall apply only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015”. Since the proposed Project does not require a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration, AB 52 is not applicable to the proposed Project. Although AB 52 is not applicable to the proposed Project, SB 18 requires public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s SB 18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption or amendment 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 96 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 to a general or specific plan. The Lead Agency is required to notify tribes within 14 days of deeming a development application complete subject to CEQA to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. As such, the City sent Tribal consultation letters to local tribes for the proposed Project (see Appendix I). However, no tribes responded and requested formal consultation or mitigation. With incorporation of standard conditions of approval, impacts related to resources 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 a resource determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts While EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources, EIR No. 329 did analyze impacts to cultural resources and noted that development of the area may disturb existing unknown archaeological or paleontological resources because of grading and excavation activities unless these areas are preserved as natural open space. However, EIR No. 329 noted that if a certified archaeologist or paleontologist is present, where necessary, during the grading operations, these impacts may be largely mitigated. EIR No. 329 also noted that this impact may be considered positive due to the discovery of resources which would have not otherwise been evaluated or uncovered because it is possible that grading and excavation in the area could uncover valuable resources which would contribute to the paleo-environmental and archaeological record of the southwestern Riverside County area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that the Specific Plan would not have adverse cumulative cultural resources impacts. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. While there are no known historical or tribal cultural resources on the Project parcels, mitigation has been incorporated in the unlikely event that potential tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities. The proposed Project would be required to incorporate mitigation requiring archaeological and Native American monitoring during all-ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the cumulative tribal cultural resources impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion EIR No. 329 determined that potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee Village Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, with incorporation of standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program conducted by an archaeologist and Native American representative during grading of the Project parcels. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 97 City of Menifee 4.21 – Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 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? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 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? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Yes Less than Significant Impact No No No 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 98 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 A Hydraulic Analysis Report was prepared for each of the proposed Project parcels by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. (See Appendix H). The information in this section was taken from the Hydraulic Analysis Reports. Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) New or Expanded Utility Infrastructure. Water and Wastewater EIR No. 329 noted that several water lines exist in the Planning Area, and development of the Specific Plan would require the existing water system to be expanded by placing new water mains on all proposed streets as well as extending new mains on existing streets to complete a looped watermain system. It was also noted that EMWD indicated that the Menifee North Specific Plan would be required to participate in the cost of the construction of a 5 million gallon water storage tank. A preliminary Plan of Services, dated November 19, 1992, was prepared by Eastern Municipal Water District. This Plan of Services provides updated estimates of project related water demands by pressure zone. It also provides preliminary design concepts for the provision of domestic and reclaimed water service to the Menifee North and Menifee Ranch Specific Plans. EIR No. 329 also anticipated that EMWD would require the Specific Plan to construct a system of "dry" reclaimed water lines so the Specific Plan can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation upon completion of the necessary facility construction bringing reclaimed water near the area. EIR No. 329 noted that the District was constructing reclaimed water system facilities which include Winchester area holding ponds located at the intersection of Simpson and Leon Roads (approximately one-half to one mile southeast of the subject project), a transmission pipeline aligned generally along Winchester and Leon Roads extending from the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF) (located in the City of Temecula) to the Winchester area holding ponds, and pumping facilities located along the transmission pipeline. EIR No. 329 found that the design and construction of off -site and on-site reclaimed water system improvements would be necessary to accomplish the delivery of reclaimed water to the Planning Area. EIR No. 329 noted that developers must submit information that describes estimates of reclaimed water demand, and landscape/irrigation conceptual plans to the District for evaluation. At the time of the District's evaluation, a determination would be made regarding District requirements for reclaimed water use and system improvements by the developer. EIR No. 329 found that the District's facilities Master Plan indicated that off-site pipelines would be aligned along Simpson Road west of Leon Road, and logically along Briggs Road and/or Menifee Road north of Simpson Road to the Planning Area. Also, a pipeline may be aligned along the AT&SF railroad extending from the PVRWRF, through the Planning Area, to Menifee Road. EIR No. 329 noted that EMWD would also provide sewer service to the Specific Plan area, and that there were existing sewer lines in portions of the far east and far west sections of the Planning Area. It was also noted that the western portion of the Planning Area north of Highway 74 and west of San Jacinto Road lies within "Assessment District No. 5", that the Planning Area east of Briggs Road and north of McLaughlin Road lies within the "Homeland-Green Acres Districts", and that both Districts had existing sewers or sewers being installed. It was further noted that the center portion of the Planning Area would be within the proposed "Menifee Ranch Sewer District", and that the entire Planning Area lies within the service area of the Perris Valley Reclamation Facility (Romoland Plant) for sewage treatment. However, EIR No. 329 found that this facility was at maximum capacity, and according to EMWD Ordinance No. 68, adopted by the District on October 4, 1989, the District could require a project to provide for reclaimed water use where applicable such as, golf courses, parks and common landscape areas. As such, EIR No. 329 anticipated that the District would require that provisions be made for at least a system of "dry" reclaimed water lines to be installed for future use when the District completes the necessary facility construction to bring reclaimed water near the Planning Area. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 99 City of Menifee EIR No. 329 noted that the estimated sewage generation from the Menifee North Specific Plan assumed a generation rate of 100 gallons per person per day and 3,000 gallons per acre for Commercial, Business Park, Schools and Industrial uses. EIR No. 329 also noted that the Specific Plan area would be serviced through the expansion of existing sewer lines located in both the far east and west portions of the Planning Area, and that developers would be required to participate in the proposed ''Menifee Ranch Sewer District," and the existing assessment District No. 5 as well as the Homeland- Green Acres District, all of which would control the expansion of sewer facilities in the Planning Area. As the southern portions of the Planning Area generally are lower in elevation than the proposed system, EIR No. 329 determined that a pumping station and forcemain would need to be installed near Briggs and Matthews Roads to lift the sewage from this area up to a gravity sewer system, which was proposed on an extension of Rouse Road. It was further determined that the Perris Valley Reclamation Facility (Romoland Plant) for sewage treatment was at maximum capacity and, therefore, insufficient capacity existed for the Menifee North Specific Plan. In order to provide for future treatment plant capacity EIR No. 329 noted that project developers were working with the Eastern Municipal Water District and had provided an excess of 3 million dollars to fund the design and ultimately the construction of a new Romoland Treatment Plant. It was further noted that the new plant would increase the existing plant capacity by 18 MGD. EIR No. 329 determined that the payment of fees to EMWD would prevent any negative financial impacts to the District. It was noted that EMWD would collect a maximum of $3,500 per unit from developers in the area for construction of the Romoland Treatment Plant Expansion, all lines would be designed per EMWD requirements, and the infrastructural system would be installed to the requirements of the County's Engineering Department. In addition, it was noted that the following State laws require water efficient plumbing fixtures in structures to minimize water use in the Planning Area: • Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. • Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(0 (Appliance Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, etc. • Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 160l(b) (Appliance Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. • Title 24, California Adminisl:1-ative Code Section 2-5307(b) (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. • Title 24, California .Administrative Code Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. • Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. • Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water. Additionally, EIR No. 329 found that water and sewer demands would be further mitigated through implementation of Water and Sewer Plan Development Standards of the Specific Plan. For these reasons, EIR No. 329 determined that water and wastewater related impacts would be less than significant. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 100 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 The proposed Project would result in a net reduction in the number of dwelling units when compared to what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new or expanded water or wastewater infrastructure and would have a less than significant impact. Stormwater Drainage EIR No. 329 noted that drainage patterns and the quality, velocity and composition of runoff would be altered by large scale grading of areas planned for construction, as well as the creation of impervious surfaces (such as roadways, driveways, parking lots, etc.). It was also noted that runoff would increase flows in the Salt Creek and ultimately the San Jacinto River, potentially impacting downstream capacity. EIR No. 329 found that the Planning Area lies within the boundaries of the Homeland and Romoland Area Drainage Plans, and would be subject to a per acre assessment fee established by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, thereby contributing to regional drainage mitigation programs in the area. EIR No. 329 noted that development of the Specific Plan would include construction of accompanying drainage improvements, that all improvements would be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD), and that the Specific Plan incorporates Master Drainage Plan (MDP) improvements designed to reduce the impacts of increased surface runoff on the stormwater drainage system. EIR No. 329 anticipated that many of those facilities would be constructed as part of the conditions of approval and at the discretion of the RCFCD. It was further noted that credit against drainage fees would be given to developers for all Area Drainage Plan (ADP) facilities constructed to serve the Planning Area. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the proposed Project results in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. Development of the proposed Project would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces; therefore, increased discharges to the City’s existing stormwater drainage system would likely occur. However, development of the proposed Project would include construction of accompanying stormwater drainage improvements. Stormwater would be collected on-site in storm drains, retained on site if necessary, and conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system as capacity allows. The drainage improvements would be constructed in accordance with the MDP and the RCFCD’s requirements. Permits to connect to the existing stormwater drainage system would be obtained prior to construction of the proposed Project. All drainage plans are subject to City review and approval. Therefore, the increase in discharges would not impact local storm drain capacity. Impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant. Electricity and Natural Gas Service EIR No. 329 noted that implementation of the Menifee North Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for natural gas and electricity, and that the primary use of natural gas by the Menifee North Specific Plan would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning. Based upon an average monthly consumption of 6,665 cubic feet of natural gas per month per single-family dwelling unit, EIR No. 329 estimated that the 2,654 residential units would require approximately 17,688,910 cubic feet of natural gas per month plus 2.9 cubic feet per square foot per month for the 2,535,410 square feet of commercial use, 2.0 cubic feet per square foot per month for the 3,590,433 square feet of the combined commercial/business park and business park use, and 3,011,085 square feet of industrial space (these square footage totals are based upon an assumed floor to area ratio of 35% coverage). This lot coverage ratio was selected in order to provide an assessment of maximum probable ("worst-case") impacts, for a total of 38,244,635 cubic feet per month. Based upon an average annual per dwelling unit consumption of 6,081 kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, and 8.8 kwh per square foot per year for commercial, business, and industrial space use, it was estimated that total electrical usage for the Specific Plan would be approximately 96,543,940 kwh per year. EIR No. 329 noted that the Southern California Gas Company and the Southern California 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 101 City of Menifee Edison Company would provide their respective services to Menifee North in accordance with policies and rules for extension of service on file with the California Public Utilities Commission and, provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply and the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds the Southern California Edison Company's estimates, it was anticipated that electrical requirements would be met over the life of the Specific Plan. In addition, mitigation measures were incorporated requiring cooperation with utility providers and energy-efficient design standards. With incorporation of mitigation measures, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts related to natural gas and electricity infrastructure would be less than significant. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. The Project would include accompanying electricity and natural gas connections. Project developers would be required to construct all natural gas and electricity improvements in accordance with existing standards and guidelines. The Project would not result in or require the installation of new or expanded natural gas or electricity facilities. As such, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-D.7.1 through MM-D.7.3. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-D.7.1 through MM-D.7.3, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.7.1 Development plans will be provided to Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company and General Telephone Company as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction of improvements necessary to provide services to the project site. MM-D.7.2 The applicant will comply with guidelines provided by the Southern California Gas Company in regard to easement restriction, construction guidelines, protection of pipeline easement and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing Gas Company easements. MM-D.7.3 Building energy conservation will be largely achieved by compliance with Title 24 of the Energy Conservation Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2- 5307(b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604(f) and 1601(b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. Telecommunications EIR No. 329 noted that the General Telephone Company had buried cables in Highway 74, Briggs Road and Menifee Road, and that telephone service to the Planning Area is fed from Highway 74 by the Perris Exchange. EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to telephone and cable television services would be less than significant with development of the Menifee Village Specific Plan. The proposed Project does not require the provision of telephone or cable television services. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an impact on telecommunications facilities. Conclusion Potentially significant impacts could occur if development of the Project results in or requires relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 102 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. Because EIR No. 329 determined that existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities would have the capacity to serve the Specific Plan at buildout, and because the proposed Project would result in less development capacity than was analyzed in EIR No. 329, the proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities. In addition, because existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities serve the Specific Plan area, expansion or construction of these facilities would not be required. Impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. (b) Sufficient Water Supplies. As discussed in 4.21.a above, EIR No. 329 found that sufficient water supplies would be available for the Specific Plan with construction of off-site and on-site reclaimed water system improvements. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts would be less than significant. Potentially significant impacts could occur if development of the Project resulted in insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. Because EIR No. 329 determined that existing and future water supplies would have the capacity to serve the Specific Plan at buildout, and because the proposed Project would result in slightly less development capacity than was analyzed in EIR No. 329, there would be sufficient water supplies to support the proposed Project. Impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. (c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity. As discussed in 4.21.a above, EIR No. 329 found that payment of fees to EMWD towards expansion of the District’s wastewater treatment plants would prevent any negative financial impacts to the District. It was also noted that EMWD would collect a maximum of $3,500 per unit from developers in the area for construction of the Romoland Treatment Plant Expansion, all lines would be designed per EMWD requirements, and the infrastructural system would be installed to the requirements of the County's Engineering Department. Additionally, EIR No. 329 found that sewer demands would be further mitigated through implementation of Water and Sewer Plan Development Standards of the Specific Plan. For these reasons, EIR No. 329 determined that wastewater related impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would result in a net reduction in the number of dwelling units when compared to what was analyzed in EIR No. 329. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new or expanded wastewater infrastructure and would have a less than significant impact. (d) Solid Waste Infrastructure. EIR No. 329 noted that solid waste collection service to the Specific Plan area would be provided by one of the following agencies serving the area: Inland Disposal, Automated Disposal, Moreno Valley Disposal and Sunny Edge Disposal. EIR No. 329 also noted that development of the Specific Plan would increase the amount of solid waste generated in the region, in turn placing increased demand upon services of waste haulers in the area. Utilizing the Solid Waste Management Districts generation rate of 9.7 pounds per capita with their dwelling unit occupancy factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit, EIR No. 329 determined that the Specific Plan could generate a population of 6,874 persons, and this additional population could generate approximately 66,678 pounds or 83.8 tons of refuse daily (including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial wastes). It was further noted that solid waste generated during the construction phases would add additional refuse. EIR No. 329 noted that the County Waste Management District believes that efforts made toward waste reduction and recycling would reduce the quantity of waste disposal and lower future annual percentage increases in daily per capita waste generation. The County Waste Management District recommended 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 103 City of Menifee that the Menifee North Specific Plan include methods to reduce the quantity of waste being landfilled, including proper site design for the storage of recyclables separated for pick-up. As such, EIR No. 329 found that implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the Specific Plan could assist Riverside County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction, recycling and composting. In order to aid Riverside County achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, EIR No. 329 anticipated that the Specific Plan developers would work with future contract refuse haulers to implement recycling and waste reduction programs for residential, commercial, and industrial wastes. Further, it was anticipated that the Specific Plan developers would work with their permitted refuse haulers to proceed with curbside collection of recyclable products on a common schedule set forth in the County Resolution No. 90-402. EIR noted that the County Solid Waste Management Plan includes programs to reduce the quantities of waste being sent to landfills, and that these programs include source reduction, separation of recoverables, composting and high technology resource recovery. It was further noted that the County encouraged the general public, schools and businesses to learn and utilize information regarding recycling and the use of recycled materials, and encouraged large projects and other municipalities to implement methods for inclusion of separate and enlarged trash enclosures to store recycled materials (glass, newspaper, aluminum, etc.) particularly within multi-family and commercial projects. As such, EIR No. 329 determined that the implementation of these programs would reduce the increase in solid waste generation associated with new development, which in turn would extend the life of affected disposal sites. Finally, in order to ensure the implementation of these programs, EIR No. 329 incorporated mitigation measures requiring cooperation between developers and the County Waste Management District, requiring notification of refuse haulers of the requirements of County Resolution No. 90-402, and requiring consideration of trash compactor installation and collection points for recycling solid waste. With adherence to mitigation measures and existing regulations, EIR No. 329 determined that impacts to solid waste infrastructure would be less than significant. Potentially significant impacts could occur if development of the Project generated 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. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. Compliance with County waste reduction programs and policies would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills from the Project. Individual development projects within the County are required to comply with applicable state and local regulations, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste by at least 50 percent. The proposed Project would result in the development of 314 dwelling units and would increase the volume of solid waste generated in the County by approximately 1.523 tons per year. According to CalRecycle, solid waste facilities serving Riverside County are projected to have a combined annual disposal limit of 3,633,512 tons and an annual remaining lifetime capacity surplus of 154,709,576 tons in the year 2025 (CalRecycle, 2022). As such, combined remaining capacities at area landfills would be adequate to accommodate the proposed Project. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the requirements of mitigation measures MM-D.8.1 and MM-D.8.2. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-D.8.1 and MM-D.8.2, impacts related to sufficient landfill capacity are anticipated to be less than significant. EIR No. 329 Mitigation Measures MM-D.8.1 The project applicant shall work with the County Waste Management District and participate in efforts to achieve the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act. Additionally, the proposed permitted refuse hauler for the project site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 104 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 reduction (i.e., curbside recycling, buy back centers, etc.) in accordance with County Resolution No. 90-402. MM-D.8.2 The developer will consider the feasibility of installing trash compactors as a standard feature in new homes, as well as establishing collection points for recycling of solid waste. In addition, industrial and commercial businesses will be encouraged to utilize trash compactors. (e) Solid Waste Regulations. EIR No. 329 determined that the Specific Plan would be in compliance with the County Solid Waste Management Plan and the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 with incorporation of mitigation measures requiring cooperation between developers and the County Waste Management District, requiring notification of refuse haulers of the requirements of County Resolution No. 90-402, and requiring consideration of trash compactor installation and collection points for recycling solid waste. With adherence to mitigation measures and existing regulations, EIR No. 329 determined there would be a less than significant impact relative to solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts related compliance with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations than those previously analyzed in EIR No. 329. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 noted that increased development in the Planning Area would incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services, including water and sewer service; electricity and natural gas services; telephone and cable television services; and solid waste disposal service. EIR No. 329 noted that this increased demand may be viewed as a growth-inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated projects. In terms of water and sewer, EIR No. 329 found that increased expansion in the Specific Plan area would increase the demand from the Eastern Municipal Water District and any other affected Districts for sewer and water service. It was also found that additional lines and facilities would be required and improvement districts formed to provide these services effectively to all developments in the area. It was further noted that the Eastern Municipal Water District is in the process of Master Planning the expansion of the Perris Valley Water Reclamation Facility, and it was anticipated that EMWD would require development projects to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system is complete, the projects can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for certain types of irrigation. EIR No. 329 found that the addition of 32,500 dwelling units and 850 acres of commercial and business/industrial park use to the area would also create a need for additional electricity and natural gas service. With an estimated cumulative total of 32,500 dwelling units in the Specific Plan area, EIR No. 329 found that the ultimate demand for electricity for the proposed residential uses alone may reach 197,632,500 kwh/year. As such, it was determined that additional electricity would be required to serve the commercial and business park uses. In addition, EIR No. 329 found that approximately 216,612,500 cubic feet per month of natural gas could be consumed as a result of the Specific Plan. As a result, it was determined that additional natural gas would be required to serve the commercial and business park uses. Finally, EIR No. 329 found that development of the uses proposed by the Specific Plan could result in the generation of 256 tons of solid waste per day (assuming 5.7 lbs. per person per day), and it was determined that this would incrementally contribute to the decreased lifespan of the Lamb Canyon and other landfill sites in the County. However, with adherence to the requirements of the County Waste Management Plan and implementation of mitigation measures, EIR No. 329 determined that the Specific Plan would 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 105 City of Menifee achieve the goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act. Therefore, EIR No. 329 determined that cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the County Waste Management Plan as well as all applicable federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the cumulative solid waste impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion EIR No. 329 concluded that utility and service demands of the entire Menifee Village Specific Plan would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Since the proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan, and because the proposed Project would result in slightly less development capacity than was analyzed in EIR No. 329, the proposed Project would also have less than significant impacts related to utilities and services. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 106 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4.22 – Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Not Analyzed No No No 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 wildfire? No Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No 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 Not Analyzed No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Impairment of Emergency Plans. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 107 City of Menifee the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to impairment of emergency plans was readily available to the public. According to the latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), the Specific Plan area is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The proposed residential subdivisions would be designed to meet state and local requirements for sufficient spacing between structures and clearance of brush. In addition, sufficient space would have to be provided around the proposed residential structures for emergency personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation. There would be multiple points of ingress and egress for the proposed residential subdivisions. The Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee North Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts related to impairment of emergency plans would be less than significant and no subsequent environmental analysis and no mitigation are required. (b) Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to exposure of project occupants to pollution concentrations from wildfire. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to pollutant concentrations from wildfire was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. The Project does not include development within any hillside areas and is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within an LRA. The Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Therefore, impacts related to pollutant concentrations from wildfire would be less than significant and no subsequent environmental analysis and no mitigation are required. (c) Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North Specific Plan’s potential effects related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure was readily available to the public. The proposed Project is within the scope of the Menifee North Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area has been largely built out and the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the proposed Project. Project roadways would connect to the existing roadway system in the area and utility connections would be made for sewer and electric services. Development would not occur in hillside areas and the Specific Plan area is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within an LRA. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would be less than significant and no subsequent environmental analysis and no mitigation are required. (d) Post-Fire Slope Instability or Drainage Changes. EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. However, although EIR No. 329 did not address this subject, EIR No. 329 contained enough information about hazards impacts associated with the Menifee North Specific Plan that with the exercise of reasonable diligence, information about the Menifee North 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 108 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Specific Plan’s potential effects related to post-fire slope stability and drainage changes was readily available to the public. The Project area is relatively flat and no development is proposed in the hillside areas in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area that are designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in an LRA. By avoiding development in these areas, 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. Development of the proposed Project would comply with the California Uniform Building Code for grading and drainage. The Project area is not subject to flooding or liquefaction. Therefore, impacts related to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes would be less than significant and no subsequent environmental analysis and no mitigation are required. Cumulative Impacts EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to wildfire. The proposed Project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area and is designated in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code for urban development. Cumulative impacts related to development of the Project parcels with residential uses in conjunction with other development projects in the area were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Menifee 2013 General Plan and were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, the cumulative wildfire impact from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Conclusion EIR No. 329 did not analyze impacts related to wildfire. The proposed Project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the Menifee North Specific Plan and what was evaluated in EIR No. 329 and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required. 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 109 City of Menifee 4.23 – Mandatory Findings of Significance Effect Examined in EIR No. 329? Conclusion in EIR No. 329? Proposed Changes Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? New Information Showing New or More Severe Impacts? a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No No No Proposed Project In Relation to EIR No. 329 (a) Significant Biological or Cultural Impacts. There are no endangered or threatened species on or supported by the Project parcels. As stated in Section 4.4, development of the proposed Project would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or restrict the movement/distribution of a rare or endangered species. Development of the proposed Project would result in the conversion of approximately 60 acres of vacant, disturbed land to residential uses. The proposed Project would not affect any threatened or endangered species or habitat. Potential impacts to Stephen’s Kangaroo rat would be less than significant with adherence to mitigation from EIR No. 329, which requires burrowing owl and nesting surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities. Potential impacts to onsite biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to the identified mitigation measures. There are no known unique ethnic or cultural values associated with the site, nor are there any Native American, religious, or sacred uses associated with the Project site. There are also no structures present that would be eligible for listing in either the National Register of Historic 4 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 110 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, so they are not considered historical resources under CEQA, and thus there would be no significant impacts resulting from the development of the Project on these resources. Standard conditions of approval and MM-C.15.1 have been identified to mitigate potential impacts associated with the discovery of unanticipated subsurface historical, archaeological, tribal cultural, and/or paleontological resources (respectively) during excavation operations. Adherence to regulatory requirements and the recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts associated with cultural, historic, or paleontological resources to a less than significant level. (b) Cumulative Impacts. The Menifee North Specific Plan is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for housing, as is occurring in most of Riverside County. Increased development in the Specific Plan area would incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services, including water and sewer service; electricity and natural gas services; telephone and cable television services; police and fire protection; school and park facilities; public transportation; hospital and ambulance service; and solid waste disposal service. This increased demand may be viewed as a growth-inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated projects. However, some of these needs would be met through the development of the Menifee North Specific Plan itself which includes residential, commercial, business park, recreational and educational land uses. Other approved and proposed Specific Plan projects in the area would also satisfy many of the needs of residents of Menifee North. Project phasing is also expected to help regulate growth. As these and many other development proposals in the area have already been formulated, they cannot be considered a result of "growth - inducing" impacts from the Menifee North Specific Plan. Conversely, to the southwest, north and east of the site are areas presently developed at "rural densities" or in agricultural and open space uses. It is these areas that are most susceptible to growth inducing impacts. Development of the Project parcels would include provision or extension of roadways, critical utility and energy systems which could eliminate potential constraints and increase financial incentives for development and serve as a growth- inducement. EIR No. 329 determined that Construction of numerous additional projects would cumulatively impact air quality in the vicinity, and air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities which occur separately or simultaneously. However, EIR No. 329 determined that the greatest cumulative impact on the quality of the regional air cell would be in incremental additional pollutants from increased traffic in the area and increased consumption of energy by inhabitants of the various new projects. As such, EIR No. 329 considered this to be a significant impact, both as a result of individual projects and on a cumulative basis. Potential cumulative impacts related to soil erosion and water quality are addressed by regulatory compliance. The type, scale, and location of the proposed Project is consistent with and slightly less intense than that evaluated in EIR No. 329, and the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan zoning for the Project parcels. Because of this consistency, the other potential cumulative environmental effects of the proposed Project would fall within those already identified in EIR No. 329. Therefore, no cumulative impact greater than those identified in EIR No. 329 would result from either the construction or occupation of the proposed Project and implementation of the recommended Project mitigation. (c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings. As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the proposed Project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects to human beings. Short- and long-term construction impacts are addressed by mitigation, and no significant noise impacts are anticipated to occur with the implementation of the proposed Project . Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 111 City of Menifee 5 Applicable Mitigation The following mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Project: AESTHETICS MM-D.11.1 Because of the property’s location with respect to Palomar Observatory, low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for street lighting will be used. MM-D.11.2 Other potentially lighted areas (i.e., entry monumentation, commercial, business, and industrial signage) shall orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. MM-D.11.3 The project will be subject to County Ordinance No. 655 regulating light pollution. AIR QUALITY MM-C.6.1 The quantity of particulate matter and other pollutants emitted during the grading and construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced through watering graded surfaces end planting ground cover as dust palliatives, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Though not required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the following additional mitigations are recommended to minimize construction activity emissions: Water site and equipment morning and evening; spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas; operate street-sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site; reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering; pave construction access roads, clean up the access roads and public roadways of soil, if necessary; and implement rapid cleaning up of debris from streets after major storm events. The following mitigations are recommended to reduce construction equipment emissions: wash off trucks leaving site; require trucks to maintain two feet of freeboard, i.e., the distance between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides; properly tune and maintain construction equipment, and use low sulfur fuel for construction equipment. MM-C.6.5 Low VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) emitting paints should be used. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MM-C.11.1 As the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat is on the Federal Endangered Species list, the project will be required to participate in the County's Interim Mitigation Plan, requiring payment of $1,950 per acre of land within SKR range in spite of the fact that SKR was not found onsite during two separate SKR surveys. Within the Habitat Conservation Plan, these funds will be utilized for acquisition of replacement habitat to compensate for the on-site loss of this endangered species. The l0A permit which allows the "incidental taking" of this species is subject to the six-month allocation of available habitat in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulations. In order to receive this allocation, the project shall comply with all aspects of the Habitat Conservation Plan. This mitigation has been deemed to be a sufficient mitigation measure relative to the incidental taking of the species by the County of Riverside. 6 – Applicable Mitigation 112 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 CULTURAL (ARCHAEOLOGICAL) RESOURCES MM-C.15.1 Monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading or trenching, by a qualified archaeologist is recommended to ensure that if buried features (i.e., human remains, hearths, or cultural deposits) are present, they will be handled in a timely and proper manner. The scope of the monitoring program is provided below: 1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification that a certified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency. 2) The project applicant shall provide Native American monitoring during grading. The Native American monitor shall work in concert with the archaeological monitor to observe ground disturbances and search for cultural materials. 3) The certified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program. 4) During the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits, the archaeological monitor(s) and tribal representative shall be on-site, as determined by the consulting archaeologist, to perform periodic inspections of the excavations. The frequency of inspections will depend upon the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The consulting archaeologist shall have the authority to modify the monitoring program if the potential for cultural resources appears to be less than anticipated. 5) Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits will be minimally documented in the field so the monitored grading can proceed. 6) In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact the lead agency at the time of discovery. The archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, shall determine the significance of the discovered resources. The lead agency must concur with the evaluation before construction activities will be allowed to resume in the affected area. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the lead agency before being carried out using professional archaeological methods. If any human bones are discovered, the county coroner and lead agency shall be contacted. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. 7) Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The project archaeologist shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. 8) All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be processed and curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. 9) A report documenting the field and analysis results and interpreting the artifact and research data within the research context shall be completed and submitted to the 6 – Applicable Mitigation Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 113 City of Menifee satisfaction of the lead agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. The report will include DPR Primary and Archaeological Site Forms. ENERGY RESOURCES MM-C.13.1 Passive solar heating techniques will be encouraged whenever possible within the project. Passive systems involve orienting buildings properly, planting trees to take advantage of the sun, seeing that roof over hangs are adequate, making sure that walls are properly insulated and installing simple heat storage systems. MM-C.13.2 Building energy conservation will largely be achieved for residential, commercial, business park and industrial units by compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe installation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604(0 and 1601(b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES) MM-C.15.1 Since the paleontologic sensitivity for the site is very low, there is no need to have a grading monitor present on the property for near surface grading. However, earthmoving occurring at depths greater than 10 feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist, along with older alluvium deposits which occur at depths of less than ten feet. Monitoring on a part-time basis should be satisfactory for the Project given the relatively low sensitivity of the sediments. If fossils are found by the owners of the property, their agents, contractors, or subcontractors during the development of the property, they shall be reported immediately to a qualified, professional paleontologist for evaluation. If grading of older alluvium occurs or earthmoving occurs at depths of more than ten feet, or if fossils are encountered on the property during development, the following mitigation procedures shall be followed: 1) The project paleontologist shall immediately evaluate the fossils which have been discovered to determine if they are significant and, if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. 2) A paleontologic monitor shall be immediately retained to be present during earthmoving on the property. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect excavation equipment if additional fossils are found to allow evaluation and removal of them if necessary. The monitor shall be equipped to speedily collect specimens if they are encountered. 3) The monitor, with assistance if necessary, shall collect individual fossils and/or samples of fossil bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal species are encountered, the most time and cost efficient method of recovery is to remove a selected volume of fossil bearing earth from the grading area and stockpile it oft' site for processing by screen washing. 6 – Applicable Mitigation 114 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 4) Fossils recovered during earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing of sediment samples shall be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus reducing storage costs. 5) A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the public agency responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental impacts upon completion of mitigation. This report will minimally include a settlement of the types of paleontologic resources found, the methods and procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens recovered, and a settlement of their scientific significance. 6) The paleontological specimens recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded long term preservation to allow future scientific study. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MM-C.2.1 Positive drainage of the site shall be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any cut and fill slopes. Where water is collected in a common area and discharged, protection of the native soils shall be provided by planting erosion resistant vegetation, as the native soils are susceptible to erosion by running water. MM-C.2.3 Maximum inclination of all cut and fill slopes shall be 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. MM-C.2.4 Final determination of the foundation characteristics of soils within on-site development areas shall be performed by a geotechnical engineer. MM C.2.5 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a seismic refraction survey shall be conducted to evaluate the rippability characteristics of the bedrock on-site indicating the approximate rippability of the bedrock materials at various depths for grading purposes. NOISE MM-C.5.1 Construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction should not be allowed on weekends or federal holidays. PUBLIC SERVICES MM-D.5.1 The project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with both involved school districts to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy. MM-D.5.2 The applicant shall be required to pay school impact mitigation fees or fund school site acquisition and/or facility construction with proceeds from the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Community Facilities District (CFD) 91-1 has been formed which covers the entire Romoland School District. The CFD Report specifies the amounts of school fees to be paid, provides methods of tax apportionment and establishes the maximum amount of bonds to be sold. The project applicants has agreed to comply with the terms of the Resolution of Formation of the CFD. 6 – Applicable Mitigation Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 115 City of Menifee RECREATION MM-D.6.1 The project applicant shall satisfy the Quimby Act and the Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District park requirements which include land dedication and/or the payment of in- lieu fees. MM-D.6.2 A Master Homeowner's Association, County Service Area, or the Valley-wide Recreation and Park District will maintain the Neighborhood and Community Parks, Open Space and the Drainage Channel. TRANSPORTATION MM-D.1.1 Signalization. For cumulative traffic conditions with the project, traffic signals are anticipated to be warranted at the following study area intersections (see Figure V-18, Circulation Recommendations): Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road; Sherman Road at Watson Road; Sherman Road at Ethanac Road; Sherman Road at McLaughlin Road; Antelope Road at Mapes Road; Antelope Road at Watson Road; Antelope Road at Street "A"; Antelope Road at State Route 74; Palomar Road at Street "A"; Palomar Road at State Route 74; Menifee Road at Mapes Road; Menifee Road at Watson Road; Menifee Road at Street "A"; Menifee Road at State Route 74; Malaga Road at State Route 74; Briggs Road at Watson Road; Briggs Road at Street "A"; Briggs Road at State Route 74; Briggs Road at Street "B"; Briggs Road at Palomar Road; Sultanas Road at State Route 74; Leon Road at State Route 74; and Juniper Flats Road at State Route 74. The project applicant will either be directly responsible for provision of the above signals or shall participate on a fair-share basis for the funding of these facilities. The extent of their responsibility shall be based upon the extent of utilization of these intersections by project- related traffic. MM-D.1.2 Alternative Transportation Modes. The Menifee North Specific Plan shall provide a system of bicycle trails within open space corridors, flood control and utility easements, where possible. Sidewalks or pathways in residential and commercial areas that allow a safe environment for pedestrians shall also be provided. MM-D.1.3 Although the study area is currently not served by a transit service, bus turnout and potential future bus stop locations have been recommended by the Traffic Engineer (see Figure V-19, Bus Turnout and Stop Locations). As recommended, bus stops are spaced to maximize passenger accessibility, convenience and safety, while minimizing undue delay or traffic interruptions. Bus stops are generally spaced 800 feet to 1,200 feet apart on roadways surrounding the project (see Appendix F of EIR No. 329 for additional criteria that was the basis for these recommendations). Bus turnouts shall be constructed at these recommended locations that are located within the project boundaries. MM-D.1.4 To encourage ridesharing/transit ridership and reduce commute trip impacts on access routes to the I-215 Freeway, a portion of the commercial parking area in Planning Area 8, on-site shall be designated for Park-N-Ride and carpool/vanpool parking use on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. MM-D.1.5 Project roadways shall be aligned and sized as illustrated in Figure V-18, Circulation Recommendations. MM-D.1.6 On-site access improvements shall adhere to the following design guidelines: 6 – Applicable Mitigation 116 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 • traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project; • sight distance at each intersection should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/County of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans; • the traffic signals required within the study area at buildout should specifically include an interconnect of the signals to function in a coordinated system. MM-D.1.8 The project applicant shall participate in any fee programs established within the study area to provide for the improvement of key roadway links and interchange facilities. The project shall contribute to the installation of traffic signals when warranted through the payment of traffic signal mitigation fees. If a trip ceiling and trip bank is established, then as a development phase is approved, the total number of trips it generates shall be subtracted from the trip ceiling or trip bank, leaving a total of remaining trips that the Specific Plan can generate. For tract maps, final map recordation will be when the projects' generated trips will be deducted from the trip bank. The County Transportation Department will maintain the official "trip bank" for the Specific Plan and will provide an annual update on project trip status. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MM-D.7.1 Development plans will be provided to Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company and General Telephone Company as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction of improvements necessary to provide services to the project site. MM-D.7.2 The applicant will comply with guidelines provided by the Southern California Gas Company in regard to easement restriction, construction guidelines, protection of pipeline easement and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing Gas Company easements. MM-D.7.3 Building energy conservation will be largely achieved by compliance with Title 24 of the Energy Conservation Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2- 5307(b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604(f) and 1601(b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. MM-D.8.1 The project applicant shall work with the County Waste Management District and participate in efforts to achieve the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act. Additionally, the proposed permitted refuse hauler for the project site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (i.e., curbside recycling, buy back centers, etc.) in accordance with County Resolution No. 90-402. MM-D.8.2 The developer will consider the feasibility of installing trash compactors as a standard feature in new homes, as well as establishing collection points for recycling of solid 6 – Applicable Mitigation Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 117 City of Menifee waste. In addition, industrial and commercial businesses will be encouraged to utilize trash compactors. 6 – Applicable Mitigation 118 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 119 City of Menifee 6 References 6.1 – List of Preparers City of Menifee (Lead Agency) Community Development Department 29844 Haun Road Menifee, California 92586 951-723-3737 ▪ Orlando Hernandez, Planning Manager MIG (Environmental Analysis) 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106 Riverside, California 92507 951-787-9222 ▪ Pamela Steele, Principal ▪ Bob Prasse, Director of Environmental Services ▪ Chris Dugan, Director of Air Quality, GHG, and Noise Services ▪ Elizabeth Kempton, Senior Biologist ▪ Cameron Hile, Senior Analyst Translutions, Inc. (VMT Analysis) 17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 (949) 656-3131 ▪ Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, Principal Searl Biological Services (Biological Resources/MSHCP Consistency Analysis) 43430 E. Florida Avenue, Suite F PMB 291 Hemet, California 92544 (951) 805-2028 ▪ Tim Searl, Biologist, Owner Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (Cultural and Paleontological Resources Studies) 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, CA 92064 (858) 679-8218 ▪ Brian F. Smith, M.A. ▪ Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation) 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 6 – Applicable Mitigation 120 Addendum to EIR No. 329 December 18, 2023 ▪ Dennis Boratynec, GE, Vice President ▪ Mason Gonzales, GIT, Staff Geologist Hillman Consulting (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) 1745 West Orangewood Avenue, Suite 201 Orange, CA 92868 (714) 634-9500 ▪ Shilpa Sunil, Environmental Project Manager ▪ Ryan Terwilliger, CAC, Western Operations Manager Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. (Hydraulic Analysis Report) 2234 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 438-4422 ▪ Steven Henderson, P.E. 6.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted None 6 – Applicable Mitigation Menifee North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 121 City of Menifee 6.3 – Bibliography California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Web: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. [Accessed June 2022]. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Riverside County City Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Web: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. [Accessed June 2022]. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highways Maps. Web: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways. [Accessed June 2022]. California Environmental Protection Agency. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Web: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed June 2022]. California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Active CDO and CAO. Web: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed June 2022]. California Environmental Protection Agency. List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action Pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Web: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed June 2022]. CalRecycle. Identify Disposal Facility Capacity Shortfalls. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/facility/disposalgap.aspx [Accessed June 2022]. California Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Web: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. [Accessed June 2022]. California Water Resources Control Board. List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites. Web: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. [Accessed June 2022]. City of Menifee (City), 2010. Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California covering Seismic Hazards, Geologic Hazards, Flooding Hazards, Fire Hazards, Hazardous Materials Management, and Wind Hazards. Earth Consultants International, Inc. Final Version July 2010. City of Menifee (City), 2013a. City of Menifee General Plan. City Community Development Department. September, 2013. City of Menifee (City), 2013b. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2012071033). City Community Development Department. September, 2013. City of Menifee (City), 2013c. Noise Background Document & Definitions https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1008/HDNE_NoiseBackgroundDocument?bidId= City of Menifee (City), 2013d. City Council Workshop: Update on Development Application Standards and Biosolids in Menifee (Permitted Biosolids/Sludge Application Map). Web: https://cityofmenifee.us/Archive.aspx?ADID=1019. [Accessed October 2023]. County of Riverside, 2002. Riverside County Integrated Project: General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report. August 20, 2002.