Exhibit A - Addendum to FEIR — Menifee City Council, December 6, 2023 (part 1 of 14)

September 2022 | Environmental Impact Report Addendum
State Clearinghouse No. 2003061122

GOLDEN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
City of Menifee
Prepared for:

City of Menifee
Contact: Russell Brown, Senior Planner
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
951.723.3761

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Alen Estrada-Rodas, Associate
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E
Table of Contents
September 2022 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS ADDENDUM ............................................................................ 2

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ................................................................. 3

1.3.1 2007 Certified Environmental Impact Report ................................................................................ 3

2. APPROVED PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Approved Project Location ................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.2 Approved Project Description ........................................................................................................... 5

3. PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7

3.2 PROJECT SITE LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.1 Residential Dwelling Units ................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.2 Population Growth.............................................................................................................................. 8

3.4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. 9

3.4.1 Project Phasing .................................................................................................................................... 9

3.4.2 Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 9

4. CEQA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Land Use Consistency ...................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare .................................................................................... 13

4.1.3 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.4 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources .............................................................................. 22

4.1.5 Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage ................................................................................................ 37

4.1.6 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 39

4.1.7 Geology and Slope Stability ............................................................................................................. 42

4.1.8 Soils, Slopes, and Erosion Potential ................................................................................................ 45

4.1.9 Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................... 48

4.1.10 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 50

4.1.11 Toxic Substances ................................................................................................................................ 51

4.1.12 Circulation and Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 53

4.1.13 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 56

4.1.14 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 59

4.1.15 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation ................................................................................................. 63

4.1.16 Fire Protection ................................................................................................................................... 64

4.1.17 Sheriff Protection .............................................................................................................................. 66

4.1.18 Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................................... 67

4.1.19 Water and Wastewater Services ....................................................................................................... 69

4.1.20 Schools ................................................................................................................................................ 71

4.1.21 Libraries .............................................................................................................................................. 73

4.1.22 Healthcare Services ........................................................................................................................... 74

4.1.23 Energy Resources .............................................................................................................................. 74

4.1.24 Utilities ................................................................................................................................................ 76

4.1.25 Disaster Preparedness ....................................................................................................................... 77

4.2 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 78

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks

5. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 81

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Proposed Project Lots .......................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 Residential Dwelling Units .................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Estimated Population Growth ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 4. Student Enrollment and Anticipated Student Generation ........................................................... 72

List of Appendices
Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix C. Updated Biological Assessment Reports and Jurisdictional Delineation Appendix D. Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix E. Hydrology Analysis Report
Appendix F . Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix G. Geotechnical Plan Review/Addendum
Appendix H. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I. Golden Meadows Fair Share Assessment

September 2022 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum to the County of Riverside’s (County) certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 458 (SCH No. 2003061122), which analyzed potential environmental effects associated with Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 31194, Change of Zone (CZ) No. 06764, General Plan Amendment ( GPA) No. 00729 and associated discretionary actions (the Approved Project). TTM No. 31194 allows development of 486 single-family residential lots, three park sites, three water quality basins, over 49 acres of natural open space and common landscape area, and associated infrastructure and utilities on a 204.7 -gross-acre property north of Wickerd Road and west of Ascot Way in unincorporated Riverside County.

An EIR for the Approved Project was certified by the County on April 10, 2007 (Certified EIR). The Certified EIR addressed potential impacts to the physical environment that w ould or may occur from implementation of the Approved Project. This Addendum to the Certified EIR has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The City of Menifee (City), as the lead agency under CEQA, has prepared this Addendum to the Certified EIR to consider environmental impacts associated with proposed Major Modification No. PLN21 -0199 and Change of Zone No. PLN21 - 0201, which would entail changes to Phase 4 of the approved TTM No. 31194 (Proposed Project) and changes to the approved zoning code through a zoning text amendment.

1.1 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM
According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously certified EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):

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. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which th e 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 negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

(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 o r alternative.

The proposed changes that would result from the development of the Proposed Project would not result in any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because the proposed changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the Certified EIR, and, as explained herein, no new information of substantial importance meets any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(3).

Accordingly, this Addendum provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the Proposed Project.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, “Addendum to an EIR”:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addend um to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

1.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS ADDENDUM
This Addendum evaluates the proposed Major Modification No. PLN21 -0199 and Change of Zone No. PLN21-0201, which would entail changes to Phase 4 of the approved Tentative Tract Map No. 31194 (Proposed Project) and changes to the approved zoning code through a zoning text amendment. The Addendum also considers whether there is any new information of substantial importance that was not known

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

1. Introduction
September 2022 Page 3
and could not have been known wit h exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the EIR was certified.

The Addendum examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Proposed Project.

As lead agency under CEQA, the City is required to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project because it entails a proposed discretionary approval that is subject to CEQA. The scope of the review for project -related impacts for this Addendum is focused on the differences between impacts analyzed by the Certified EIR for the Approved Project and impacts under the Proposed Project. The Approved Project will serve as the “baseline” for evaluating the impacts of the Proposed Project. The baseline includes all applicable mitigation measures from the Certified EIR. As required by CEQA, this Addendum also addresses changes in circumstances or new information that would potentially involve new environmental impacts.

Appendix A of this Addendum includes the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Certified EIR. Appendix B includes an updated MMRP for the Proposed Project.

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

1.3.1 2007 Certified Environmental Impact Report
The County’s Certified EIR evaluated three discretionary actions for the Approved Project:
▪ Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 31194)
▪ Change of Zone (CZ No. 06764)
▪ Circulation Element General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00729) As required by CEQA, the County adopted an MMRP , Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

After incorporation of the City of Menifee, the Approved Project, Certified EIR, and all approvals transferred to the City. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in less -than-significant impacts with no mitigation with regard to:
▪ Energy Resources
▪ Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage
▪ Land Use Consistency
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Utilities
▪ Water and Wastewater
The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant after implementation of mitigation measures with regard to:
▪ Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare
▪ Agricultural
▪ Air Quality [PM-10, VOC]
▪ Archaeological Resources
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Circulation and Traffic [direct impacts]
▪ Noise
▪ Open Space and Recreation
▪ Paleontological Resources
▪ Schools
▪ Sheriff Services
▪ Soils, Slopes, and Erosion Potential

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

1. Introduction

Page 4 ends

▪ Disaster Preparedness
▪ Fire Protection
▪ Geology and Slope Stability
▪ Healthcare Services
▪ Libraries
▪ Solid Waste
▪ Toxic Substances
▪ Water Quality
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following environmental topics:
▪ Air Quality [NOx, CO]
▪ Circulation and Traffic [cumulative impacts]

2. APPROVED PROJECT

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1.1 Approved Project Location
According to the Southern California Association of Governments ’ (SCAG) “Local Profiles,” the Approved Project was in unincorporated Riverside County until the City of Menifee incorporated in 2008 (SCAG 2019); thus the Approved Project Site, including Phases 1 to 4 (herein referred to as the TTM 31194 site), is now in the City of Menifee. As described in the Certified EIR, the TTM 31194 site is northwest of Murrieta, southeast of Canyon Lake and Perris, and southeast of Lake Elsinore.

The TTM 31194 site is currently vacant and surrounded by Wickerd Road to the south, Garbani Road to the north, Sherman Road to the east, and Evans Road to the west, in the City of Menifee, in Riverside County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 360 -300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, and -009 and 360 -350-001). Local access is provided via Newport Road to the north, Murrieta Road to the west, and Scott Road to the south, and regional access is provided via the Interstate 215 (I-215), approximately a mile east of the TTM 31194 site.

Regional access to the east of the TTM 31194 site is provided via the Scott Road and Newport Road exits from I-215. The TTM 31194 site is bounded on the north, south, and west by vacant land and some rural residential homes. An approved tentative tract map, referred to as Hidden Hills (TTM No. 30142), is immediately to the northwest and is approved for 523 single -family residential lots and a community park and greenbelts ; the property to the east consists of hills with rock outcroppings.

2.1.2 Approved Project Description
The Approved Project includes the following elements:
▪ Tentative Tract Map No. 31194 . The Approved Project allowed the subdivision of the 204.7-acre site into a maximum of 486 single -family residential lots (6,000-square-foot minimum) on 101.3 acres, three neighborhood park lots on 6.8 acres, seven open space/drainage easement lots on 0.5 acre, three water quality basins on 2.7 acres, and 31 open space/landscape lots on 49.8 acres. Implementation of the Approved Project also included circulation improvements, a drainage plan, a water and sewer p lan, and additional off-site improvements.
▪ Change of Zone No. 06764. The Approved Project changed the zoning classifications on the site from Residential Agriculture (One-acre minimum lot size)(R-A-1), Residential Agriculture (Five-acre minimum lot size)(R-A-5), Light Agriculture (One-acre minimum lot size )(A-1-1) and Light Agriculture (Ten acre minimum lot size )(A-1-10) to One Family Dwellings (R -1), Planned Residential (R-4) and Open Area Combined Development (R-5).

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

2. Approved Project

Page 6 ends

▪ General Plan Amendment No. 00729. The Approved Project established the alignment of Garbani Road and Wickerd Road. The County ’s General Plan Circulation Element previously showed Garbani Road extending east of Evans Road in an east -west alignment as a Major Roadway (118 -foot ROW) and previously showed Wickerd Road extending east of Evans Road also in an east -west alignment as a Secondary Roadway (100 -foot ROW). The Approved Project provided for the realignment of Garbani Road in a northwest -southeast alignment through the middle of the Approved Project Site as a Major Roadway (118-foot ROW) to connect to existing Wickerd Road at the Approved Project Site’s southeast corner. GPA No. 00729 proposed the following:
⚫ Upgrade and change the alignment of Wickerd Road between Haun Road and Evans R oad from a Secondary to a Major.
⚫ Reduce Garbani Road from an Urban Arterial to a Secondary between Haun Road and Bradley Road. ⚫ Reduce Garbani Road from a Major to a Collector between Bradley Road and its new terminus east of Evans Road.
⚫ Reduce Bradley Road from a Major to a Secondary between Craig Avenue and Garbani Road. ⚫ Correct a mapping error to remove an unnamed Secondary between Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

3. PROPOSED PROJECT

3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The TTM 31194 site was previously identified as a Planned Development by Title 9 of the City of Menifee Municipal Code. The Proposed Project will revise Section 9.155.030 of the municipal code , Planned Development Districts, which con tains planned developments that were approved by the County prior to incorporation. Section 9.155.030 of the municipal code currently describes the planned development of the Approved Project; thus, revisions to the section would revise the description of the planned development to be consistent with the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project would develop Phase 4 of the Approved Project —268 total lots on 87. 59 acres—as shown in Table 1, Proposed Project Lots.

Table 1 Proposed Project Lots
Lot Land Use Acreage
1-259 Residential Lots 28.84
A Park 2.94
B Recreation Center 0.75
C Access Road/Parking 0.15
D Drainage Easement 0.04
E-G Open Space 41.97
H Water Quality Basin 1.30
Public Streets 11.60
Total 87.59

3.2 PROJECT SITE LOCATION
The Proposed Project would be in the same location as the Approved Project, as described in Section 2.1.1, Approved Project Location. It would be on the eastern part of the TTM 31194 site, north of Wickerd Road, south of Garbani Road, and west Haun Road and I-215 (Project Site).

3.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The Project Site has a land use designation of 2.1 –5 du/ac Residential (2.1 -5 R), and is zone d Planned Development District (PDO -5). General plan land use designations in the surrounding areas include Rural Residential 5 ac min (RR5) to the north and east, Rural Residential 1 ac min (RR1) and Rural Residential ½ ac min (RR1/2) to the south, and 2.1–5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R) to the west.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

3. Proposed Project

Page 8 ends

3.3 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS

3.3.1 Residential Dwelling Units
As shown in Table 2, Residential Dwelling Units, with implementation of the Proposed Project, Phase 4 of the residential development would add 98 additional dwelling units for a total of 259 dwelling units compared to the 161 units proposed by the Approved Project. This would increase the overall number of proposed dwelling units over the entire TTM 31194 site (including Phases 1 to 3) from 486 to 571 dwelling units.

Table 2 Residential Dwelling Units
Approved Project Proposed Project Net Change
Proposed Project (Phase 4 only) 161 259 98
TTM 31194 site (including Phases 1–3) 486 571 85*
*Note- The certified EIR for the approved project analyzed 486 residential lots; the proposed project consists of 571 residential lots. Due to tighter restrictions in water quality contro l (between when the original project was approved through now) , new water qu ality basins were added in locations once approved for residential lots. The actual number of residential lots for the approved project decreased from 486 residential lots to 468 residential lots, for a reduction of 18 residential lots spread across all ph ases. Phase 4 decreased from 161 residential lots to 156 residential lots as shown under the latest tentative map project extension. The proposed project includes 259 residential lots for an increase of 103 residential lots.

Dwelling units under the Proposed Project would be developed as 50-foot x 80-foot lots with a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, and as 42-foot x 90-foot lots with a minimum lot size of 3,780 square feet.

3.3.2 Population Growth
As stated in the City of Menifee’s General Plan EIR, SCAG’s forecast growth projections anticipate Menifee’s population to increase by 26,175 by 2035, that is, 28.1 percent of its 2020 population. Additionally, from 2020 to 2035 households are forecast to increase by 10,389, or 28.7 percent. As shown in Table 3, Estimated Population Growth, in accordance with the General Plan’s future buildout projections, the Proposed Project would result in a population of approximately 803 residents in the 259 proposed dwelling units, and the TTM 31194 site would result in a population of approximately 1,770 residents of the 571 proposed dwelling units (including Phases 1 to 3). Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and population growth as a result of the Proposed Project would be within SCAG’s forecast growth projections for the city.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

3. Proposed Project
September 2022 Page 9
Table 3. Estimated Population Growth
Proposed Project (Phase 4 only) TTM 31194 Site (including Phases 1 to 3) Approved
Project
Proposed
Project Net Change Approved
Project
Proposed
Project Net Change
Land Use Category

2.1-5 du/ac
Residential
(2.1-5R)

2.1-5 du/ac
Residential
(2.1-5R)
-

2.1-5 du/ac
Residential
(2.1-5R)

2.1-5 du/ac
Residential
(2.1-5R)
-
Average Household
Size (per dwelling unit) 3.01 3.1 0.09 3.01 3.1 0.09
Proposed Units 161 259 98 486 571 85
Population 4851 8032 318 1,4631 1,7702 307
Source: City of Menifee, General Plan Housing Element 2008-2014 and Housing Element 2021-2029. 1 Estimated population is based on the average household size of 3.01 persons per unit (Riverside County Ord. 460, Section 10.35). 2Estimated population is based on the average household size of 3.1 persons per unit (Housing Element 2021-2029).

3.4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

3.4.1 Project Phasing
The Approved Project will be completed in four phases, which would include Phase 4 (Proposed Project):
▪ Phase 1, which includes the northwestern, central, and southeastern portions of the subdivision, contains 109 residential lots and all major “backbone” infrastructure.. ▪ Phase 2, which includes the southern and central portions of the subdivision, contains 109 residential lots. ▪ Phase 3, which includes the western portion of the subdivision, contains 94 residential lots. ▪ Phase 4, which includes the eastern portion of the subdivisi on. The Approved Project approved 161 residential lots in Phase 4, The Proposed Project contains 259 residential lots.

3.4.2 Construction Schedule
Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to start in December 2022 and finish in December 2027.

It is anticipated that the first residential uses would be operational in January 2024. The construction would occur over approximately 60 months and include grading and excavation, trenching for site utili ties and irrigation, building construction, archit ectural coatings, driveway and walkway construction, landscaping, and street connection improvements.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

3. Proposed Project

Page 10 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

4. CEQA ANALYSIS

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The scope of the City’s review of the Proposed Project is limited by provisions in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project compared to the Approved Project found in the Certified EIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the EIR was certified. This includes explanation of why the changes proposed for the Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts, a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact, 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 mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from t hose 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.

Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., Title 14, Sections 15000 et. seq.) authorizes a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an EIR “if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an addendum, the topical areas identified in the Certified EIR are the environmental factors evaluated in this Addendum. This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Approved Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the EIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.

Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the Proposed Project does not propose substantial changes to the Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances would require major revisions to the Certified EIR, and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of EIR that would result in either new significant effects , an increa se in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects, 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 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.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 12 ends

4.1.1 Land Use Consistency
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Approved Project would implement a new residential development that would be consistent with the types and uses that were allowed by the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan ’s land use map, which designated the TTM 31194 site for Medium Density Residential (2–5 du/ac) and Rural Residential . The Certified EIR also analyzed the consistency of the Approved Project with th e Riverside County General Plan, the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP), the Community and Environmental Transportation Program , SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Regional Transportation Plan, and the South California Air Quality Management District ’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Approved Project was determined to be consistent with Riverside County’s General Plan Land Use Element, Multipurpose Open Space Element, Safety Element, Noise Element, Housing Element, and Air Quality Element as well as all the above-mentioned planning documents. The Certified EIR therefore determined that the Approved Project is generally consistent with applicable land use plans, including the C ounty’s General Plan; therefore, impacts related to implementation of the Approved Project are less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required for the Approved Project regarding land use.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
As described in Section 3.3, Phase 4 of the residential development would add approximately 98 additional dwelling units, for a total of 259 dwelling units, compared to 161 units proposed by the Approved Project. This would increase the overall number of proposed dwelling units from 486 to 571 (including Phases 1 to 3).

However, the Proposed Project would now comply with standards and regulations of Menifee’s General Plan, which currently designate s the Project Site as 2.1-5 du/ac Residential (2.1 -5 R) , and it is zoned Planned Development District (PDO -5). The Proposed Project would still be consistent with the above -mentioned planning documents—the Community and Environmental Transportation Program, MSHCP , SCAG’s 2024- 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and SCAQMD’s AQMP .

In accordance with the General Plan’s future buildout projections, the Proposed Project would result in a population of approximately 803 residents in 259 dwelling units, and the TTM 31194 site (including Phases 1 to 3) is anticipated to result in a population of approximately 1,770 residents in 571 dwelling units. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and population growth as a result of the proposed project would be within SCAG’s forecast growth projections for the city. There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use consistency.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project regarding land use.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 13

4.1.2 Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light and Glare
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would change views of the TTM 31194 site from surrounding areas. Views would change from predominantly agricultural and undeveloped land to single-family residential and open space uses . The Approved Project was subject to the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines for general residential design, residential lot design, residential street design, landscaping, neighborhood entry statements, street medians, reverse frontage treatments, medians, and parkways. Changes to community character were consistent with the County General Plan ’s Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan .

The TTM 31194 site is in the Mt. Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District , which was established to control the effects of skyglow on the observatory. Implementation of the Approved Project would result in the introduction of new sources of lighting, including lights for residences, parks, and streetscapes, that could adversely affect the Palomar Observatory, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the Certified EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 to ensure impacts from lighting would be reduced to less-than-significant.

Approved Project Mitigation Measure

4.2-1 The project shall comply with the applicabl e provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, which was established to regulate the use of certain light fixtures, and requires evidence of compliance with the lighting standards contained therein. All outdoor lighting systems shall comply with Ordinance No. 655.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would be within the same footprint as the Approved Project; thus, impacts to the visual quality and character of the Project Site would not be substantially more severe as a result of the Proposed Project than as a result of the Approved Project . As with the Approved Project, i mplementation of the Proposed Project would result in the introduction of new sources of lighting, including lights for residences, parks, and streetscapes. However, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Menifee’s Municipal Code Chapter 6.01, Dark Sky Ordinance, which is the same as County Ordinance No. 655 that was in effect at the time of Approved Project approval. The City’s ordinance regulates light around Mt. Palomar by restricting the use of certain light fixtures and restricting emitting light rays into the night sky that would have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research (Menifee 2022). The revised Proposed Project Mitigation Measure 4.2.1 is substantively the same as Certified EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2.1 and will ensure impact from lighting from the Proposed Project will be reduced to less-than-significant.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measure

4.2-1 The project shall comply with the applicable provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 City of Menifee’s Municipal Code Chapter 6.01, Dark Sky Ordinance . The Dark Sy Ordinance is the same as County Ordinance No. 655 , which was established to regulate the use of certain light fixtures, and requires evidence of compliance with the lighting standards

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 14 ends

contained therein. All outdoor lighting systems shall comply with Ordinance No. 655 the Dark Sky Ordinance.

4.1.3 Biological Resources
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would result in impacts to approximately 173.1 acres on-site (including fuel modification thinning) and approximately two acres off -site for off -site grading and infrastructure improvements. The loss of agricultural, disturbed, and ruderal habitat is not significant because this habitat is not sensitive. The loss of Riversidean sage scrub, northern mixed chaparral , and arroyo willow/mulefat scrub are considered significant to the extent that these vegetation communities support sensitive plant and wildli fe species. Pursuant to MSHCP , the Approved Project’s impacts to Riversidean sage scrub constitute d a significant impact and required implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

No sensitive plant species and no narrow endemic species were identified in the general biological survey report compiled, and a majority of the TTM 31194 site is unsuitable for native special status plant species associated with vernal pool wetland or alkali playa due to the gentle sloping topography, long -term clearing, and deep plowing of the land for agriculture. Additionally, the TTM 31194 site is not identified in an area required to be surveyed pursuant to the MSHCP’s “Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species” guidelines and “Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. ” Therefore, focused botanical surveys were not required for the TTM 31194 site, and any impacts to sensitive plant species, if present, were not regarded as significant. The project applicant was required to comply with Riverside County Ordinance No. 4.62.070, which requires payment of an MSHCP mitigation fee to assist in providing revenue to acquire and conserve lands necessary to implement the MSHCP .

Sensitive species observed on the site include Califor nia horned lark, Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, coastal California gnatcatcher, coast horned lizard, orange -throated whiptail, western whiptail , and black -tailed jackrabbit. According to the analysis in the biology report, the Approved Project did not significantly impact these species. Although burrowing owl was not observed on the site, it has the potential to move onto the site due to its migratory nature. Potential impacts to burrowing owl were considered significant, and mitigation was required. To reduce any potential impacts to other sensitive wildlife species, the project applicant was required to comply with Riverside County Ordinance No. 4.62.070 . Additionally, the TTM 31194 site is within the “Habitat Conservation Plan [HCP] for the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County, California ” (1993), and the applicant was required to mitigate development of land in the HCP by paying a per acre fee to the County. If construction activities took place between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, potential impacts could occur and a focused raptor survey was required prior to construction to determine there were active nests. Therefore, the Approved Project require d implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 through 4.3-5 to reduce potential project impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The Certified EIR determined that, a lthough some wildlife movement and foraging would occur in the native vegetation, the site did not provide a densely vegetated drainage and did not connect two larger tracts of native habitat. Therefore, the TTM 31194 site was not identified as a wildlife corridor , and project implementation would not result in disturbances to local wildlife movement.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 15
The Approved Project directly impacted 34,512.6 square feet (0.79 ac re) of state streambeds, of which 1,316 square feet (0.03 acre) are state wetlands and 18,748.6 square feet (0.43 acre) are federal jurisdictional drainages.

Impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and waters was considered significant and required implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -6 through 4.3 -9 to reduce potential impacts to a less -than-significant level . The Approved Project proposed avoidance of 27,871.74 square feet (0.64 acres of state streambeds, all of which are considered state wetlands, and 18,919.3 square feet (0.43 acres of federal jurisdictional drainages. The Approved Project also proposed the creation of three wetland basins and jurisdictional drai nages contiguous with the existing drainage and habitat and following the path of the historic al blue-line stream. The created habitat and drainage w ould include approximately 53,400 square feet (1.2 acres) of state streambeds and wetlands; of this, approximately 22,090 square feet (0.51 acre) would be federal jurisdictional drainages. These avoidance and creation measures were proposed as a way to minimize impacts and provide a preferred alternative of quality habitat in a restored blue-line drainage.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
Vegetation Communities

4.3-1 TTM No. 31194, Lot #503 (approximately 39.0 acres in the northeastern portion of the property) shall be preserved as open space and shall be covered by a conservation easement or other mechanism to ensure permanent preservation, with allowance for required maintenance of fuel modification zones. The conservation easement area shall be shown on the Final Map.

Sensitive Wildlife Species

4.3-2 Thirty days prior to grading, a qualified biol ogist shall make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. The determination shall be documented in a report to be reviewed and accepted by the County of Riverside. If the species is determined to be present, and the MSHCP’s stated objectives 1 – 4 for burrowing owl have not yet been met, mitigation shall be required in compliance with the MSHCP , Appendix E which states:
a. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and surrounding area supports less than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on -site burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.
b. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat and is non-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long -term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site.

4.3-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be required to pay Local Development Mitigation Fees (per County Ordinance No. 4.62.070) for implementation of the MSHCP .

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 16 ends

4.3-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay fees in a ccordance with the USFWS-approved HCP , to mitigate the project ’s potentially significant impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat.

4.3-5 If construction activities occur between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, a focused raptor survey will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. If active nests are located within the portion of the site to be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be disturbed, measures shall be initiated to avoid any impacts to nesting raptors. Measures to avoid impacts will include identifying the location and creating a buffer zone around the tree within which impacts will be avoided until the juveniles have fledged. a. The white-tailed kite is “fully-protected” by the California Department of Fish and Game.

If this species is documented as nesting on the TTM 31194 site during the raptor survey, or it is determined this species will be significantly impacted by development a 2080 permit for “take” shall be required from the CDFG.

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters

4.3-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation to the County of Riverside verifying that the necessary permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have been obtained. The ACOE has a no net loss policy which requires that any unavoidable impacts to wetland values and functions be replaced. In addition, the RWQCB will add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. It is anticipated that the following measures or similar measures as approved by the ACOE, CDFG, and RWQCB would reduce impacts to ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas to a level less-than-significant:
a. On or off-site replacement of ACOE jurisdictional waters and wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1;
b. On or off -site replacement of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 1:1; and/or
c. Incorporation of design features into the proposed project that will avoid biological impacts to off -site blue -line streams that ultimately end up in the Rai lroad Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake).

4.3-7 Individual lot fencing shall be used to restrict access to the on -site wetland areas. Back yard gates from individual residential lots that open onto the wetland area shall be prohibited.

Fencing locations and materials shall be shown on the Final Map and approved by the County’s Environmental Programs Department (EPD) prior to issuance of building permits. Required fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 17

4.3-8 Night lighting during and after project construction shall be directed away from onsite wetland areas and, except for safety and other requirements, lighting shall be limited from the boundaries of onsite wetland areas. In the event that lighting in an area adjacent to the wetland area is necessary, a shield shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the wetland area is not increased. Lighting plans shall be approved by the County prior to issuance of building permits. Lighting restrictions and the reason s for such restrictions shall be included in the project’s CC&Rs.

Information regarding the importance of avoiding the listed plants, even in front and backyard landscaping, shall be included in sales literature distributed to homeowners. The list of restricted plant materials and the reasons for such restrictions shall be listed in the project’s CC&Rs.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The following biological resources were identified in the Updated Biological Resources Assessment (L&L 2021a) and Updated Jurisdictional Delineation (L&L 2022a) that were prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix C).

MSHCP
The Project Site is located within the area covered by the MSHCP but is not within the Criteria Area. There is one area of Public/Quasi-Public ( PQP) Conserved Lands approximately 0.68 mile north -northeast of the Project Site (Ringing Rock Archaeological Site). There are no other PQP or MSHCP Conserved Lands within a mile of the site. Therefore, the Project Site is not within or near any MSHCP Core Areas or Linkages.

Sensitive Vegetation Communities
The Project Site is composed of agricultural lands and disturbed/ruderal areas, Cali fornia buckwheat scrub, chamise chaparral, arroyo willow thickets, and mulefat thickets. Arroyo willow thickets and mulefat thickets are riparian vegetation communities and arroyo willow thicket is considered sensitive. The majority of arroyo willow thicket will be retained in the Avoidance Area.

Listed and Special Status Plant Species
There are n o state or federally listed plants within the Project Site and it is not within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service–designated critical habitat for any listed plant spe cies. Two special status plant species were observed on the Project Site, long-spined spine flower and southern California black walnut, which are both covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 18 ends

Trees
There is a single immature co ast live oak tree on the Project Site within the riparian area, in addition to o ther native and nonnative trees. The City may regulate removal or replacement of trees, and a tree survey may be required.

Listed and Fully Protected Wildlife Species
Two listed or fully protected wildlife species are on the Project Site—coastal California gnatcatcher and white- tailed kite. Both are covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

All observations of coastal California gnatcatchers on the Project Site were in the California buckwheat scrub habitat in the northeastern portion of the site. Under Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, this northeastern portion would be preserved as open space and covered by a conservation easement or similar mechanism . The Proposed Project would s chedule construction activities outside the nesting season and/or conduct preconstruction nesting bird clearance surveys, establish avoidance buffers around any active nests, and monitor active nest sites during construction activities, as recommended.

Two white-tailed kites were observed on the Project Site in 2005 and one in 2011. No kites have been observed during more recent surveys. Although this species may forage on the Project Site and potentially suitable nesting habitat is present, no nesting has been observed. Under Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3, if construction activities occur between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, a focused raptor survey will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. If active nests are within the portion of the site to be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be disturbed, measures shall be initiated to avoid any impacts to nesting raptors, including avoidance buffers around active nests. Under this mitigation measure, if white-tailed kite nesting is found on the Project Site, an incidental take permit from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required.

Special Status Wildlife Species
The Updated Biological Resources Assessment identified 19 special status wildlife species on the Project Site:
orange-throated whiptail, coastal (western) whiptail, coast horned lizard, Cooper’s hawk, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, great egret, great blue heron (fly over), Bel l’s sage sparrow, burrowing owl, Costa’s hummingbird, wrentit, northern harrier, Nuttall’s woodpecker, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, rufous hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California thrasher, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit.

The species covered under the MSHCP are considered adequately conserved. Burrowing owl is discussed below.

Species not covered under the MSHCP are great egret, Costa’s hummingbird, wrentit, Nuttall’s woodpecker, rufous hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, and C alifornia thrasher. Scheduling Project construction outside the nesting season or conducting preconstruction nesting bird clearance surveys and establishing avoidance buffers around any active nests are recommended.

Five additional special status wildlife species have not been observed on the Project Site but have a low to moderate potential to occur. These species are Crotch’s bumblebee, southern California legless lizard, Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and western mastiff bat (foraging). Northwestern San

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 19
Diego pocket mouse is covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved. The remaining four species are not covered under the MSHCP .

Crotch’s bumblebee was previously a candidate for state listing, but in November 2020 the Sacramento Superior Court ruled that insects are not eligible for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. The California Fish and Game Commission filed an intent to appeal this decision in February 2021. The status of this species may be affected by subsequent litigation or changes to regulations. If Crotch’s bumblebee becomes a listed or candidate species, focused surveys and incidental take permitting may be required.

Burrowing Owl
One adult burrowing owl and an occupied burrow were observed on the Project Site. Because suitable habitat is present, the MSHCP requires a preconstruction clearance survey for burrowing owl within 30 days prior to the start of site disturbance. If burrowing owls are found on-site at that time, additional mitigation is required under the MSHCP and Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2. The project applicant is required to comply with Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.27.040 which requires payment of an MSHCP mitigation fee to assist in providing revenue to acquire and conserve lands necessary to implement the MSHCP.

Nesting Birds
There is habitat suitable for nesting birds (including raptors) within and adjacent to the site. Nesting birds may utilize trees, shrubs, other vegetation, and open ground on and adjacent to the site. Nesting birds are protected under state and federal laws. Project activities, including initial vegetation trimming/clearing, tree trimming/removal, ground disturbance, etc. should be avoided during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a nesting bird clearance survey is recommended within three days prior to the start of Project construction activities within the nesting season. If active nests are present, avoidance of nest sites is required, and a buffer of 300 to 500 feet (or as determined by a biologist) is recommended until a biologist has verified that juvenile birds are no longer dependent on the nest or the nest has otherwise become inactive. An active nest is defined as a nest with eggs, chicks, or dependent juveniles, or a nest actively being constructed or utilized for reproduction.

Wildlife Corridors
The Project Site is largely surrounded by scattered existing development, and there is no connectivity between the Project Site and conserved lands to the east and southwest. Although there may be limited local movement of wildlife on and across the Project Site, it is not within or adjacent to a wildlife corridor or potential corridor.

Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat An ephemeral drainage with scattered riparian vegetation is present on the Project Site and mapped as a blue- line stream by the U.S. Geological Survey. The jurisdictional areas identified on the Project Site were updated as 18,814 square feet (0.43 acre) of CDFW unvegetated state streambed and 40,451 square feet (0.93 acre) of CDFW state wetland. The survey also identified 4,397 square feet (0.10 acre) of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) waters of the U.S. (WoUS), none of which is USACE federal wetland. A total of 59,265 square feet (1.361 acres) of Western Riverside County MSHCP Riparian/Riverine habitat was identified in the Project Area.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 20 ends

The Proposed Project would impact approximately 9,541 square feet (0.22 acre) of CDFW state streambed, 5,702 square feet (0.13 acre) of CDFW state wetland, and 1,301 square feet (0.03 acre) of USACE WoUS .

Further, the Proposed Project would retain 9,273 square feet (0.21 acre) of state streambed and 34,749 square feet (0.80 acre) of state wetland, including 3,096 square feet (0.07 acre) of WoUS by incorporating these areas on-site within a Compatible Use Area.

Regulatory permits from the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFW will be required for impacts to jurisdictional areas. A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) has been prepared to evaluate impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat (see Appendix C). Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 also requires on- or off-site replacement of CDFW and federal jurisdictional waters and wetlands at a ratio of no less than 1:1 and incorporation of design features that would avoid biological impacts to off- site blue-line streams that flow to Canyon Lake. All jurisdictional areas on-site will either be impacted by Project development or incorporated into the Avoidance Area. Monitoring of Project activities adjacent to the Avoidance Area is recommended.

Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal habitat were not observed on the Project Site, and no wetland or vernal pool plant species were present. No evidence of ponding areas (i.e., cracked soils, tire ruts, etc.) were observed on the Project Site.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR have been revised to reflect the change in lead agency from the County to the City or changes in agency names. The Proposed Project would have less-than- significant impacts on biological resources after mitigation.

Vegetation Communities

4.3-1 TTM No. 31194-4 Lot E, (formerly Lot #503 of TTM 31194) (approximately 39.0 acres in the northeastern portion of th e property) shall be preserved as open space and shall be covered by a conservation easement or other mechanism to ensure permanent preservation, with allowance for required maintenance of fuel modification zones. The conservation easement area shall be shown on the Final Map.

Sensitive Wildlife Species

4.3-2 Thirty days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. The determination shall be documented in a report to be reviewed and accepted by the County of Riverside City of Menifee. If the species is determined to be present, and the MSHCP’s stated objectives 1 – 4 for burrowing owl have not yet been met, mitigation shall be required in compliance with the MSHCP , Appendix C which states:
a. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and surrounding area supports less th an 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on -site burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 21
b. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat and is non-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long -term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site.

4.3-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to pay Local Development Mitigation Fees (per Menifee Municipal Code section 8.27.040 ) for implementation of the MSHCP .

4.3-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay fees in accordance with th e USFWS-approved HCP , to mitigate the project ’s potentially significant impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat.

4.3-5 If construction activities occur between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, a focused raptor survey will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. If active nests are located within the portion of the site to be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be disturbed, measures shall be initiated to avoid any impacts to nesting raptors. Measures to avoid impacts will include identifying the location and creating a buffer zone around the tree within which impacts will be avoided until the juveniles have fledged. a. The white -tailed kite is “fully -protected” by the California Department of Fish and GameWildlife. If this species is documented as nesting on the Project Site during the raptor survey, or it is determined this species will be significantly impacted by development a 2080 permit for “take” shall be required from the CDFGCDFW.

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters

4.3-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City of Menifee verifying that the necessary permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOEUSACE), California Department of Fish and GameWildlife (CDFGCDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have been obtained. The ACOEUSACE has a no net loss policy which requires that any unavoidable impact s to wetland values and functions be replaced. In addition, the RWQCB will add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. It is a nticipated that the following measures or similar measures as approved by the ACOEUSACE, CDFGCDFW, and RWQCB would reduce impacts to ACOEUSACE and CDFGCDFW jurisdictional areas to a level less-than- significant:
a. On or off-site replacement of ACOEUSACE jurisdictional waters and wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1;
b. On- or off -site replacement of CDFGCDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 1:1; and/or

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 22 ends

c. Incorporation of de sign features into the proposed project that will avoid biological impacts to off -site blue -line streams that ultimately end up in the Railroad Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake).

4.3-7 Individual lot fencing shall be used to restrict access to the on -site wetland areas. Back yard gates from individual residential lots that open onto the wetland area shall be prohibited.

4.3-8 Night lighting during and after project construction shall be directed away from onsite wetland areas and, except for safety and other requireme nts, lighting shall be limited from the boundaries of onsite wetland areas. In the event that lighting in an area adjacent to the wetland area is necessary, a shield shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the wetland area is not increased. Lighting plans shall be approved by the C ity prior to issuance of building permits. Lighting restrictions and the reasons for such restrictions shall be included in the project’s CC&Rs.

4.3-9 The landscape plans for the project in areas adj acent or tributary to wetland areas shall not include those species listed in the MSHCP as “Plants That Should Be Avoided Adjacent To The MSHCP Conservation Area”. The City Planning Department shall review and approve all plant material for the project, prior to issuance of building permits. Information regarding the importance of avoiding the listed plants, even in front and backyard landscaping, shall be included in sales literature distributed to homeowners. The list of restricted plant materials and the reasons for such restrictions shall be listed in the project’s CC&Rs.

4.1.4 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that there are no identified historic or prehistoric sites on the TTM 31194 site; however, archaeologically sensitive sites have been identified in its vicinity, and the potential for archeologically sensitive sites occurring on the TTM 31194 site exists. Therefore, the potential for disturbance to undiscovered sites during grading was considered potentially significant and required implementation of Mitigation Measures

4.4-1 through 4.4-9 to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant.

Additionally, portions of the TTM 31194 site contain Quaternary alluvium (Qofa), which has a high potential for yielding fossils. Therefore, the potential for disturbance to paleontological resources during grading in older alluvium was considered potentially significant and required implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4 -10 through 4.4-18 to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 23
Approved Project Mitigation Measures:

Archaeological Resources

4.4-1 Prior to any clearing, grubbing and/or earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the developer. The potential for discovery of archaeological resources on the site has been indicated as medium to high; therefore, consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) is required. A pre-grading meeting between the archaeologist, a Native American observer, and the excavation and grading contractor shall take place to ensure an understanding of the mitigation measures required during construction.

4.4-2 (A) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the archaeologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan, which shall include mitigation monitoring to be implemented during earthmoving on the TTM 31194 site . The treatment plan shall be developed in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and shall account for treatment of any archaeological remains and associated data uncovered by brushing, grubbing, or earthmoving.
(B) The project applicant shall enter into a pre -excavation agreement with t he culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s). The agreement shall document archeological monitoring requirements and specify the disposition of any significant resources discovered during monitoring.

4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and again i f necessary during the development of the final project mitigation report, the project proponent shall inquire if the Pechanga Tribe has developed a standard retrievable archival system for cultural materials. If such system is in place, the Pechanga Tribe shall be given preference in housing any collection. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all Luiseno cultural sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the TTM 31194 site , to th e culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) for proper treatment and disposition.

4.4-4 Archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be conducted on a full -time basis for all grading and ground disturbing activities, including archaeological testing, until the project archaeologist in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the County of Riverside determines that resources are not likely to be encountered.

4.4-5 If archaeological remains are found by the archaeological monitor, earthmovi ng shall be diverted temporarily around the deposits until they have been evaluated, recorded, excavated, and/or recovered as necessary. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the site when the archaeological supervisor, in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the County of Riverside, determines the artifacts are recovered and/or the site is mitigated to the extent necessary.

4.4-6 If possible human remains are encountered during any earthmoving activities, all work shal l stop in the area in which the find(s) are present, and the Riverside County Coroner must be

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 24 ends

notified. State law dictates that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified in the event that remains are determined to be human and of Native American decent, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

4.4-7 If a previously unknown site is encountered and it requires additional mitigation, a plan or proposal shall be prepared by the archaeologist, in consultation wi th the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and County of Riverside, outlining the plan of action that needs to be implemented to mitigate the new site.

4.4-8 Any recovered archaeological resources shall be identified, recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists shall identify, date, and/or determine significance potential.

4.4-9 A final report of findings shall be prepared by the archaeologist for submission to the Eastern Information Center and the County of Riverside. The report shall describe parcel history, summarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support the findings.

Paleontological Resources

4.4-10 Prior to any earth moving in areas containing older alluvium, a vertebrate paleontologist retained by the project proponent and approved by the County of Riverside shall develop a storage agreement with the LACM Vertebrate Paleontology Section, San Bernardino County Museum, or another acceptable museum repository to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the project area as a result of the monitoring program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the museum repository.

4.4-11 The paleontologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that, when implemented during earthmoving activities in the project area shall allow for the recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and site data uncovered by these activities.

4.4-12 The paleontologist and a palaeontologic construction monitor shall attend a pre-grade meeting to explain the monitoring program to grading contractor staff and to develop procedures and lines of communication to be implemented if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving activities, particularly when a monitor may not be on-site.

4.4-13 Palaeontologic monitoring of earthmoving activities shall be conducted on a full-time basis by the monitor during all earthmoving activities due to the exposure of sensitive strata.

Earthmoving activities in areas of the project area where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but not otherwise disturbed shall not be monitored. The supervising paleontologist shall have the aut hority to reduce monitoring once he determines the probability of encountering fossils has dropped below an acceptable level.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 25

4.4-14 If the monitor finds fossil remains, earthmoving activities shall be diverted temporarily around the fossil site until the remains have been recovered and these activities are allowed to proceed through the site by the monitor.

4.4-15 If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the monitor is not on site, these activities shall be diverted around the fossi l site and the monitor called to the site immediately to recover the remains.

4.4-16 If fossil remains are found, an appropriate amount of fossiliferous rock shall be recovered from the fossil site and processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test samples may be recovered from other sampling sites in the rock unit.

4.4-17 Any recovered fossil remains shall be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains shall then be curated (assigned and labeled with museum repository fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogu ed, and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data shall be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum reposito ry by a laboratory technician. The remains shall then be accessioned into the museum repository fossil collection, where they shall be permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators.

4.4-18 A final report of results and findings shall be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the County of Riverside and the museum repository following accessioning of the fossil collection into the museum repository fossil collection. The report shall describe the geology and stratigraphy parcel, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include a faunal list and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens, and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the fossil-bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would be in the same footprint as the Approved Project; thus, potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would still be present with the implementation of the Proposed Project.

According to the Phase I cultural resources assessment prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix D), six new cultural resources were identified in the Project Area. These include one isolated prehistoric artifact (RLCC-01-ISO), three bedrock milling sites (RLCC -02, -04, and -05), a concrete gallinaceous guzzler (RLCC - 06H), and a hand-hewn wood-post and barbed-wire fence line (RLCC-07H). Isolate RLCC-01-ISO and fence line RLCC-07H are recommended not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). No further consideration of RLCC-07H is required during Project planning. However, prehistoric isolated finds

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 26 ends

like RLCC-01-ISO that do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA may have cultural significance to local Native American tribes; therefore, efforts should be made to avoid direct impacts that may result in damage to or destruction of these isolated resources. The three bedrock milling sites (RLCC-02, -04, and -05) are recommended not eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, but collectively, their association with Native American settlement and subsistence activities contributes to the historical significance of the potential Christensen Webb village complex . Furthermore, viewshed and auditory analysis, limited subsurface exploration, and documenta tion of these sites ha ve the potential to generate important information about prehistory; therefore, these sites, collectively, also contribute to the significance of the potential district area.

Thus, RLCC-02, -04, and -05 are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. In its current state, gallinaceous guzzler RLCC -06H does not appear to have sufficient integrity to convey historical significance because of its distinctive character of type, period, and method of construction. Therefore, RLCC-06H does not appear to qualify for the CRHR and is not considered a historical resource under CEQA.

However, a reassessment of its integrity and potential significance may be warranted during Project construction should its apron (a shallow half -circle shaped catchment basin) and other character -defining features be found intact (L&L 2022b).

Additionally, according to the Updated Record Search and Phase I Paleontological Resources Inventory prepared for the Proposed Project, the palaeontologic resources record searches did not identify any previously recorded paleontological loca lities on or near the Project Site. Previously, the entire site was surveyed for palaeontologic resources, and no fossil materials were identified on -site. The potential for destruction of paleontological resources during surficial earthmoving during construction is high in rocks of Quaternary, old alluvial fan deposits, arenaceous rocks (deposits that are composed of sand grains or have a sandy texture) , because significant paleontological resources have been found in similar deposits. There is no potentia l for paleontological resources in the granitoid rocks of the Southern California batholith . Therefore, due to this potential, any excavation below five feet in depth should be monitored by a qualified paleontologist (L&L 2021b).

Although the Proposed Project would require the implementation of revised and updated mitigation measures, they would not be considerably different than the mitigation measures analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures:

The mitigation measures below have been revised or updated to ensure that the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources.

Archaeological Resources

4.4-1 Prior to any clearing, grubbing and/or earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the developer. The potential for discovery of archaeological resources on the site has been indicated as medium to high; therefore, consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) is required. A pre -grading meeting between the archaeologist, a Native American observer, and the excavation and grading contractor shall take place to ensure an understanding of the mitigation measures required during construction.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 27

The mitigation and discovery/treatment p lan should include a discussion of key personnel and their specific roles and responsibilities ; archaeological monitoring methods ; controlled excavation and/or destruction methods ; environmentally sensitive areas procedures ; preconstruction field surveys to identify known and unknown cultural resources; a discussion of archaeological resource classes that may be encountered during construction; and protocols for identifying, evaluating, treating, and curating archaeological resources that may be encountered. The plan should also include the following attachments: an Environmentally Sensitive Area Action Plan to preserve known bedrock milling features in place; cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel (i.e., Worker Environmental Awareness Program); methods for documenting bedrock milling features through close range photogrammetric documentation and viewshed analysis (i.e., direct line of sight and 180 - degree viewsheds) ; and methods of relocating bedrock milling features to the nearest dedicated open space where they will be preserved in perpetuity. The plan will be prepared in consultation with culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s). (B) The project applicant shall enter into a pre -excavation agreement with the culturally affiliated L uiseño Tribe(s). The agreement shall document archaeological monitoring requirements and specific the disposition of any significant resources discovered during monitoring.

4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and again if necessary during the d evelopment of the final project mitigation report, the project proponent shall inquire if the Pechanga Tribe has developed a standard retrievable archival system for cultural materials. If such system is in place, the Pechanga Tribe shall be given preference in housing any collection. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all Luiseño cultural sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project Site, to the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) for proper treatment and disposition.

The Project proponent will hire a qualified archaeologist that meets Secretary of Interior Standards to oversee the surface collection of isolated prehistoric artifact RLCC-01-ISO. The field work shall be completed by an archaeologist and Native American monitor(s) on behalf of the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s).

4.4-4 Archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be conducted on a full -time basis for all grading and ground -disturbing activities, i ncluding archaeological testing, until the project archaeologist in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the County of Riverside determines that resources are not likely to be encountered.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 28 ends

4.4-5 If archaeological remains are fou nd by the archaeological monitor, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the deposits until they have been evaluated, recorded, excavated, and/or recovered as necessary. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the site when the archaeological supervisor, in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the County of Riverside City of Menifee, determines the artifacts are recovered and/or the site is mitigated to the extent necessary.

4.4-6 If possible human remains are encountered during any earthmoving activities, all work shall stop in the area in which the find(s) are present, and the Riverside County Coroner must be notified. State law dictates that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified in the event that remains are determined to be human and of Native American descent, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

4.4-7 If a previously unknown site is encountered and it requires additional mitigation, a pl an or proposal shall be prepared by the archaeologist, in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and County of Riverside City of Menifee, outlining the plan of action that needs to be implemented to mitigate the new site.

4.4-8 Any re covered archaeological resources shall be identified, recorded, mapped , and artifact catalogued as required by standard archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists shall identify, date, and/or determine significance potential.

4.4-9 A final report of findings shall be prepared by the archaeologist for submission to the Eastern Information Center and the County of Riverside City of Menifee. The report shall describe parcel history, summarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing or special analysis information conducted to support the findings.

The draft archaeological monitoring re port will, at a minimum, present the results of monitoring field work, including enforcement of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Worker Environmental Awareness Program ; efforts to relocate bedrock milling features ; copies of daily monitoring logs; and appended photogrammetric documentation and viewshed analysis of bedrock milling features. If archaeological resources are discovered while implementing the monitoring program, the final monitoring report may also report on the results of lab analysis and special studies, and document the final treatment and disposition of the artifacts. The archaeological monitoring report will be completed in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s). The Project proponent is responsible for completing a final monitoring report that addresses comments from the lead agency, Project proponent, and/or consulting tribes. Final reports must be submitted to the lead agency, Project proponent, consulting tribes, and the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside.

Paleontological Resources

4.4-10 Prior to any earth moving in areas containing older alluvium, a vertebrate paleontologist retained by the project proponent and approved by the County of Riverside shall develop a

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 29
storage agreement with the LACM Vertebrate Paleontology Section, San Bernardino County Museum, or another acceptable museum repository to allow for the permanent storage and maintenance of any fossil remains recovered in the project area as a result of the monitoring program, and for the archiving of associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data at the museum repository.

4.4-11 The paleontologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that, when implemented d uring earthmoving activities in the project area shall allow for the recovery and subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and associated specimen and site data uncovered by these activities.

4.4-13 Palaeontologic monitoring of earthmoving activities shall be conducted on a full-time basis by the monitor during all earthmoving activities due to the exposure of sensitive strata.

Earthmoving activities in areas of the project area where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but not otherwise disturbed shall not be monitored. The supervising paleontologist shall have the authority to reduce monitoring once he determines the probability of encountering fossils has dropped below an acceptable level.

4.4-15 If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the monitor is not on site, these activities shall be diverted around the fossil site and the monitor called to the site immediately to recover the remains.

4.4-17 Any recovered fossil remains shall be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains shall then be curated (assigned and labeled with museum repository foss il specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued, and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data shall be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum repository by a laboratory technician. The remains shall then be accessioned into the museu m repository fossil collection, where they shall be

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 30 ends

permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators.

4.4-18 A final report of results and findings shal l be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the County of Riverside and the museum repository following accessioning of the fossil collection into the museum repository fossil collection. The report shall describe the geology and stratigraphy parcel, summarize field and laboratory methods used, include a faunal list and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens, and discuss the relationship of any newly recorded fossil site in the parcel to relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the fossil-bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and from correlative rock units in other regions.

4.4-10 Review Geotechnical Report Data . In conjunction with the final design phase of each program-related im provement, a qualified vertebrate paleontologist will review the geotechnical report data, with particular regard to location and depth of earthmoving and the rock unit(s) being encountered. The review is for the purpose of assessing potential for fossil remains being encountered by earth moving. If previously undisturbed strata with potential for containing fossil remains will be encountered by earthmoving, measures 4.4-11 through

4.4-18 will be implemented.

Prior to any earthmoving on-site, the paleontologist will develop a formal agreement with the museum regarding final disposition and permanent storage and maintenance of the fossil collection and ass ociated data. The agreement will cover, but not necessarily be limited to, museum requirements regarding: 1) level of treatment of the collection; 2) storage and maintenance fees, if any; 3) purchase of specimen storage cabinets and drawers, as well as specimen trays, vials, specimen data cards, and other curatorial supplies, if required.

4.4-12 Discovery Clause/Treatment Plan: As part of the PRIMP , the paleontologist will develop a discovery clause/treatment plan (DC/TP) to allow for additional tasks—recovery; geologic mapping; fossiliferous rock sample processing; specimen preparation, identification, curation, cataloguing, data entry; specimen storage and maintenance by museum —and manpower required to treat a large or productive fossil occurrence that can not be treated without diverting the monitor from routine monitoring. The DC/TP will also include approved procedures and lines of communication to be followed by specific individuals if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving, particularly when a palaeontologic monitor is not present on- site. Names and telephone numbers of contact personnel will be included in the lines of communication. The preparation of this PRIMP ensures compliance with Mitigation Measure

4.4-12.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 31

4.4-13 Preconstruction Meeting: The paleontologist or field supervisor, as well as a palaeontologic construction monitor, will attend a preconstruction meeting to explain the PRIMP to construction contractor and Richland Communities staff. The presentation will s ummarize mitigation procedures to be employed by PRIMP personnel and will detail procedures and lines of communication, as specified in the City of Menifee Conditions of Approval, to be followed by specific project personnel when fossil remains are found on-site.

The paleontologist or field supervisor will inform the construction contractor of the following items:
1) Routine mitigation measures (primarily monitoring and test screening) to be employed by a monitor during earthmoving.
2) The potential for fossil r emains being uncovered by earthmoving in particular areas of the site and the need to implement specific actions and additional mitigation measures when a fossil occurrence is uncovered by earthmoving.
3) Functions and responsibilities of the monitor when fos sil remains are uncovered by earthmoving and can be recovered without diverting the monitor from monitoring — temporarily divert earth moving around fossil site until remains are evaluated and recovered, and earthmoving is allowed to proceed through the site by monitor; if approved by the construction contractor, enlist the assistance of earth-moving equipment and operator to expedite recovery of remains, obviate need for additional personnel, and reduce any potential construction delay.
4) Functions and responsibilities of the monitor when a fossil occurrence is uncovered by earthmoving and is sufficiently large or productive that it cannot be recovered without diverting the monitor from monitoring.
a. Flag the site.
b. Advise construction contractor to avoid fossil s ite until further notice (usually less than 2 days).
c. Call the project paleontologist or field supervisor to site. 5) Functions and responsibilities of the paleontologist or field supervisor when notified by the monitor that a large or productive fossil occurr ence has been uncovered by earthmoving and cannot be recovered without diverting the monitor from monitoring.

Evaluate occurrence to determine if recovery is warranted. a. If recovery is warranted, notify construction contractor and Richland Communities of the necessity for implementing additional mitigation measures specified in DC/TP; initiate increased level of monitoring, if not already in effect, in immediate vicinity of fossil site and assigning additional personnel to PRIMP .

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 32 ends

b. Within 24 hours after approv al, mobilize recovery crew to recover occurrence; supervise recovery of occurrence and its transport to laboratory facility or to a location elsewhere at site approved by the construction contractor for initial/field processing of a fossiliferous rock sample or to laboratory facility for preparation of a fossil specimen.
c. If warranted and approved by construction contractor, enlist the assistance of the earth-moving equipment and operator to expedite recovery of occurrence. d. To obviate need for additional personnel and reduce any potential construction delay, after recovery of occurrence, have construction contractor allow earth moving to proceed through fossil site.
e. Notify Richland Communities of recovery (or of decision not to recover fossil occurrence, if appropriate) and of authorization for earth moving to proceed through fossil site.
6) Responsibilities of the construction contractor and earth-moving equipment operators if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving, particularly if a monitor is not present at the site when the remains are encountered.
a. Avoid disturbance of fossil site by earth moving.
b. Notify monitor, the paleontologist, or the field supervisor and Richland Communities of the fossil occurrence.
c. Avoidance of fossil site by earthmoving activities. d. Assist with equipment and operator to expedite recovery of occurrence.

These measures will obviate need for additional personnel, reduce any potential construction delay, and allow for earthmoving to proceed through the site following approval by monitor.

The construction contractor and Richland Communities staff will be shown examples of fossil specimens similar to those that might be encountered by earthmoving on -site. If warranted, the paleontologist or field supervisor and a monitor will give a similar presentation to the earth-moving equipment operators at one of their earliest safety meetings. The operators will be instructed on recognizing fossil remains in the field, informed of their responsibilities if they observe fossil remains when the monitor is not present at the site (avoid disturbance of occurrence by earthmoving; have construction contractor call monitor to fossil site; expedite recovery of occurrence, if requested), and advised that unauthorized collecting of fossil remains is illegal.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 33
Monitoring will not be implemented until earthmoving has reached a depth of five feet below current grade. Monitoring will consist of visually inspecting freshly exposed rock and debris for larger fossil remains and periodically dry test screening a small (25 pound) sample of rock and debris with a 20-mesh box screen for smaller vertebrate fossil remains. Monitoring will be conducted on a full -time basis. However, if too few or no fossil remains are uncovere d by earthmoving in areas underlain by a particular rock unit, based on the professional recommendation of L&L, monitoring can be reduced to half or quarter time , generally, or suspended once 50 percent of earthmoving in the area underlain by the rock unit has been completed. Alternatively, if significant fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving, based on the professional recommendation of L&L, monitoring may be increased in areas underlain by the fossil-bearing rock unit, at least in the immediate vicinity of the fossil site.

4.4-15 Large-Specimen Evaluation and Recovery Options
1) If a large fossil specimen (unable to be picked up easily by hand) is found as a result of monitoring earthmoving and the specimen can be recovered without significantly diverting the monitor from monitoring, earthmoving will be temporarily diverted around the fossil site and the specimen will be evaluated and, if warranted, excavated ; covered with a protective plaster-impregnated burlap jacket, if required; and recovered. 2) If necessary and approved by the construction contractor, earth -moving equipment and an operator will be enlisted to expedite recovery of the specimen and obviate the need for additional personnel, and the construction contractor will be allowed to have earthmoving proceed through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the specimen. A temporary field number will be assigned to the specimen; the field number, a preliminary field identification, and pertinent specimen (field number, identification by taxon and element) and geologic (particularly stratigraphic level within rock unit) and geographic site data (location, elevation) will be recorded in the monitor’s daily monitoring log; and the field number recorded and the fossil site location plotted on a map of the site. 3) At the end of the day the monitor or (following their next site inspection) the field supervisor will transport the fossil remains and associated data to a laboratory facility for further treatment (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-17). If appropriate, samples of fossil wood will be submitted for carbon-14 dating analysis.
4) If a fossil specimen is found and is sufficiently large that it cannot be recovered without significantly diverting the monitor from monitoring, the fossil site will be flagged with colored survey ribbon to temporarily divert earthmoving around the site, the construction contractor will be advised to avoid the site until further notice (usually less than 2 days), and the paleontologist or field supervisor will be called to the site. The grading contractor will notify Richland Communities and L&L of the occurrence and of the avoidance of the site. The paleontologist or field supervisor will evaluate the specimen for significance and continuity to determine if recovery is warranted.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 34 ends

a. If specimen recovery is not warranted, no further action will be taken to preserve the fossil site or remains, the construction contractor will be allowed to have earthmoving proceed through the site immediately, and Richland Communities will be notified of the decision not to recover the specimen and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site.
b. If specimen recovery is warranted, the paleontologist or field supervisor will notify the construction contractor, Richland Communiti es, and the City of Menifee Community Development Director of the necessity for implementing additional mitigation measures specified in the DC/TP ; initiating full-time monitoring, if not already in effect, at least in the immediate vicinity of the site in areas underlain by the fossil-bearing rock unit; and assigning additional personnel to the PRIMP . Within 24 hours after Richland Communities’ approval, as secured by L&L, a recovery crew will be mobilized to recover the specimen. The size of the crew will reflect the size of the specimen and the need to recover the specimen as quickly as possible.

The specimen will be excavated with hand tools, covered with a protective plaster- impregnated burlap jacket, and recovered. If necessary and approved by the construction contractor, earth-moving equipment and an operator will be enlisted to expedite recovery of the specimen, reduce any potential construction delay, and obviate the need for additional personnel. The construction contractor will be allowed to have earthmoving proceed through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the specimen. Richland Communities will be notified of the recovery and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site. A temporary field number will be assigned to the specimen; the field number, a preliminary field identification, and pertinent specimen (field number, identification by taxon and element) and geologic (particularly stratigraphic level within rock unit) and geographic site data (location, elevatio n) will be recorded in the monitor’s daily monitoring log; and the field number will be recorded and the fossil site location plotted on a map of the site. The field supervisor and, if necessary, a crew member will transport the fossil specimen and associa ted site data to a laboratory facility for further treatment (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-17).

4.4-16 Small-Specimen Sample Evaluation, Recovery, and Processing . If a sufficient number of smaller vertebrate fossil remains are found at one site as a result of test screening by the monitor, the fossil site will be flagged with colored survey ribbon to temporarily divert earthmoving around the site. The construction contractor will be advised to avoid th at site until further notice (usually less than tw o days) and, if requested by the monitor, in order to expedite recovery of a fossiliferous rock sample, reduce any potential construction delay, and obviate the need for additional personnel, the construction contractor will have earth-moving equipment and an operator acquire a rock sample from the fossil site and transport the sample, if possible, to a nearby temporary location at the site approved by the construction contractor.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 35
The construction contractor will notify Richland Communities and L&L of the occurrence and of the avoidance of the fossil/storage site. If a sample is recovered, the construction contractor can continue earthmoving through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the sample. The monitor will notify Richland Communities of the recovery of the sample and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site. The paleontologist or field supervisor will be called to the fossil/storage site to determine if the fossil site/sample is sufficiently productive to warrant recovery of a large sample of fossiliferous rock to process for additional small remains. (Previous experience has demonstrated that only some fossil sites require sampling/sample processing, but more than 95 percent of the specimens recovered as a result of some mitigation programs were recovered as a result of sample processing.) 1) If the site/sample is determined too unproductive or the remains too poorly preserved or insufficiently diagnostic, no further action will be taken to preserve the fossil site/sample or remains, the construction contractor will be allowed to continue earthmoving through the fossil/storage site immediately, and Richland Communities will be notified of the decision not to recover/process a sample and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil/storage site. 2) If sample recovery is warranted, the paleontologist or field supervisor will notify the construction contractor and the City of Menifee Community Development Director of the necessity for implementing additional mitigation measures specified in the DC/TP and assigning additional personnel to the PRIMP .
a. Within 24 hours after approval, a recovery crew will be mobilized to recover the sample. The size of the crew will reflect the need to recover the sample as quickly as possible. The field supervisor will record the size and supervise recovery of the sample. Up to three tons of fossiliferous rock will be recovered. The sample will be excavated with hand tools for recovery. If necessary and if approved by the construction contractor, earth-moving equipment and an operator will be enlisted to expedite transportation of the sample to the processing facility site, obviate the need for additional personnel, and reduce any potential construction delay . The construction contractor will be allowed to have earthmoving proceed through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the sample. The paleontologist or field supervisor will notify Richland Communities of recovery of the sample and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site. b. A temporary field number will be assigned to the sample; the field number and pertinent specimen (field number, identification by taxon and element) and geologic (particularly stratigraphic level within rock unit) and geographic site data (location, elevation) will be recorded in the monitor’s daily monitoring log; and the field number will be recorded and the fossil site location plotted on a map of the site. The field supervisor and, if necessary, a crew mem ber will transport the sample to a nother location at the site approved by the construction contractor or to an off-site location

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 36 ends

for initial/field processing (wet screening) of the sample. The total weight of all samples from each fossil-bearing rock unit at the site will not exceed three tons. c. If warranted, the field supervisor will set up a field processing facility for wet screening the sample at a site location approved by the construction contractor. Wet screening will consist of sieving rock through a 20 -mesh box screen (and/or finer) immersed in a tub of water to remove the smaller particles (clay and silt) from the larger particles (sand and rock) and small fossil remains. This could result in a reduction in sample weight/volume in excess of 90 percent. If necessary, rock will be soaked in an environmentally safe dispersant (citrus oil) prior to screening to improve separation of the clay particles from the rest of the sample during screening. The monitor will conduct wet screening if it can be accomplished without diverting the monitor from monitoring. If it is not possible to have the monitor perform the wet screening, a field technician will be assigned to the task. Following his next site inspection, the field supervisor will transport th e concentrate (larger particles and small fossil remains) generated by initial processing to a laboratory facility for final/laboratory processing.
d. If fossil remains in the concentrate are sufficiently fossilized (dense), an environmentally safe heavy liquid (sodium polytungstate), if appropriate, will be used by the senior vertebrate paleontologist to separate the remains from the remaining sand and rock particles. When added to a beaker filled with heavy liquid, the concentrate will separate, the particles floating to the surface, and the remains sinking to the bottom, from where they are retrieved. This technique can result in a further sample weight/volume reduction in excess of 90 percent (less than 1 percent of original sample size). The final concentrate will be examined under a microscope and fossil specimens recovered from any remaining sand and rock particles. If the fossil bone in the original concentrate is not sufficiently dense for use of the heavy -liquid separation technique, the entire sample of concentrate will be sorted under a microscope for fossil remains. Recovered fossil remains will then be treated (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-17).
e. During final processing of a sample, the senior vertebrate paleontologist will continually evaluate the results of field and laboratory processing. If the sample is insufficiently productive or the fossil remains are too poorly preserved, the senior vertebrate paleontologist will have the option of discontinuing further laboratory processing of the sample, h aving field processing of the remainder of the sample suspended, and disposing of the remainder of the sample and unprocessed concentrate. Similarly, processing will be discontinued if, after preliminary identification of some specimens, the remains are determined insufficiently diagnostic or diverse taxonomically, or the species represented are the same as those in another sample from the fossil-bearing rock unit. (Previous experience has demonstrated that only some fossil sites require sample processing, and only some of these sites require

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 37
processing of an entire three-ton sample.) If appropriate, small splits from one or more samples will be submitted for palynological analysis.

4.4-17 Fossil Treatment. Final treatment of all fossil specimens recovered from the site as a result of the PRIMP will be conducted at a laboratory facility. Larger vertebrate fossil specimens will be removed from their protective jackets, prepared to the point of identification using hand tools, and hardened or stabilized with a penetrating solution by a preparator. All recovered fossil specimens will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable vertebrate and invertebrate paleontologists and, if required, other knowledgeable paleontologists (e.g., paleobotanists, micropaleontologists, palynologists). The specimens will then be curated (assigned and labeled with museum specimen data and corresponding site numbers, placed in specimen trays and, if appropriate, vials with completed specimen data cards); catalogued (specimen and site numbers and specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data, respectively, archived [entered into appropriate catalogs and computerized databases]); and accessioned into the museum fossil collection, where they will be permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated data, made available for future study by qualified investigators. With the possible exception of tasks that might be conducted by museum staff (curation, cataloging), all treatment of fossil specimens will be conducted by a laboratory technician. Fossil specimen preparation, identification, curation, and cataloguing are now required before a fossil collection will be accepted by most museum repositories, including the WSC. Moreover, the scientific importance of a fossil specimen cannot be evaluated until the specimen has been identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, and specimen identification often is not possible without prior preparation.

4.4-18 Final Report. A final technical report of findings will be prepared by the paleontologist and will describe the site’s stratigraphy; summarize field and laboratory methods employed during the PRIMP ; include a taxonomic list and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens recovered as a result of the PRIMP; evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens; and discuss the relationship of the fossil assemblage from any newly recorded fossil site at the Project Site to relevant fossil assemblages from fossil sites in other areas. The rep ort will be submitted to the contractor, Richland Communities, and the City of Menifee Community Development Director. Submission of the final report will signify completion of the PRIMP and will ensure Richland Communities’ compliance with Public Resource s Code Section 21081.6 (mitigation monitoring, reporting, and compliance).

4.1.5 Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that two drainage areas would be constructed for the Approved Project — drainage area ‘A’, which would contain approximately 565 acres, on-site and off -site, and produce a 100 -year storm runoff of 1,000.6 cubic feet per second ( cfs) before retention. Two flow-by retention basins would be developed to keep the flow at or below the existing l evel. The two flow -by basins were designed to outlet to reduce the peak flows for the 2 -year, 5-year, and 10 -year storm events and for all storm velocity durations.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 38 ends

These basins would also serve as water quality basins. Basin A -1 provided a volume of 4.04 acre-feet, and Basin A-2 provided a volume of 2.44 acre-feet. The smaller drainage area ‘B’ would contain 17.01 acres and produce a 100-year storm runoff of 38.6 cfs. This flow would drain to an existing canyon on the east side of the TTM 31194 site. The flow rate produced from the developed condition was less than the existing level by

2.8 cfs. However, 10-year, 24-hour-unit hydrographs calculated for the area determin ed that a retention basin of 0.38 acre -feet was required to retain the excess runoff generated from Area B during a 10 -year storm.

A 0.82-acre-foot basin was proposed to provide retention and water quality treatment.

Storm drains would be installed on -site, and detention basins were proposed to capture runoff and slow the rate of flow. The Approved Project require d drainage and flood control facilities and improvements to be provided in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation D istrict requirements.

Proposed grading and drainage improvements conform ed to Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code and complied with the basin plan of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with no mitigation.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required for the Approved Project regarding hydrology, flooding, and drainage.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would increase the residential density and therefore change the hydraulic modeling of the Project Site, resulting in modification of drainage management areas (DMA) ‘A ’, ‘C’, and ‘D’. The Proposed Project would further subdivide the overall hydrological drainage areas into smaller drainage management areas, designated ‘A ’ through ‘L’. As described in the hydrology report prepared for the Proposed Project (see Appendix C), the Proposed Project would revise the drainage pattern of the proposed DMA ‘A’, ‘C’, and ‘D’.

The revised DMA ‘A ’ comprises 95.88 acres and is tributary to water quality and detention basin ‘A ’ in the northwesternmost corner of the TTM 31194 site. The revised DMA ‘C’ comprises 14.19 acres and is tributary to water quality and detention basin ‘C’ in the southeasternmost corner of the TTM 31194 site. The revised DMA ‘D’ comprises 54.51 acres and is tributary to water quality and detention basin ‘D’ in the center of the TTM 31194 site.

The proposed on-site water quality and detention basins are being designed to meet water quality requirements and mitigate for any increase in runoff associated with the development of areas ‘A ’, ‘C’, and ‘D’. Furthermore, basins A and C are being designed as “Extended Detention Basins,” and each would include a concrete-lined forebay, low-flow gravel diversion channels, and a sand filter with a metered outlet structure. Basin D is designed as an infiltration basin and is sized to capture and infiltrate the water quality volume in its entirety. Development of the Proposed Project does not propose a significant change over the Approved Project; however, peak flow rates would be expected to increase with the addition of impervious area. This increase in flow rate and any increase in runoff volume would be mitigated by the proposed detention and water quality basins throughout the site. Based on the results of the hydrology report ( Appendix E), the proposed drainage facilities would adequately protect the site area s from flood damage associated with the 100 -year storm event. The proposed facilities, with ultimate development and adequate maintenance, would convey flows safely through the site area in accordance with City of Menifee requirements. Because the proposed drainage facilities will adequately

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 39
protect the site from flood damage and accommodate for the increased flow rate of water due to additional residential lots, the Proposed Project will result in less-than-significant impacts with no mitigation.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project regarding hydrology, flooding, and drainage.

4.1.6 Water Quality
Approved Project Impact Analysis
Construction Impacts
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would include grading operations that would result in potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the project applicant was required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. Additionally, since the Approved Project is in the San Jacinto Watershed, it was subject to a special NPDES permit (No. CAG 618005) per Order No. 01-34.

Therefore, the Approved Project was required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES construction permit by developing and implementing a Storm Water Polluti on Plan (SWPPP ), approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), that specifie d best management practices (BMP) to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6 -1 through

4.6-6 were required to ensure that potential impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Operational Impacts
Implementation of the Approved Project would also permanently alter the composition of the surface runoff by grading the site surfaces; by construction of impervious surfaces such as streets, roofs and parking facilities; and by irrigation of landscaped areas. In compliance with the Santa Ana RWQ CB Order No. R8 -2002- 0011/NPDES Permit No. CAS 618033, a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) had been prepared for Approved Project. As specified by the WQMP , treatment control BMPs were proposed to remove pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. The Approved Project proposed several detention basins, one of which would be used for retention of stormwater , and the others of which would be used to treat the project’s stormwater in addition to retention. The basins were proposed at the points where runoff from developed portions of the TTM 31194 site would enter the on-site natural drainage.

The Approved Project generated a demand for treatment of sewage, which require d treatment and ultimate disposal by Eastern Municip al Water District (EMWD). EMWD would manage the TTM 31194 site 's wastewater in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board and Santa Ana R WQCB. The Approved Project complied with the basin plan adopted by the RWQCB.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.6-1 The developer or builder for TTM No. 31194 shall be required, pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a NPDES construction permit, prior to

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 40 ends

issuance of grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the Approve Project.

Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area or activity which is par t of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a SWPPP , that specifies BMPs to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff, as well as non-storm water discharges. Examples of BMPs include, but are not limited to energy dissipation structures and rip-rap at stormwater discharge points to stabilize flow and reduce velocities; mulching cleared or freshly seeded areas for erosion/sedimentation control; and using geotextiles and mats for erosion control during construction , storm drain inlet/outlet protection for siltation control, and slope drains for erosion control. The permit also requires a monitoring, reporting and inspection program to be developed and implemented to assure the effectiveness of the controls.

4.6-2 Prior to approval of a Final Map and final engineering drawings, the County shall verify that the Final Map and engineering drawings indicate the size and location of the structural source control BMPs specified by the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

4.6-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the County shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs specify the homeowners’ association ownership maintenance requirements for private storm drains and catch basins as specified in the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

4.6-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the County shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs contain the activity restrictions and the property owner environmental education awareness materials for water quality specified by the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Construction Impacts
As with the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be required to obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities and a special NPDES permit (No. CAG 618005) per Order No. 01 -34. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES construction permit by developing and implementing a SWPPP , approved by the Executive Officer of the RWQCB, that specifies BMPs to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-6 would still be required to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Operational Impacts
As with the Approved Project, i mplementation of the Proposed Project would permanently alter the composition of the surface runoff by grading site surfaces; constructing impervious surfaces such as streets, roofs, and parking facilities; and irrigating landscaped areas. An updated WQMP has been prepared for the Proposed Project (Hunsaker & Associates 2021)(see Appendix F).

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 41
The Proposed Project would generate sewage, which would require treatment and ultimate disposal by EMWD.

EMWD would manage the Project Site’s wastewater in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board and Santa Ana RWQCB. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would comply with the basin plan adopted by the RWQCB. Therefore, the Proposed Project will result in less-than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, as described below.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures below have been revised to show the change in jurisdiction and will result in less-than significant impacts of the Proposed Project on water quality

4.6-1 The developer or builder for TTM No. 31194 shall be required, pursuant to req uirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a NPDES construction permit prior to issuance of grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project.

Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a SWPPP that specifies BMPs to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff and nonstorm water discharges. Examples of BMPs include but are not limited to installing energy dissipation structures and rip-rap at stormwater discharge points to stabilize flow and reduce velocities; mulching cleared or freshly seeded areas for erosion/sedimentation control; and using geotextiles and mats for erosion control during construction, storm drain inlet/outlet protection for siltation control; and slope drains for erosion control. The permit also requires a monitoring, reporting, and inspection program to be developed and implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the controls.

4.6-2 Prior to approval of a Final Map and final engineering drawings, the County City shall verify that the Final Map and engineering drawings indicate the size and location of the structural source control BMPs specified by the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

4.6-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the County City shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs specify the homeowners association’s ownership maintenance requirements for private storm drains and catch basins, as specified in the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

4.6-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the County City shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs contain the activity restrictions and the property owner environmental education awareness materials for water quality specified by the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 42 ends

4.1.7 Geology and Slope Stability
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the TTM 31194 site is suitable for development from a geotechnical viewpoint. Based on the topography of the site, implementation of the Approved Project would create cut slopes and fill slopes with maximum heights of approximately 110 feet and 20 feet, respectively. Any existing fill encountered during site development would be removed from beneath all improvements and in areas receiving new fill. The existing fill and alluvium would be stockpiled and reused as engineered fill if it was free of vegetation and other deleterious materials. The exposed soils would be scarified to a minimum depth of eight inches, moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil’s maximum density. The previously removed soils, or approved import, would then be placed as properly compacted fill. All excavated materials except oversized rocks (over 8 inches in greater dimension), would be suitable for placement as compacted fill.
“Marginal ripping” to “very difficult ripping with some blasting ” could be required at shallow depths in parts of the TTM 31194 site . The presence of alluvium and potential for presence of undocumented fill was a potentially significant impact that required mitigation in the form of remedial grading.

The Certified EIR determined that n o active or potentially active faults were on the property; however, secondary hazards associated with seismic activity had the potential to affect the site, as described below. ▪ Ground Shaking and Rupture. No active or potentially active faults are on the TTM 31194 site; thus, the potential for ground rupture is low and was not considered significant. The seismic risk for the Approved Project area was not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in Southern California, and the geologic investigations conducted for the site conclude d that, from a geologic standpoint, the property was suitable for development as proposed. Construction of the proposed structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code ensure d that potential ground shaking impacts would not result in a significant impact.
▪ Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement . Due to the shallow granitic bedrock at the TTM 31194 site , impacts associated with liquefaction and seismically induced settlement were considered unlikely.
▪ Tsunami and Seiche. The Pacific Ocean is over 25 miles west of the TTM 31194 site; there is no potential for tsunamis. Lake Skinner is approximately 21 roadway miles southeast, and Canyon Lake is approximately 11 miles northwest of the TTM 31194 site. The TTM 31194 site is outside of the dam inundation area for these lakes, as was depicted in the County’s General Plan. The potential for seiches on the TTM 31194 site was deemed nonexistent.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in compliance with the requirements of County Ordinances, a detailed geotechnical report(s) shall be submitted to the County’s Engineering Division for review and approval. The report(s) shall identify and address site -specific (a)

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 43
underlying soil conditions, (b) liquefaction po tential, (c) seismic parameters and building requirements and (d) slope stability. The measures recommended by the final geotechnical report(s) shall be identified on applicable grading plans and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Geologist.

4.7-2 All earthwork and grading shall be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the Grading and Excavation Code and the Grading Manual of the County of Riverside, in addition to the provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (U BC), including Appendix Chapter 33. Grading shall also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Standard Grading Specifications contained in the geotechnical reports prepared by Leighton and Associates (see EIR Appendices H1 and H2).

4.7-3 The project geotechnical engineer or qualified representative shall be notified at appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during clearing operations and to verify compliance with the recommendations made by the project geotechnical reports. In addition, any buried structures or unusual or adverse soil conditions encountered that are not described or anticipated in the geotechnical reports prepared by Leighton and Associates shall be brought to the immediate attention of the geotechnical consultant.

4.7-4 All existing low-density and potentially collapsible soil materials, such as loose manmade fill and alluvium, shall be removed to underlying competent bedrock from each area to receive compacted fill. Prior to placing structural fi lls, the exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area shall first be scarified to a depth of 6 inches or more, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, and then recompacted in -place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Actual depths and horizontal limits of any removals shall be determined during grading on the basis of in-grading observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant and/or engineering geologist.

4.7-5 In the event import soils are needed to achieve final design grades, all potential import materials shall be free of deleterious/oversize materials, non-expansive, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to commencement of delivery onsite.

The project geotechnical consultant or his representative shall also be present onsite during all grading operations to verify proper placement and adequate compaction of all fill materials, as well as to verify compliance with the other recommendations presented in the project geotechnical reports.

4.7-7 No oversized rock s (greater than 12 inches) shall be place d within 10 feet of the finished grade.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 44 ends

4.7-8 Cut and fill slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) and exceeding a vertical height of 30 feet shall be constructed with drainage terraces in accordance with Chapter 33 of the 1997 UBC.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Due to anticipated shallow rock conditions and proposed site grading, deep excavations on this site are expected to require heavy ripping, blasting, or other rock-reduction techniques and would likely generate oversized rock materials (rock fragments greater than 12 inches). By County standards, oversized rock should not be placed in the upper 10 feet of finished pad grades. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 through 4.7-8 would still be required to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

The Proposed Project is in the same footprint as the Approved Project; therefore, no active or potentially active faults are on the property. Secondary hazards associated with seismic activity would be similar to the Approved Project, including ground shaking and rupture, liquefaction and seismically induced settlement, and tsunami and seiche . Therefore, the Proposed Project w ould result in less -than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, as described below.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures below have been revised or updated to show the changes in jurisdiction and state local regulations.

4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in compliance with the requirements of County City ordinances, a detailed geotechnical report(s) shall be submitted to the County’s City’s Engineering Division for review and approval. The report(s) shall identify and address site - specific (a) underlying soil conditions, (b) liquefaction potential, (c) seis mic parameters and building requirements, and (d) slope stability. The measures recommended by the final geotechnical report(s) shall be identified on applicable grading plans and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County City Geologist.

4.7-2 All earthwork and grading shall be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the Grading and Excavation Code and the Grading Manual of the County of Riverside Chapter 8.26, Grading Regulations, of the Menifee Municipal Co de, in addition to the provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) 2021 International Building Code .

Grading shall also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Standard Grading Specifications in the geotechnical reports prepared by Leighton and Associates (see EIR Appendices H1 and H2 Appendix G).

4.7-3 The Project’s geotechnical engineer or qualified representative shall be notified at appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during clearing operations and to verify compliance with the recommendations made by the Project’s geotechnical reports. In addition, any buried structures or unusual or adverse soil conditions encountered that are not described or anticipated in the geotechnical reports prepared by Leighton and Associates shall be brought to the immediate attention of the geotechnical consultant.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 45

4.7-4 All existing low-density and potentially collapsible soil materials, such as loose man -made fill and alluvium, shall be removed to underlying competen t bedrock from each area receiv ing compacted fill. Prior to placing structural fills, the exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area shall first be scarified to a depth of six inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near-optimal moisture conditions, then recompacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Actual depths and horizontal limits of any removals shall be determined during grading on the basis of in-grading observations and testing performed by the Project’s geotechnical consultant and/or engineering geologist.

4.7-5 In the event import soils are needed to achieve final design grades, all potential import materials shall be nonexpansive, free of deleterious/oversized materials, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to commencement of delivery on-site.

4.7-6 An observation of clearing operations, removal of unsuitable surficial materials, and general grading procedures shall be performed by the Project’s geotechnical consultant or his /her representative. Fill shall not be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant.

The project geotechnical consultant or his /her representative shall also be present on -site during all grading operations to verify proper placement and adequat e compaction of all fill materials as well as to verify compliance with the other recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical reports.

4.7-7 No oversized rock s (greater than 12 inches) shall be place d within 10 feet of the finished grade.

4.7-8 Cut-and-fill slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) and exceeding a vertical height of 30 feet shall be constructed with drainage terraces in accordance with Chapter 33 of the 1997 UBC.

4.1.8 Soils, Slopes, and Erosion Potential
Approved Project Impact Analysis
Soil Settlement and Expansion Potential
The Certified EIR determined that the majority of the on-site materials consisted of low plastic clays to fine sandy silts and generally possess ed a very low to lo w expansion potential. Though they were not observed during field reconnaissance, it was possible that undocumented fills or other materials with an expansion potential greater than low could be encountered during construction. If present, these materials would not be suitable for structural development, and this was regarded as a potentially significant impact.

Landform Alteration
The majority of the grading and development was proposed on the southwestern portion of the site and generally avoided the steeper landforms in the northeastern part of the site, which were designated natural open space. The estimated earthwork quantities were 700,000 cubic yards ( cy) of cut and 700,000 cy of fill.

Grading was proposed over an approximate ly 165.7-acre disturbance area. Despite some alteration to the

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 46 ends

natural landform, the majority of the site’s steep natural landform was in the open space parts of the site and would be permanently preserved. Proj ect grading would conform to the County’s Grading Standards. These standards included, but were not limited to maintaining natural drainage patterns, limiting street grades to less than 15 percent, ensuring slope stability, etc.

Erosion
The Approved Project proposed grading or disturbance of approximately 165.7 acres. Grading would remove the existing vegetative cover and expose the underlying soils, which increased the rate of runoff and increased erosion susceptibility. Soils with slow to medium runoff a nd slight to moderate erosion potentials covered approximately 45.8 percent of the TTM 31194 site; soils with medium and moderate runoff and erosion potentials covered approximately 31.2 percent of the site; and soils with rapid to high and very high runoff and erosion potential covered approximately 23 percent of the site.

Soils with high erosion susceptibility and fill materials for development areas were subject to potentially significant Project-related erosion because of the removal of stabilizing vegetation and the exposure of erodible materials to wind and water. Potential erosion impacts were greatest in steeper areas and during the first rainy season after grading (before landscaping becomes established). Erosion and dust control techniques would be implemented during construction as part of the required SWPPP and BMPs. With adherence to the SWPPP , the potential for erosion and transport of material within the proposed project boundaries and off-site was reduced to below a level of significance.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.8-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The Grading Plan shall inc lude: 1) techniques employed to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process; 2) approximate time frames for grading; 3) identification of areas which may be graded during high probability rain months (January through March); and 4) preliminary pad and roadway elevations.

4.8-2 Where cut and fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees to ensure that plant material would be effective as erosion control and that all slopes would be landscaped per County Ordinance No. 457.

4.8-3 All grading procedures shall be in compliance with th e Riverside County Grading Standards including requirements for erosion control during rainy months. The requirements for compliance with County’s Grading Standards shall be noted on all grading plans.

4.8-4 Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 47

4.8-5 Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be performed to further analyze on -site soil c onditions and slope stability and shall include the appropriate measures to control erosion.

4.8-6 Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the County of Riverside at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete.

4.8-7 The locations of potentially compressible soils shall be identified on all Grading Plans. Where development is proposed in areas of compressible soils, deep foundation systems shall be used, or compressible soils shall be completely over excavated and compacted.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Soil Settlement and Expansion Potential
Since the Proposed Project would be constructed within the same footprint as the Approved Project, the majority of the on-site materials still consist of low plastic clays to fine sandy silts and generally possess a very low to low expansion potential.

Landform Alteration
The estimated earthwork quantities are 793,000 cy of cut and 793,000 cy of fill. Grading would occur over an approximately 177.2-acre disturbance area. Similar to the Approved Project, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in alterations to the natural landform ; however, the majority of the site’s steep natural landform is i n the open space areas of the site and would be permanently preserved. Project grading would conform to Chapter 9, Article 4, Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards, of the City’s Development Code.

Erosion
Development of the Proposed Project would include grading or disturbance of approximately 177.2 acres of the Project Site. Grading would remove the existing vegetative cover and expose the underlying soils, which would increase the rate of runoff and increase erosion susceptibility. Soils with slow to medium runoff and slight to moderate erosion potentials cover approximately 45.8 percent of the property; soils with medium and moderate runoff and erosion potentials cover approximately 31.2 percent of the property; and soils with rapid to high and very high runoff and erosion potentials cover approximately 23 percent of the property.

Soils with high erosion susceptibility as well as fill materials used for development areas would be subject to potentially significant project-related erosion because of the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of erodible materials to wind and water. Potential erosion impacts would be greatest in steep areas and during the first rainy season after grading (before landscaping becomes established). Erosion- and dust-control techniques would be implemented during construction as part of the required SWPPP and its BMPs. With adherence to the SWPPP , the potential for erosion and transport of material within the Proposed Project boundaries and off-site would be reduced to below a level of significance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less- than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, as described below.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 48 ends

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures below have been revised or updated to show the changes in jurisdiction and state local regulations and ensure that potential impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

4.8-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan shall be submitted for City of Menifee Planning Department approval. The Grading Plan shall include:
1) techniques employed to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process; 2) approximate time frames for grading; 3) identification of areas which may be graded during high probability rain months (January through March); and 4) preliminary pad and roadway elevations.

4.8-2 Where cut-and-fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Planning Department prior to Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees to ensure that plant material would be effective as erosion control and that all slopes would be landscaped per County Ordinance No. 457 Title 9, Article 4, Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards, of the City’s Development Code.

4.8-3 All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Grading Standards Title 9, Article 4, Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards, of the City’s Development Code, including requirements for erosion control during rainy mo nths. The requirements for compliance with County’s Grading the City’s Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards shall be noted on all grading plans.

4.8-4 Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained free of weeds and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained.

4.8-5 Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be performed to further analyze on -site soil conditions and slope stability and s hall include the appropriate measures to control erosion.

4.8-6 Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales determined necessary by the County of Riverside City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete.

4.1.9 Agriculture
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that large portions of the TTM 31194 site had been used for dryland farming over the past 50 years. Agricultural crops on the site primarily consisted of dryland crops, such as wheat and

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 49
barley. With implementation of the Approved Project, farming of the site would be precluded. Approximately 164.7 acres of the 204.7-acre TTM 31194 site was designated Locally Important farmland. Several properties surrounding the TTM 31194 site were zoned for agricultural use. Adjacent to the TTM 31194 site on the north side are several properties that were zoned for Residential Agriculture (R-A-1, R-A-2 1/2, and R-A-5). Along the property’s western boundary, properties were zoned for Light Agriculture (A-1-1) and Residential Agriculture (R -A-1). Properties adjacent to the TTM 31194 site on the south side were zoned fo r Light Agriculture (R-A-1), and Rural Residential (R-R-1). Along the Approved Project’s eastern boundary were lands designated for Residential Agriculture (R-A-5) and Industrial Park (I -P). In the County, the development of residential uses adjacent to agriculturally zoned properties is regulated by County Ordinance No. 625 (“Right - to-Farm”). Ordinance No. 625 states that for any agricultural operation that has been in place for at least three years and was not considered a nuisance operation at the time t he operation began, no change in surrounding land uses could cause that operation to become a nuisance. Therefore, since the TTM 31194 site was within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property, a potentially significant impact to agricultural lands required mitigation in the form of compliance with County Ordinance No. 625. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.9-1 reduced potential agricultural impacts to less-than-significant.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.9-1 The project shall comply with the County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625).

The ordinance is intended to provide for a means of giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm has been in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have entered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would be within the same footprint as the Approved Project . As described in Section

3.1.1, the Project Site has a land use designation of 2.1 –5 du/ac Residential (2.1 -5 R) and is zone Planned Development District (PDO -5). General Plan l and use designations in the surrounding areas include Rural Residential 5 ac min (RR5) to the north and east, Rural Residential 1 ac min (RR1) to the south, and 2.1–5 du/ac Residential (2.1-5 R) to the west.

According to the City of Menifee’s General Plan Land Use Element, areas with land use designation 2.1 -5 R would include single -family residential areas in which limited agricultural and animal keeping is permitted; however, intensive animal keeping is discouraged. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 9.235, Animal Keeping, of the City’s Title 9, Planning and Zoning Ordinance.

Additionally, according to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), General Plan buildout would place developed urban land uses closer to mapped farmland. Environmental impacts of farming, such as odors, noise, and water and air pollution, would affect future residents of the city near farmland. Such potential conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses would add to pressures on owners of agricultural land to sell and/or convert the land to nonagricultural uses (Menifee 2013a). Ordinance No. 2013-123 states that:

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 50 ends

. . . all resolutions, rules and regulations of the County of Riverside that have been applicable in the implementation of any County Ordinance (including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act) to the extent that they applied before incorporation of the City [including Ordinance No. 625], shall remain in full force and effect as resolutio ns, rules, and regulations of the City of Menifee until suspended or repealed by action of the City. (City of Menifee 2013b) The Proposed Project would still require implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1 to give notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm that has been in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have ent ered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, as described below.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
The Approved Project mitigation measure is applicable to the Proposed Project as originally adopted and will reduce potential agricultural impacts to less-than-significant levels.

4.9-1 The project shall comply with the County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625).

The ordinance is i ntended to provide for a means of giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm has been in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have entered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc.

4.1.10 Mineral Resources
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the TTM 31194 site is not designated by the State of California as a known mineral resource area, and no mineral resources were identified. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources and would not result in the loss of a designated Aggregate Resource Area identified by the Riverside County General Plan.

The majority of the mines, prospect sites, and mineral resource recovery sites identified near the TTM 31194 site were generally located between 1.5 to 2.5 miles away. Therefore, the Approved P roject was not an incompatible land use adjacent to a State -classified or -designated area or existing surface mine. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources were not significant and no mitigation measures were required.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required for the Approved Project regarding mineral resources.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project is within the same footprint as the Approved Project; thus, the Project Site is not designated by the State of California as a known mineral resource area and no mineral resources have been

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 51
identified on the Project Site. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any k nown mineral resources and impacts on mineral resources are less-than- significant and no mitigation measures are required
Proposed Project Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are required for the Proposed Project regarding mineral resources.

4.1.11 Toxic Substances
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that t he predominant land uses proposed for the TTM 31194 site , which included residential development, open space, and neighborhood park, would have little potential for storage of toxic substances other than household chemicals. Common household chemicals are of such a low concentration and volume that they pose no significant impacts to human health a nd safety. During grading and construction, there was a low potential for the discovery of hazardous materials, and this was regarded as a potentially significant impact. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11 -1 through 4.11 -5 were required to reduce potential project impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Household waste, such as paints, roofing materials , and solvents, would be used in building and construction of the Approved Project. Disposal of this type of waste is prohibited in County landfills. State, federal, and local laws strictly regulate the storage and use of hazardous materials. Existing control regulations reduce d potential impacts associated with storage and use of hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels.

Implementation of the objectives in the Riverside County General Plan with regard to toxic substances required that the safe handling, disposal, and cleanup of toxic substances be implemented in compliance with federal, state, and regional programs and regulations.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.11-1 Users of household hazardous materials such as paints, roofing materials and solvents during construction shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulation requiring elimination and reduction of waste at the source by prevention of leakage, by segregation of hazardous waste, and by process of materials change.

4.11-2 All site improvements not removed from the property by the current owner shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any petroleum contaminated materials, lead -based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials and/or buried trash/debris encountered during removal and/or grading shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 52 ends

construction activity in the area of discovery, the site shall be deemed safe by the appropriate entity prior to the resumption of grading and/or constructions activities.

4.11-4 If soil is to be imported or exported to or from the site during grading or other construction activities, it the transported soil shall be sampled for contaminat es prior to use or disposal.

Exported soil, if contaminated, shall be handled in accordance with prevailing environmental laws and regulations, including Land Disposal Restrictions, if applicable.

4.11-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, soil sampl ing shall occur to identify levels of methane, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals. Methane and chemical levels shall be verified to be within allowable limits as regulated by prevailing environmental laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that was prepared for the Proposed Project found potential for elevated pesticide levels o n the Project Site due to its historical use as agricultural land and recommended further investigation (Hillman Consulting 2017) . Twenty-four soil samples were collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), Title 22 metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). All OCPs and PAHs analyzed were below the detection level. Low concentration of various metals were detected but these were all well below the California Human Health Screening Levels set by the Department of Toxic Substances Co ntrol. Due to these results, the historic al use of the Pr oject Site as agricultural land is not considered to be a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Project Site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1 through 4.11-5 would still be required to reduce potential Project impacts to less- than-significant levels.

Preliminary evaluations for ASTM “Non -Scope” items, such as asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead - based paint, radon, mold, and wetlands was also performed; however, observations and research did not identify any notable concerns. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed for the Proposed Project revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Pro ject Site, including Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions and Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (see Appendix H). Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less -than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, as described below.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The Approved Project mitigation measures are applicable to the Proposed Project as originally adopted and will reduce potential impacts due to toxic substances to less-than-significant levels.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 53

4.11-3 In the event that any subsurface hazardous materials are found during grading or construction, including soil and/or groundwater contamination, all activity in the area of discovery and/or in an appropriate radius of the area of discovery shall temporarily cease and the County of Riverside Environmental Health Department shall be notified prior to the resumption of any construction activity in the area of discovery, the site shall be deemed safe by the appropriate entity prior to the resumption of grading and/or constructions activities.

4.11-4 If soil is to be imported or exported to or from the site during grading or other construction activities, it the transported soil shall be sampled for contaminates prior to use or disposal.

Exported soil, if contaminated, shall be handled in accordance with prevailing environmental laws and regulations, including Land Disposal Restrictions, if applicable.

4.11-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, soil sampling shall occur to identify levels of methane, pesticides, herbicides, fertil izer, and other agricultural chemicals. Methane and chemical levels shall be verified to be within allowable limits as regulated by prevailing environmental laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits.

4.1.12 Circulation and Traffic
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would generate a total of approximately 4,632 trip- ends per day, with 363 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 489 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The Approved Project would contribute vehicle trips to the freeway system, including Interstates 15 and 215. The project’s incremental contribution to freeway mainlines was considered a significant cumulative impact. The Approved Project would result in a cumulativel y significant impact to intersections identified in Tables 4-11 and 4-12 to the Certified EIR if the approval of other jurisdictions to intersection improvements could not be obtained. The mitigation measures would serve to reduce the direct impacts of th e Approved Project on circulation and traffic to less-than-significant levels, but the freeway and potential intersection impact remained cumulatively significant.

The Approved Project would comply with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan by meeting the anticipated need for roadway improvements. Specifically, the Approved Project proposed to realign and upgrade Wickerd Road from a Secondary (100 -foot ROW) roadway to a Major (118 -foot ROW) through the TTM 31194 site between Evans Road and Haun Road, and construct that segment. The project’s Circulation Element General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00729) also propose d to reduce Garbani Road from an Urban Arterial to a Secondary between Haun Road and Bradley Road, reduce Garbani Road from a Major to a Collector between Bradley Road and its new terminus east of Evans Road, reduce Bradley Road from a Major to a Secondary

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 54 ends

between Craig Avenue and Garbani Road, and to correct a mapping error to remove an unnamed Secondary between Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.12-1 Wickerd Road shall be constructed from the easterly project boundary to the westerly project boundary to align with Garbani Road at its ultimate full-section width as a Major roadway.

4.12-2 Garbani Road shall be constructed as a paved two -lane extension from Evans Road to the westerly project to provide site access with a minimum of a 32-foot pavement section.

4.12-3 Wickerd Road shall be constructed as a paved two -lane extension from the easterly project boundary to Haun Road to provide site access with a minimum of a 32-foot pavement section.

4.12-4 Internal roadways shall be constructed as Collector Roadways in accordance with County Transportation Department standards.

4.12-5 On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the TTM 31194 site.

4.12-6 Sight distance at each project access roadway shall be reviewed with respect to standard City of Perris, Caltrans, and County of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

4.12-7 The project applicant shall participate in the phased construction of off -site traffic signals through the County’s traffic signal fee program.

4.12-8 The project applicant shall participate in funding construction of off -site improvements through payment of Scott Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) fees and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Local access to the Proposed Project would be provided from two points—primary access from Wickerd Road and a secondary access from Garbani Road. All streets within this subdivision are proposed to be public. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 5,386 trip-ends per day with 400 AM peak hour trips and 537 PM peak hour trips, which would be an increase from the 4,632 trip -ends per day with 363 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 489 ve hicles per hour during the PM peak hour, as stated in the Certified EIR. Additionally, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would contribute vehicle trips to the freeway system, including Interstates 15 and 215. The County General Plan EI R identified segments of I- 15 and I-215 as facing a 50 to 100 percent increase in traffic and operating conditions below Level of Service (LOS) D (high-density but stable flow) as a result of General Plan buildout.

Transportation improvements in the City of Menifee are funded through a combination of improvements constructed by the Project, development impact fee programs, or fair share contributions. The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program is administered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 55
(WRCOG) based upon a regional Nexus Study most recently updated in 2016 to address major changes in right-of-way acquisition and improvement cost factors. This regional program was put into place to ensure that development pays its fair shar e, and that funding is in place for construction of facilities needed to maintain the requisite level of service and critical to mobility in the region. TUMF is a truly regional mitigation fee program and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County. The Proposed Project is within the Central TUMF Zone. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be subject to City of Menifee’s development impact fee ( DIF) program, which includes a component for roads and signals. The City’s DIF program was updated in July 2021 and discusses the local (as opposed to regional) streets and signal improvements planned for the city through buildout of the existing city limits. Therefore, as calculated in March 2022, the Project Applicant would be required to pay the resulting fair share cost of $635,642 to the City of Menifee and $5,423 to Caltrans to address the Project’s contributions to off -site study area intersections , as shown in Table 2 of the Golden Meadows (TTM No. 31194) Fair Share Assessment (Appendix I). (Note that the fee calculation is as of March 2022 and may change over time. Per ordinance No. 19-268, the fees are paid at the time of building permit issuance .) Compliance with TUMF and DIF would reduce potential transportation impacts that would result from the Proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures 4.1 2-1 through 4.1 2-6 would still be required to reduce direct Project impacts on circulation and traffic to less-than-significant levels. In addition, the applicant’s participation in Menifee’s development impact program will further mitigate the Project’s direct impacts on circulation and traffic to less- than-significant levels. For the same reasons as the Approved Project, the Project’s impacts on circulation and traffic on freeways and intersections remain cumulatively significant or despite reasonable mitigation measures.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures below have been revised or updated to reflect the change in jurisdictions.

4.12-1 Wickerd Road shall be constructed from the easterly project boundary to the westerly project boundary to align with Garbani Road at its ultimate full-section width as a Major roadway.

4.12-2 Garbani Road shall be constructed as a paved two-lane extension from Evans Road to the westerly project to provide site access with a minimum of a 32-foot pavement section.

4.12-3 Wickerd Road shall be constructed as a paved two -lane extension from the easterly project boundary to Haun Road to provide site access with a minimum of a 32-foot pavement section.

4.12-4 Internal roadways shall be constructed as Collector Roadways in accordance with County Transportation Department the City of Menifee Public Works Department standards.

4.12-5 On-site traffi c signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project Site.

4.12-6 Sight distance at each project access roadway shall be reviewed with respect to standard City of Menifee, City of Perris, Caltrans, and County of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.4.12-7 The

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 56 ends

project applicant shall participate in the phased construction of off-site traffic signals through the City’s development impact fee program.

4.12-8 The project applicant shall participate in funding construction of off -site improvements through Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).

4.12-9 Based on the traffic signal warrant analysis, the intersection of Haun Road and Wickerd Road would warrant a traffic signal after the 275th residential dwelling unit.

4.1.13 Air Quality
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that short-term emissions during construction of the Approved Project would be significant for NOx (construction equipment exhaust), PM -10 (construction dust) emissions, and VOC s (architectural surface coatings). Such emissions included on-site generation of dust and equipment exhaust as well as off-site emissions from construction, employee commuting, and/or trucks delivering building materials.

Cumulative long-term emissions were significant for CO (carbon monoxide)(mobile source emissions).

According to the Certified EIR, t he greatest project -related air quality con cern center ed on the 4,632 new vehicle trips that would be generated at completion of the Approved Project. For typical Riverside County trip lengths (approximately 7.5 miles), additional vehicle travel from project implementation would be 35,500 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Project-related emissions were below the SCAQMD standards for all emission levels except VOCs during the opening year (2007) of the Approved Project. This was regarded as a short -term significant impact on air quality. In addition, the Approved Project contributed to the non-attainment of federal air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin.

The Certified EIR found that mitigation measures 4.13-1 through 4.13.5 would reduce the impact of the Project on air quality resulting from PM-10 and VOC to less-than-significant levels. However, the Certified EIR found that impacts of NOx, and CO were cumulatively significant and unmitigable with reasonable mitigatio n measures. The Certified EIR found no feasible, project specific mitigation for long -term CO emissions was available.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
Construction Activities

4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to the County of Riverside. This involves developing a dust control program to supplement the routine watering that constitutes best available control measures (BACM’s) in excess of any m inimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BACM’s that may be adopted and integrated into an enhanced dust control program might include hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while awaiting construction, adding chemical binders or surfactants to increase the effectiveness of watering, and/or early paving or chip sealing of roads. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (>25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 57

4.13-2 The project applicant/contractor shall reduce “spill -over” effects by preventing soil erosion, washing dirt from vehicles entering public roadways, and washing/sweeping project access to public roadways on a regular schedule.

4.13-3 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

Construction Emissions (NOx)

4.13-4 (A) Prior to construction commencement for each phase of the proposed development, emissions control from on -site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low emissions tune-ups shall be required.
(B) Electric or natural gas powered construction equipment shall be used as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent. Diesel-powered (C) During construction, electricity should be used from power poles instead of from portable generators as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent.

Volatile Organics (VOC)

4.13-5 The application of architectural surface treatments (i.e., paint, etc.) shall be limited to 100 gallons per day over the project buildout lifetime using the most currently required low-VOC paint (100 grams or less of VOC per liter) and h igh pressure -low volume (HPLV) paint applicators.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Similar to the Approved Project, short-term emissions would occur during buildout of the Proposed Project.

Such emissions include on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction, employee commuting , and/or trucks delivering building materials be significant for NOx (construction equipment exhaust), PM -10 (con struction dust) emissions, and VOC (architectural surface coatings); and cumulative long-term emissions would be significant for CO ( carbon monoxide)(mobile source emissions). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.13 -1 through 4.13 -5 would still be appli cable to the Proposed Project, and would continue to reduce impacts due to construction-related PM10 and VOC emissions to a less -than-significant level. However, reasonable project -specific mitigation measures for NOx, and CO (long-term mobile source emissions) would not reduce the level of "excess" cumulative emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold; thus, NOx, and CO mobile source emissions impact would remain cumulatively significant. No feasible, project specific mitigation for long -term CO emissions is available. While the Proposed Project would result in 98 additional dwelling units within Phase 4 of the Proposed Project, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in severity of impacts would occur with the development of the Proposed Project when compared to the Approved Project.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 58 ends

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures from the Certified EIR have been revised or updated to reflect the change in jurisdictions.

Construction Activities

4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to the County of Riverside City of Menifee. This involves developing a dust control program to supplement the routine watering that constitutes best available control measures (BACM) in excess of any minimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BACM s that may be adopted and integrated into an enhanced dust control program might include hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while awaiting construction, adding chemical binders or surfactants to increase the effectiveness of watering, and/or early paving or chip sealing of roads. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (>25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult.

4.13-3 All trucks hauling dirt, sand , soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

Construction Emissions (NOx)

4.13-4 (A) Prior to construction commencement for each phase of the proposed development, emissions control from on -site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low emissions tune-ups shall be required.
(B) Ele ctric or natural gas powered construction equipment shall be used as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent. Diesel-powered (C) During construction, electricity should be used from power poles instead of from portable generators as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent.

Volatile Organics (VOC)

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 59

4.1.14 Noise
Approved Project Impact Analysis
Construction-Related Impacts
The Certified EIR determined that construction activities, especially heavy equipment, would create short-term noise increases near the TTM 31194 site. Because portions of the TTM 31194 site are underlain with hard rock deposits (undifferentiated Granitic Bedrock), blasting, and rock-crushing could be necessary to achieve suitable development pads. Blasting and crushing could create noise and vibration impacts in excess of typical heavy equipment operations impacts.

Noise impacts would be significant if they caused a violation of any adopted standards. The Riverside County standards for stationary source noise impacts required that the project not produce noise levels that caused the exterior noise environment at any surrounding property with a habitable dwelling to exceed 65 dBA Leq between the daylight hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and by 45 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. However, short -term construction activities are exempt from compliance with numerical noise ordinance standards if the activity occurs during less noise -sensitive hours. Construction noise impacts were thus minimized by time restrictions placed on grading permits. In compliance with County Ordinance No. 457.84, these time limits create d a less-than-significant temporary noise impact during construction activities.

Operational Impacts
Completion of the Approved Project resulted in project-related traffic that caused an incremental increase in noise levels throughout the Menifee Valley area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to ensure that the project will not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding community, as well as to insure that the TTM 31194 site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment acting upon the project. Development projects in the county were required to comply with County standards for roadway traffic noise mitigation. These standards are based upon the design capacity for a given type of roadway.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
Short-Term Construction Impacts

4.14-1 Construction activities shall comply with County Noise Ordinance No. 457 , relating to construction noise.

4.14-2 Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM – 5 PM weekdays and Saturdays.

4.14-3 If blasting, drilling or rock crushing occur within 800 feet of any occupied residence, temporary noise barriers (berms, walls, etc.) shall be erected to mitigate n oise from these activities to an exterior noise level of 65 dB(A) or less at the nearest residential lot line.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 60 ends

4.14-4 Prior to any blasting operations, all residences within 800 feet of any potential blast location shall be notified in writing of the blasting schedule, and again within a minimum of 72 hours in advance of blasting.

4.14-5 All construction vehicles or equipment, whether fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.

4.14-6 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied residences.

Long-Term Potential Noise Impacts

4.14-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for affected lots, solid barriers (walls, berms or a combination thereof) shall be provided in the following locations:
a. 7.5-foot high masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along Lots 218 to 220 and 229 to 239 on Wickerd Road. b. 7-foot high masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along Lots 1 to 6, 51 to 69, 71, 72, 83 to 85, 162 to 168, 292, 293, 304, 305, 313, 314, and 320 to 326 on Wickerd Road.
c. 6-foot high masonry block wall/privacy wall or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along Lots 391 to 403 on Evans Road.
d. Corner Wrap Around and Open Space Lots masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along those lots along Wickerd Road that have been identified in the County’s review of the acoustical analysis. The height shall be determined by the adjacent wall height. These walls shall be erected so that the top of each wall extends at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the pad elevation of the shielded lot. In cases where the road is elevated above the pad, the wal l shall extend at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the highest point between the homes and the road. Final noise barrier heights should be determined when final grading plans show lot location, precise road, and pad elevations.

4.14-8 Mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) shall be provided for all homes located adjacent to Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

4.14-9 Upgraded windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating 30 or higher shall be installed in all homes located adjacent to Wickerd Road.

4.14-10 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, homes facing Wickerd Road and Evans Road should be provided with weather -stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut-outs and openings.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 61

4.14-11 Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide the County of Riverside Department of Public Health with an interior acoustical report for review and approval. The report must demonstrate that the interior noise of those homes along Wickerd Road and Evans Road has been reduced to at or below 45 Ldn.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Construction-Related Impacts
Similar to the Approved Project, construction activities during the development of the Proposed Project , especially heavy equipment, would create short-term noise increases near the Project Site. Since the Proposed Project would be within the same footprint as the Approved Project, portions of the Project Site are still underlain with hard rock deposits (undifferentiated Granitic Bedrock); thus, blasting and rock-crushing may be necessary to achieve suitable development pads. Blasting and crushing may create noise and vibration impacts in excess of typical heavy equipment operations impacts.

Noise impacts would be significant if they caused a violation of any adopted standards. The City of Menifee standards for stationary source noise impacts require that the project must not produce noise levels that cause the exterior noise environment in any surrounding property that contains a habitable dwelling to exceed 55 dBA Leq between the daylight hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and by 50 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In accordance with Title 5, Section 5-2-5, of the Menifee Municipal Code, no person shall engage in, cause or permit any person to be engaged in construction activities in any residential or commercial district between the hours of 9:00 pm of one day and 6:00 am of the following day. Additionally, no person shall operate or permit to b e operated on any private property, or on the public way within any residential or commercial district(s), any power equipment used for home or building repair or grounds maintenance, or any construction equipment used for construction activities, between the hours of 10:00 pm of one day and 7:00 am of the next day. Such power equipment shall include, but not be limited to, lawn mowers, garden tools, snow removal equipment, electric or chain saws, pavement breakers, log chippers, riding tractors, or powered hand tools.

Operational Impacts
As with the Approved Project, completion of the Proposed Project would result in project-related traffic which would cause an incremental increase in areawide noise levels throughout the Menifee Valley area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to insure that the project will not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding community, as well as to insure that the Project Site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment acting upon the project.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
Short-Term Construction Impacts

4.14-1 Construction activities shall comply with County Noise Ordinance No. 457 Menifee Municipal Code Section 8.01.101, relating to construction noise.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 62 ends

4.14-2 Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM - 5 PM 6:30 am to 7:00 pm weekdays and Saturdays.

4.14-3 If blasting, drilling or rock crushing occur within 800 feet of any occupied residence, temporary noise ba rriers (berms, walls, etc.) shall be erected to mitigate noise from these activities to an exterior noise level of 65 dB(A) or less at the nearest residential lot line.

4.14-4 Prior to any blasting operations, all residences within 800 feet of any potentia l blast location shall be notified in writing of the blasting schedule, and again within a minimum of 72 hours in advance of blasting.

4.14-5 All construction vehicles or equipment, whether fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.

4.14-6 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied residences.

Long-Term Potential Noise Impacts

4.14-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for affected lots, solid barriers (walls, b erms or a combination thereof) shall be provided in the following locations:
a. 7.5-foot-high masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along Lots 61-63 and 72-84 of TTM 31194-1 on Wickerd Road. b. 7-foot-high masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along Lots 3-4, 15-16, 24-25, 31-32, of TTM 31194-1, Lots 1, 3-7 of TTM 31194-2 and Lots 1-4, 114-138 and 251-259 of TTM 31194-4 on Wickerd Road. c. 6-foot-high masonry block wall/privacy wall or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along Lots 31-43 of TTM 31194-3 on Evans Road. d. Corner Wrap Around and Open Space Lots . Masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along those lots along Wickerd Road that have been identified in the County’s review of the acoustical analysis. The height shall be determined by the adjacent wall height. These walls shall be erected so that the top of each wall extends at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the pad elevation of the shielded lot. In cases where the road is elevated above the pad, the wall shall extend at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the highest point between the homes and the road. Final noise barrier heights s hall be determined when final grading plans show lot location, precise road, and pad elevations.

4.14-8 Mechanical ventilation (e.g. , air conditioning) shall be provided for all homes adjacent to Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 63

4.14-9 Upgraded windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating 30 or higher shall be installed in all homes adjacent to Wickerd Road.

4.14-10 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, homes facing Wickerd Road and Evans Road shall be provided with w eather-stripped, solid-core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assemblies free of cut-outs and openings.

4.14-11 Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Menifee Building and Safety Department with an inte rior acoustical report for review and approval. The report must demonstrate that the interior noise of those homes along Wickerd Road and Evans Road has been reduced to or below 45 Ldn.

4.1.15 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the open space and recreation plan for the Approved Project provided for approximately 51.1 acres (25 percent) of the TTM 31194 site to be set aside for natural open space. Additionally,

6.4 acres were allocated to neighborhood parks. Overall, approximately 60.7 acres (29 percent of the entire TTM 31194 site) was devoted to open space and recreational uses.

It was anticipated that existing regional recreational facilities , such as the regional parks and state recreation areas, provided ample regional recreational uses for residents of the Approved Project. The TTM 31194 site was identified by the County General Plan for residential use and was not designated to meet regional parkland needs.

Typically, the County required 5.0 acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents to satisfy Quimby Act standards, as expressed in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35. Based on Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, Section

10.35, and State Quimby Act requirements, 36.35 acres o f open space and 7.3 acres of neighborhood/community parkland were required to support residents of the Approved Project . The Approved Project proposed 54.3 acres of open space and 6.4 acres of parkland to meet these requirements.

Also, passive walking tra ils were proposed along the central drainage area to further increase recreational opportunities. However, the proposed 6.4 acres of neighborhood park space was 0.9 acre less than what was required. Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 reduced potential impacts to less-than-significant.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.15-1 The project applicant shall be required to pay an in-lieu park fee to the County for its 0.9-acre park deficiency prior to the issuance of building permits.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
As shown in Table 1, Proposed Project Lots, in Section 3.1 of this Addendum, the Proposed Project would include approximately 3.69 acres of parkland and approximately 41.30 acres of open space within the Project Site. The City of Menifee has approximately 132 acres of developed park and recreation facilities (Menifee 2013). In

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 64 ends

addition to city parks, regional parks in Riverside County provide recreational opportunities for Menifee residents.

As stated in the City’s General Plan EIR, proposed projects would be required to comply with the Quimby Act, California Government Code Section 66477, which requires the dedication of land and/or fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map. The City of Menifee has a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a population of approximately 803 residents and would be required to dedicate approximately 1.3 acres for park and recreational purposes. As stated above , the Proposed Project would include approximately 45.66 acres of parkland and open space. Thus, as stated in the General Plan, development fees would not be required for the Proposed Project, in accordance with the Quimby Act. T he proposed project would not have an adverse physical impact on any parks or necessitate the construction of new parks. The proposed project would include its own recreation facilities and an outdoor play area to serve the residents. The proposed project would not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities and there would be no impact to park facilities. The Proposed Project would have a less -than-significant impact on open space, parks, and recreation, and no mitigation measures are required.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measure

4.15-1 The project applicant shall be required to pay an in -lieu park fee to the City of Menifee for park deficiency prior to the issuance of building permits.

4.1.16 Fire Protection
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the development of 486 housing units proposed by the Approved Project would place additional demand on the County Fire Department and cumulatively impact the Department’s ability to service the planned population. Because an existing fire station i s already located within 3 miles of the site (Station 68), the Fire Department would be able to respond with a full first alarm assignment operating on the scene of a fire within 15 minutes of dispatch upon completion of roadway improvements proposed by the Approved Project (Urban-Category III level of service). With buildout of the Approved Project, however, a significant cumulative impact on fire services was identified due to the additional demand being placed on fire protection services in the project area. The Approved Project would comply with the provisions in the Uniform Fire Code and Riverside County Code , Chapter 8.32, Fire Protection Regulations, and implement Mitigation Measures 4.16-1 and 4.16-5, which reduced cumulative impacts to below a level of significance.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.16-1 In accordance with Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460, fire flows shall have 1000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure.

4.16-2 All water mains and fir e hydrants shall be constructed in accordance with Ordinance 460.

Hydrant spacing at each intersection shall be no more than 330 feet apart.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 65

4.16-3 Disclosures of potentially damaging wildfires in the area must be disclosed to future homebuyers by the seller as part of the buyer disclosure statements prior to purchase as required by the California Civil Code.

4.16-4 Prior to issuance of the grading permits, a fire protection/vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval.

4.16-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the f unding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
As described in Section 3.3, Phase 4 of the residential development would result in approximately 98 additional dwelling units for a total of 259 dwelling units, compared to 161 units proposed by the Approved Project. This would increase the overall number of dwelling units from 486 to 571 (including Phases 1 to 3). The City contracts with Riverside County Fire to provide fire services in the City. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project is within 3 miles of an existing fire station (Station 68 at 26020 Wickerd Road), which would allow the Fire Department to respond with a full first alarm assignment operating on the scene of a fire within 15 minutes of dispatch after completion of roadway improvements proposed by the Proposed Project (Urban- Category III level of service). However, buildout of the Proposed Project would still have a significant cumulative impact on fire services due to the additional demand on fire protection services in the project area.

The Proposed Project would comply with the provisions in the International Fire Code and Riverside County Code Chapter 8.32, Fire Protection Regulations, which would reduce cumulative impacts, and implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.16-1 through 4.16 -5 would still be required to reduce the impact of the Proposed Project, including the additional 98 residential units, on fire protection to less-than-significant levels.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The Approved Project mitigation measures are applicable to the Proposed Project as originally adopted.

4.16-1 In accordance with Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460, fire flows shall have 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure.

4.16-2 All water mains and fire hydrants shall be constructed in accordance with Ordinance 460.

Hydrants at each intersection shall be no more than 330 feet apart.

4.16-4 Prior to issuance of the grading permits, a fire protection/vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 66 ends

4.16-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 17-232), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

4.1.17 Sheriff (Police) Protection
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would contribute incrementally to population growth in the region, which could result in an incremental increase in criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, vandalism, etc. According to the Riverside Sheriff ’s Department, there is no direct correlation between population growth, the number of crimes committed, and the number of Sheriff ’s Department personnel needed to respond to these increases. As the population and use of an area increase, however, additional financing of equipment and manpower are requi red to meet the increased demand. The Approved Project increased the demand for services beyond the capabilities of the Riverside Sheriff ’s Department. To obtain a desirable level of service, using the criterion of one deputy per 1,000 residents, ultimate development of the Approved Project could generate a need for one additional deputy in order to provide adequate protection to the TTM 31194 site . Staff necessary to support the additional deput y would include an appropriate level of civilian, investigatio n, and supervisory personnel. Development of the Approved Project require d implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.17 -1 and 4.17 -2 to ensure that potential impacts were less-than- significant.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.17-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including sheriff protection facilities.

4.17-2 The project applicant shall inform the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff ’s Department of all new homeowners associations. These associations may be used as the foundation for establishing Neighborhood Watch Programs.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
As described in Section 3.3, Phase 4 of the residential development would result in approximately 98 additional dwelling units and a total of 259 dwelling units, compared to 161 units proposed by the Approved Project. This would increase the overall number of proposed dwelling units from 486 to 571 (including Phases 1 to 3). In accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan’s future buildout projections, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to result in a population of approximately 803 residents in the 259 dwelling units, and the TTM 31194 site (including Phases 1 to 3) is anticipated to result in a population of approximately 1,770 residents in the 571 proposed dwelling units. Development of the Proposed Project cou ld contribute incrementally to population growth in the region, which could result in an incremental increase in criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, vandalism, etc.; thus, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in the

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 67
demand for services beyond the current capabilities of the City of Menifee’s Police Department. Development of the Proposed Project would require implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.17-1 and 4.17-2, which would fee allow more police staff and infrastructure, and neighborhood watch, reducing demand on police. Therefore, implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure that potential project impacts would be less-than- significant.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures

4.17-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County City’s Development Impact Fee s (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659 No. 17-232), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including sheriff police protection facilities.

4.17-2 The project applicant shall inform the Crime Prevention Unit of the Sheriff ’s Department Problem Oriented Policing (POP) Unit of the City of Menifee’s Police Department of all new homeowners associations. These associations may be used as the foundation for establishing Neighborhood Watch Programs.

4.1.18 Solid Waste
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would increase the amount of solid waste generated in the area, shortening the life span of the affected landfills and increasing the demand on waste haulers. The Approved Project included a total of 486 dwelling units and would generate approximately 0.41 tons of solid waste per capita per year—that is, approximately 599.83 tons per year or 1.6 tons per day. Implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the Approved Project 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.

The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes programs to reduce the quantities of waste sent to landfills.

These programs include source reduction , separation of recoverables, composting, and high technology resources recovery. The implementation of these programs reduce d the increase in solid waste generation associated with new development, which would aid in extending the life of affected disposal sites. With project participation in a recycling program, direct impacts to landfill capacity would not be significant.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.18-1 The refuse hauler for the TTM 31194 site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (i.e., curbside recycling, in accordance with County Resolution No. 90 -688. The use of such programs would be encouraged by the developer through information (e .g., location, materials accepted, etc.) provided in sales literature.

4.18-2 The project applicant shall participate in established County -wide programs to reduce solid waste generation.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 68 ends

4.18-3 The master Homeowners’ Association and/or landscape maintenan ce district or association shall either mulch (shred and leave on landscaped areas), compost on -site, or separate from other types of waste to send to a composting facility within the local area, green waste (i.e., trimmings from grass, shrubs, or trees) f rom common project landscaped areas and the community park.

4.18-4 The project developer shall pursue and implement any available and feasible source reduction programs for the disposal of construction materials to the satisfaction of the Riverside County Waste Management Department.

4.18-5 The project applicant shall comply with the State Model Ordinance, which requires adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials to be provided within detached, single family residential areas wher e solid waste is collected and loaded in a location which serves five or more units.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
During construction of the Proposed Project, a waste recycling plan (WRP) would be submitted to the City’s Public Works/Engineering Department for review and approval. The WRP would include the waste materials (concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) that would be generated by the construction activity associated with this development and the projected amounts of each m aterial; the measures/methods that would be taken to recycle, reuse, and/or reduce the amount of waste materials generated; the facilities and/or haulers that would be utilized; and the targeted recycling or reduction rate. During construction of the Propo sed Project, the Project Site would have a minimum of two bins —one for waste disposal and the other for the recycling construction and demolition (C&D) materials. Additional bins are encouraged for further source separation of C&D recyclable materials.

As described in Section 3.2 3 Phase 4 of the residential development would result in a total of 259 dwelling units and is anticipated to result in a population of approximately 803 residents. This would increase the overall number of proposed dwelling units to 571 (including Phases 1 to 3), which would result in an estimated overall population of approximately 1,770 residents. The Proposed Project would generate approximately 0.41 ton of solid waste per capita per year, resulting in approximately 239.44 tons per year or 0.66 tons per day for Phase 4 of the residential development. Additionally, the entire TTM 31194 site would result in approximately 742.1 tons per year or 2.03 tons per day, compared to 599.83 tons per year or 1.6 tons per day for the Approved Project.

Solid waste from the Proposed Project would be collected by Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), which provides service to the City of Menifee. Residences within the Proposed Project would be provided three bins—one for trash, one for green waste, and one for recyclable materials. Solid waste from Menifee is disposed of in two landfills, El Sobrante Landfill in unincorporated Riverside County south of the City of Corona, and Badlands Sanitary Landfill near the City of Moreno Valley.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 69
Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures from the Certified EIR ensure that the Proposed Project would have less-than- significant impacts on solid waste; some have been revised to reflect the change in jurisdictions.

4.18-1 The refuse hauler for the Project Site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (e.g., curbside recycling) in accordance with County Resolution No. 90 -688 Chapter 6.30, Solid Waste Disposal and Organic Waste Diversion, of the Menifee Municipal Code. The use of such programs would be encouraged by the developer through information (location, materials accepted, etc.) provided in sales literature.

4.18-2 The project applicant shall participate in established citywide programs to reduce solid waste generation.

4.18-3 The master Homeowners’ Association and/or landscape maintenance district or association shall mulch (shred and leave on landscaped areas), compost on -site, or separate from other types of waste to send to a composting facility within the local area, green waste (i.e., trimmings from grass, shrubs, or trees) from common landscaped areas and the community park.

4.18-5 The project applicant shall comply with the State Model Ordinance, wh ich requires adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials to be provided within detached, single family residential areas where solid waste is collected and loaded in a location which serves five or more units.

4.1.19 Water and Wastewater Services
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that the water system for the Approved Project would be connected to the EMWD water system at the intersection of Garbani Road and Haun Road with an additional water main at the intersection of Wickerd Road and Haun Road. The pressure available from the existing water system was adequate to provide residual pressures greater than 20 psi during 1,500 gpm fire flows, as required by EMWD.

The minimum residual pressure experienced for the w orst-case fire flow was 30.2 psi for the Wickerd Road connection. The proposed water system provide d greater than 40 psi for all lots during a peak-hour domestic demand event. The minimum pressure experienced was 41.8 psi.

Sewer lines would be installed on - and off -site to connect to an existing line in Bradley Road. Off -site connections would be installed to the north through TTM No. 30142 and in Evans Road, Carson Avenue,

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 70 ends

Murphy Lane, Holland Road, and through private property to a connection point at Bradley Road. Off -site sewer connections to the north were the responsibility of TTM No. 30142.

The Approved Project had a calculated average wastewater discharge of 178,605 gallons per day. This was based on an average daily flow of 367.5 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling unit Approved Project Mitigation Measures
The Approved Project provided the water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. It was required to be in compliance with the basin plan of the Santa Ana RWQCB. In addition, the project was required to obtain updated “will serve” letters from the EMWD before subdivisi on or use permit implementation. The Approved Project was conditioned to construct an on -site recycled water system and associated off -site recycled water facilities that provided a nonpotable water source for irrigating common landscaped areas such as gre en-belts and open space areas. Therefore, the Approved Project did not result in any significant impacts to water or wastewater facilities, and no mitigation measures were required beyond the standard conditions imposed by the County of Riverside.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be connected to the EMWD water system. The pressure available from the existing water system is adequate to provide residual pressures greater than 20 psi during 1,500 gpm fire flows, as required by EMWD. The minimum residual pressure experienced for the worst- case fire flow was 30.2 psi for the Wickerd Road connection. The proposed water system provides greater than 40 psi for all lots during a peak-hour domestic demand event. The minimum pressure experienced was 41.8 psi.

Sewer lines for the Proposed Project would be installed on- and off-site to connect to an existing. The Proposed Project would have a calculated average wastewater discharge of 95,183 gallons per day based on an average daily flow of 367.5 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling unit; and the TTM 31194 project would have a calculated average wastewater discharge of 209,844 gallons per day.

The Proposed project provides the water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. It is required to be in compliance with the basin plan of the Santa Ana RWQCB. In addition, the Proposed Project required to obtain updated “will serve” letters from the EMWD before subdivision or use permit implementation. The Proposed Project is conditioned to construct an on-site recycled water system and associated off-site recycled water facilities that provided a nonpotable water source for irrigating common landscaped areas such as green- belts and open space areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not result in any significant impacts to water or wastewater facilities, and no mitigation measures were required beyond the standard conditions imposed by the City and EMWD.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
No new mitigation measures would be required for the Proposed Project.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 71

4.1.20 Schools
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project and construction of 486 single- family residential dwelling units would increase the demand on existing educational facilities and services by generating additional students to be served by the Menifee Unified School District (MUSD) and Perris Union High Schoo l District ( PUHSD). After a pplying student generation rates supplied by these school districts, implementation of the Approved Project generated approximately 187 elementary school students, 102 middle school students, and 122 high school students.

According to enrollment numbers supplied by MUSD and PUHSD, the Approved Project would generate students in excess of available capacity at the elementary and middle school levels. Elementary school students would attend Menifee Elementary School which was operating at capacity. Middle school students would attend Menifee Valley Middle School, which was operating at 33 students below capacity.

Two new elementary schools and one new high school were planned in the vicinity of the Approved Project.

The MUSD and PUHS D were relieving overcrowding through the use of portable classrooms. The addition of 187 elementary school students and 102 middle school students to over-capacity schools was regarded as a significant cumulative impact. The addition of 122 students to Paloma Valley High School would not result in enrollment over the school’s recommended capacity, but nonetheless was regarded as a significant cumulative impact as urbanization continued in the district.

Approved Project Mitigation Measure

4.20-1 Prior to th e issuance of each residential building permit(s), school fees shall be paid in accordance with the requirements of the State of California (Senate Bill 50) or the applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with the Menifee Union School District and the Perris Union High School District.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
As described in Section 33, Phase 4 of the residential development would result in a total of 259 dwelling units and a population of approximately 803 residents . This wou ld increase the overall dwelling units to 571 (including Phases 1 to 3) and the overall population to approximately 1,770 residents. The nearest public schools to the Project Site include Oak Meadows Elementary School and Menifee Valley Middle School, which are part of the MUSD, and Paloma Valley High School, which is part of PUHSD (see Table 4, Student Enrollment and Anticipated Student Generation).

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 72 ends

Table 4. Student Enrollment and Anticipated Student Generation School
Grades
Served
Existing
Enrollment
Student
Generation
Rate
Dwelling Units Number of Students
Proposed
Project
(Phase 4
only)
TTM 31194
Site
(including
Phases 1–3)
Proposed
Project
(Phase 4
only)
TTM 31194
Site
(including
Phases 1–3)
Menifee Union School District
Oak Meadows
Elementary
School
K-5 815 0.3119 259 571 81 178
Menifee Valley
Middle School 6-8 1,239 0.1525 259 571 39 87
Perris Union High School District
Paloma Valley
High School 9-12 2,919 0.1317 259 571 34 75
Source: California Department of Education 2022; City of Menifee 2013.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the estimated increase in student generation for single -family residences would be 0.3119 student/unit for elementary school students, 0.1525 student/unit for middle school students, and 0.1317 student/unit for hig h school students. Thus, an increase to 259 dwelling units for the Proposed Project would result in approximately 81 elementary school students, 39 middle school students, and 34 high school students. The overall TTM 31194 site (including Phases 1 to 3) would have a total of 571 dwelling units and result in approximately 178 elementary school students, 87 middle school students, and 75 high school students. The proposed project would be required to pay school impact fees, pursuant to SB 50, to reduce impacts to the school system. The school districts collect these fees at the time of issuance of building permits.

The State legislature has found that funding programs established by SB 50 constitutes “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (Government Code Section 65995(h)).

SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to demand mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees in Education Code 17620. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with mitigation measures, as described below.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
The Approved Project mitigation measure is ap plicable to the Proposed Project as originally adopted and will reduce the impact of the Proposed Project on school to less-than-significant levels.

4.20-1 Prior to the issuance of each residential building permit(s), school fees shall be paid in accordance with the requirements of the State of California (Senate Bill 50) or the applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with the Menifee Union School District and the Perris Union High School District.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 73

4.1.21 Libraries
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that development of the Approved Project created an additional demand for library facilities and services by generating 1,463 residents (486 homes x 3.01). Although use of the internet had resulted in less demand on library services nationwide, the County continued to maintain its standards for book titles and library square footage. To attain the County’s minimum level of service standard of 1.2 titles per capita, the project-generated population required an additional 1,756 book titles. To attain the County of Riverside standard of 0.5 square foot of library space per capita, the project create d the demand for an additional 732 square feet of library space. The Riverside County Public Library determined that no additional facilities were required.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.21-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including library facilities.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would generate approximately 803 new residents on the Project Site and approximately 1,770 new residents over the entire project (including Phases 1 to 3). Therefore, it would also create an additional demand for library facilities and services. The City of Menifee is served by the Riverside County Public Library system. The Riverside County Public Libraries include three libraries that service the city and are within nine miles of the Project Site—Paloma Valley Library, Sun City Library, and Romo land Library. To attain the County’s minimum level of service standard of 1.2 titles per capita, the Project-generated population would require an additional 964 book titles for the Proposed Project and an additional 2,172 titles for the TTM 31194 project (including Phases 1 to 3). To attain the County of Riverside standard of 0.5 square foot of library space per capita, the Project would need approximately 402 square feet of additional library space for the Proposed Project and approximately 905 square feet for the entire Project (including Phases 1 to 3).

The City’s General Plan EIR identifies that the existing facilities are not adequate to serve the current population in Menifee and would not be adequate to serve the Proposed Project . However, additional DIFs per City Resolution No. 17-232would be required for the Proposed Project and would contribute to the financing of additional library space and services in the city. With the DIFs, the addition of Project Site residents would not substantially diminis h level o f service or performance objectives of the library system and will reduce the impact of the Proposed Project on library services to less-than-significant levels.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures

4.21-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Development Impact Fee (DIF) (Resolution No. 17 -232), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including library facilities.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 74 ends

4.1.22 Healthcare Services
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that a dverse impacts to health services were not anticipated as a result of implementation of Approved Project. The increase in population of 1,463 people by the Approved Project (County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35) w ould generate an increase d demand for medical services, and therefore result in a significant cumulative impact to health care services. Health care is a regional issue, which generally responds to the current demand. The Certified EIR found that the payment of a County Development Impact Fee pursuant to Ordinance No. 659 to fund public facilities would reduce the impact of the Approved Project on healthcare services to less-than-significant levels.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures

4.22-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including public health facilities.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Similar to the implementation of the Approved Project, development of the Proposed Project would increase population in the Project area, thus increasing demand for medical services and resulting in a significant cumulative impact to health care services. However, additional DIFs per City Resolution No. 17-232would be required for the Proposed Project and would contribute to the financing of additional healthcare services in the city. With the DIFs, the addition of Project Site residents would not substantially diminish level of service or performance objectives of existing healthcare facilities and will reduce the impact of the Proposed Project on healthcare services to less-than-significant levels. .Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.22-1 would be applicable to the Proposed Project and would ensure that potential project impacts regarding healthcare services are reduced.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures

4.22-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the C ity Development Impact Fee (DIF) (Resolution No. 17 -232), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including public health facilities.

4.1.23 Energy Resources
Approved Project Impact Analysis
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in the conversion of the site from agricultural and vacant land uses to a residential community , which would increase the demand on available sources of energy. Specifically, the Approved Project increased consumption of energy for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation of

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 75
construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home appliances, and ener gy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the Approved Project. However, the Approved Project was not regarded as an energy-intensive land use; thus, energy consumption levels were not expected to exceed typical requirements for similar urban development . Also, service providers indicated an ability to serve the Approved Project without it significantly affecting their energy resources.

On-site natural gas demand for the Approved Project was estimated at 38,870,280 therms per year based on 79,980 therms per year per dwelling unit. On-site electricity was estimated at 2,956,824 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr.) based on 6,081 kWh/yr. per dwelling unit. The Approved Project would consume energy and have an impact on available energy resources; however, due to long range planning by energy purveyors, the demands related to the Approved Project could be accommodated and impacts were not significant.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
Impacts were not significant, so mitigation was not required. As a standard condition of approval, the project was required to comply with Titles 20 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Section 2-5307(b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings, which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified their compliance with flow rate standards to the California Energy Commission (CEC). Title 24, Sections 2 -5452(i) and (j) address pipe installation requirements that can reduce water used before it reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, Sections 1604(f) and 1606(b) , are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rate of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of nonconforming fixtures. The Approved Project was also required to adhere to State codes regarding energy conservation.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would be constructed within the same footprint at the Approved Project, so t he Proposed Project would also result in the conversion of the TTM 31194 site from agricultural uses and vacant land to a residential community, resulting in an increased demand on existing sources of energy.

On-site natural gas demand for the Proposed Project is estimated at 64,223,940 therms per year based on 79,980 therms per year per dwelling unit. On-site electricity for the Proposed Project is estimated at 3,472,251 kWh/yr. based on 6,081 kWh/yr. per dwelling unit. Similar to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would consume energy and have an impact on available energy resources; however, due to long range planning by energy purveyors, the demands of the Proposed Project can be accommodated , and impacts are not significant.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
Impacts would not be significant , so mitigation is not required. As a standard condition of approval, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Title s 20 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Title 24, California Code of Regulations 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 California Energy Commission (CEC) compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Code of Regulations Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe installation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 76 ends

reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Code of Regulations Sections 1604(f) and 1606(b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rate of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. The Proposed Project would also be required to adhere to State codes regarding energy conservation.

4.1.24 Utilities
Approved Project Impact Analysis
Electricity
The Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would create a demand for electricity and require the extension of electrical facilities to serve project development. New electrical service would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE), which would install the required electrical transmission lines.

Buildout of the Approved Project was estimated to require approximately 2,955,366 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr.). SCE determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect electrical service or demand.

The Approved Project was required to implement all relevant energy conservation measures as outlined in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Natural Gas
The Approved Project generated a demand for natural gas and required the extension of natural gas lines into the TTM 31194 site. The primary use of natural gas by the project was to produce space heating, water heating, and other miscellaneous heating and air conditioning uses.

The Approved Project was estimated to consume approximately 38,870,280 cubic feet per year of natural gas at buildout. Southern California Gas Company (SCG) indicated that the Approved Project would not result in significant adverse natural gas facilities in the area.

T elephone
Telephone service for the Approved Project would be provided by Verizon communications, which indicated that it had the ability to provide the TTM 31194 site with telephone service. Significant impacts associated with the provision of telephone service would not occur.

Approved Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required for the Approved Project regarding utilities.

Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project Site. The Proposed Project would connect to existing facilities in the public right-of-way (ROW). The Proposed project would not require new or expanded electric power facilities other than connections to the existing electricity grid.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 77
Buildout of the Proposed Project would be estimated to require approximately 1,574,979 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr.). Since the anticipated kWh/yr. for the Proposed Project would be below the required kWh/yr. analyzed for the Approved Project, it is assumed that the Proposed Project would not adversely affect electrical service or demand. The Proposed Project would be required to implement all relevant energy conservation measures as outlined in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Natural Gas
Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) would provide natural gas service to the Project Site. The availability of natural gas service is based on present gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SoCalGas is under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service would be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Development of the Proposed Project would comply with regulations and standards pertaining to natura l gas and would connect to the existing natural gas infrastructure.

The Proposed Project would be estimated to consume approximately 64,223,940 cubic feet per year of natural gas at buildout. It is assumed that the Proposed Project would not result in sign ificant adverse natural gas facilities in the area.

T elephone
Frontier Communications would provide telecommunication facilities to the Proposed P roject, including telephone, cable television, and high -speed internet services. Therefore, the area is adequa tely served by telecommunications facilities. The Proposed Project would include on -site connections to off -site telecommunication services and facilities in the immediate area. Facilities and infrastructure for telecommunication are adequate to serve the needs of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not result in or require the construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities.

Proposed Project Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required for the Proposed Project regarding utilities.

4.1.25 Disaster Preparedness
Approved and Proposed Project Impact Analysis
Fire Hazards
See Section 4.1.16, Fire Protection, of this EIR Addendum.

Seismic Hazards
See Section 4.1.7, Geology and Slope Stability, of this EIR Addendum.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 78 ends

Slope and Soil Instability Hazards
See Section 4.1.8, Soils, Slopes, and Erosion Potential, of this EIR Addendum.

Flood and Inundation Hazards
See Section 4.1.5, Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage, of this EIR Addendum

4.2 FINDINGS
The discussion in this Addendum evaluates the Proposed Project for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA.

As a result, and for the reasons explained in this Addendum, the Proposed Project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of si gnificant environmental impacts disclosed in the Certified EIR. There are no 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 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. Thus, the Proposed Project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the ap propriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.

The following identifies the standards in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines as they relate to the Proposed Project. When an EIR has been certified or a n egative 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 light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. No s ubstantial 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 As discussed previously, the Proposed Project would have similar environmental impacts to those discussed in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would increase the number of residential units in the Project Site; howe ver, the Proposed Project would be located within the same footprint of the Approved Project and thus would not be anticipated to result in any additional or substantially increased impacts, as shown in Section 4.1, Environmental Analysis. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to make efficient use of land when compared to the physical environmental impacts that were evaluated in the Certified EIR.

The Proposed Project would continue to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local law s, and the Proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, no substantial changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis
September 2022 Page 79

2. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

Since certification of the EIR, the City incorporated and the project approvals became the r esponsibility of the City. The City has been proceeding using the adopted materials, and there have been no other changes in the Project Site or the surrounding area with regard to circumstances in which the Approved Project was undertaken. As described pr eviously, the impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than or equal to those analyzed in the Certified EIR. Significant air quality and circulation and traffic impacts would remain similar to what is identified in the Certified EIR with the implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no major revisions to the Certified EIR would be required due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

3. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

The Proposed Project would have the same significant impacts as disclosed in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR identified signifi cant impacts for air quality and circulation and traffic. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts. Although the dwelling units for Phase 4 of the Proposed Project would increase, the environmental impacts under the Proposed Project would not be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, no impacts of the Proposed Project would be substantially more severe than those analyzed in the Certified EIR.

4. 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.

As shown in Section 4.1, Environmental Analysis, the Proposed Project would not have any new substantial impacts when compared to the Approved Project, and would not require the implementation of any mitigation measures found not to be feasible. Some of the previous mitigation measures discussed in the Certified EIR would continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project to reduce potential environmental impacts to less-than-significant, while other mitigation measures have been revised to for the Proposed Project, and would comply with regulations set forth by the City of Menifee . Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts; thus, there is no need for mitigation measures found by the Certified EIR not to be feasible.

5. 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.

The Proposed Project would have environmental impacts that would not be substantially more severe than those of the Approved Project. As stated previously, no additional impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. No new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would be required for the Proposed

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

4. CEQA Analysis

Page 80 ends

Project. Although some of the previous mitigation measures discussed in the Certified EIR would continue to be applicable to the Proposed Project to reduce potential environmental impacts to less-than-significant, other mitigation measures have been revised , and would comply with regulations set forth by the City of Menifee. Therefore, there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives required for the Proposed Project, and potential impacts would not be substantially more severe that those of the Approved Project.

The MMRP adopted for the EIR in 2007 has been updated for the Proposed Project (see Appendix B).

5. References
California Department of Education. 2022. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS). https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/dc/cb/cefcbeds.asp
City of Menifee. 2022. Menifee Municipal Code of Ordinances. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/menifee_ca/0-0-0-29876 ———. 2013a. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Environmental- Impact-Report
———. 2013b. An Ordinance Of The City Of Menifee Amending Certain Provisions Of Ordinance No. 2009 -66 To Correct Clerical Errors And Errata Appearing In That Ordinance And To Re-Adopt By Reference Certain Provisions Of The Riverside County Code Previously Adopted By Reference By The City Of Menifee. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/Archive/ViewFile/Item/411
Hillman Consulting. 2021, August 9. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . Golden Meadows - Tract 31174 NW Corner of Wickerd Road and Ascot Way Menifee, California 92868 L&L Environmental Inc. 2022a. Updated Jurisdictional Delineation For Tr 31194, Golden Meadows, City Of Menifee, California
———.2022b, March 8. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment: Golden Meadows Project (Tract 31194, Phase IV) City Of Menifee, Riverside County, California
———.2021a, December. Updated Biological Resources Assessment, Botanical, Burrowing Owl, and Nesting Raptor Surveys, And Riparian Bird Habitat Assessment Golden Meadows Project, Tract 31194, City Of Menifee, California ———.2021b, December 21. An Updated Record Search To Supplement A Phase I Paleontological Resources Inventory For Golden Meadows, City Of Menifee, California
———.2019, July. Focused Burrowing Owl, Survey for Tract 31194, Golden Meadows, City of Menifee, California ———.2018, October. Focused Burrowing Owl and Rap tor Nest Surveys for Tract 31194, Golden Meadows, City of Menifee, California
Leighton and Associated, Inc. 2021, July 1. Geotechnical Plan Review/Addendum Golden Meadows, Tract 31194, Phase IV (PLN21-0199) Menifee, California
Richland Communities, Inc. 2021, November. Preliminary Hydrology Analysis Tract Map No. 31194, Golden Meadows – Phase 4 Major Modification.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

5. References

Page 82 ends

———.2021, November. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Tract 31194 – ‘Golden Meadows’ – Phase 4 Major Modification (WQ-0243)
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2022, March 4. Golden Meadows (TTM No. 31194) Fair Share Assessment.

G O L D E N M E A D O W S R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T E I R A D D E N D U M

C I T Y O F M E N I F E E

5. References
September 2022 Page 83
This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR – Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.1 LAND USE CONSISTENCY
The proposed project would be consistent with applicable policies from the Riverside County General Plan, the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan, the MSHCP, the CETAP, SCAG, and the
SCAQMD AQMP.

Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.2 AESTHETICS, VISUAL QUALITY, LIGHT AND GLARE
At build-out of the proposed project, views of the site from surrounding areas would change from predominately vacant land to medium density residential and open space land uses. This change is not regarded as adverse. The site’s most prominent visual characteristic, consisting of a natural hillside occurring in the northeast portion of the project site, would be preserved as natural open space The proposed project site is located within the Mt.

Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area. Lighting from the proposed project could adversely affect the Palomar Observatory, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.2-1 The project shall comply with the applicable
provisions of County Ordinance No. 655, which was
established to regulate the use of certain light
fixtures, and requires evidence of compliance with
the lighting standards discussed in Section 4.2. All
outdoor lighting systems shall comply with
Ordinance No 655.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Vegetation Communities
The project site is not located in the MSHCP Criteria Area. On-site grading and development would remove or disturb approximately 152.1 acres of agricultural, disturbed or ruderal habitat, 2.1 acres of northern mixed chaparral, 18.3 acres of Riversidean sage scrub (including a 100’ fuel modification zone along the development’s northeastern edge), 2.4 acres of disturbed Riversidean sage scrub and 0.8 acres of southern arroyo willow/mulefat scrub. Of the 2.0 acres that will be disturbed off-site, impacts would occur to 1.97 acres of agricultural, disturbed, or ruderal habitat, 0.02 acres of southern arroyo willow/mulefat scrub and 0.01 acre of Riversidean sage scrub.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

Vegetation Communities

4.3-1 TTM No. 31194, Lot #503 (approximately 39.0 acres in the northeastern portion of the property) shall be
preserved as open space and shall be covered by a
conservation easement or other mechanism to
ensure permanent preservation, with allowance for
required maintenance of fuel modification zones.

The conservation easement area shall be shown on
the Final Map.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing,
or grading permits.

Sensitive Plant Species
No sensitive plant species were observed on-site. The site is not located in the MSHCP Criteria Area. Additionally, the proposed project site is not identified in an area required to be surveyed pursuant to the MSHCP’s Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species guidelines and the MSHCP’s Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Therefore, focused botanical surveys are not required for the project site, and any impacts to sensitive plant species, if Not significant. Mitigation is not required. Not applicable. Not applicable.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
present, are not regarded as significant. The project applicant will be required to comply with Riverside County Ordinance No. 4.62.070 which requires payment of a MSHCP mitigation fee order to assist in providing revenue to acquire and conserve lands necessary to implement the MSHCP.

Sensitive Wildlife Species
The project site is located outside of the MSHCP Criteria Area; however, in accordance with MSHCP’s Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, burrowing owl surveys are required. Although burrowing owl was not observed on the site, it does have the potential to move onto the site due to its migratory nature. Potential impacts to burrowing owl is considered significant.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

Sensitive Wildlife Species

4.3-2 Thirty days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall make a determination regarding the presence or
absence of the burrowing owl. The determination
shall be documented in a report to be reviewed and
accepted by the County of Riverside. If the species is
determined to be present, and the MSHCP’s stated
objectives 1 – 4 for burrowing owl have not yet been
met, mitigation shall be required in compliance with
the MSHCP, Appendix E which states:
a. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey
reveals that the site and surrounding area supports
less than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on -site
burrowing owls shall be passively or actively
relocated following accepted protocols.
b. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than
35 acres of suitable habitat and is non -contiguous
with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90
percent of the area with long-term conservation value
and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading permits.

4.3-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be required to pay Local Development
Mitigation Fees (per County Ordinance No.

4.62.070) for implementation of the MSHCP.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.3-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay fees in accordance with the USFWS -
approved HCP, to mitigate the projects potentially
significant impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading permits.

4.3-5 If construction activities will occur between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable
nesting locations, a focused raptor survey will be
required prior to issuance of grading permits. If
active nests are located within the portion of the site to be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be
disturbed, measures shall be initiated to avoid any
impacts to young. Measures to avoid impacts will
include identifying the location and creating a buffer
zone around the tree within which impact s will be
avoided until the juveniles have fledged.
a. The white -tailed kite is “fully -protected” by the
California Department of Fish and Game. If this
species is documented as nesting on the project site
during the raptor survey, or it is determined this
species will be significantly impacted by
development a 2080 permit for “take” shall be
required from the CDFG.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading permits.

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters
Jurisdictional areas on the project site include 62,384.3 square feet

1.43 ac) of state streambeds, and 37,667.9 square feet 0.67 ac) of federal jurisdictional drainages. Implementation of TTM No. 31194 would result in impacts to 34,512.6 square feet (0.79 ac) of state streambeds, of which 1,316 square feet (0.03 ac) are state wetlands and 18,748.6 square feet (0.43 ac) are federal jurisdictional drainages. Impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and waters is considered significant.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters

RCA, ACOE,
CDFG
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
impacts to wetland values and functions be
replaced. In additio n, the RWQCB will add
restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality,
and impose Best Management Practices on the
construction. It is anticipated that the following
measures or similar measure s as approved by the
ACOE, CDFG, and RWQCB would reduce impacts
to ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas to a level
less than significant:
(a) On or off-site replacement of ACOE jurisdictional
waters and wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1;
(b) On or off-site replacement of CDFG jurisdictional
streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio
no less than 1:1; and/or
(c) Incorporation of design features into the
proposed project that will avoid biological impacts to
off-site blue-line streams that u ltimately end up in
the Railroad Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake).

4.3-7 Individual lot fencing shall be used to restrict access to the on-site wetland areas. Back yard gates from
individual residential lots that open onto the wetland
area shall be prohibited. Fencing locations and
materials shall be shown on the Final Map a nd
approved by the County’s Environmental Programs
Department (EPD) prior to issuance of building
permits. Required fencing shall be installed prior to
issuance of occupancy permits.

Riverside County
Environmental
Programs
Department
Prior to Final Map
approval and
issuance of building
and occupancy
permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.3-8 Night lighting during and after project construction shall be directed away from onsite wetland areas
and, except for safety and other requirements,
lighting shall be limited from the boundaries of
onsite wetland areas. In the event that lighting in an
area adjacent to the wetland area is necessary, a
shield shall be incorporated in project designs to
ensure ambient lighting in the wetland area is not
increased. Lighting plans shall be approved by the
County prior to issuance of building permits.

Lighting restrictions and the reasons for such
restrictions shall be included in the project’s
CC&Rs.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits.

4.3-9 The landscape plans for the project in areas adjacent or tributary to wetland areas shall not include those
species listed in the MSHCP as “Plants That Should
Be Avoided Adjacent To The MSHCP Conservation
Area”. The County of Riverside Planning
Department shall review and approve all plant
material for the project, prior to issuance of building permits. Information regarding the importance of
avoiding the listed plants, even in front and
backyard landscaping, shall be included in sales
literature distrib uted to homeowners. The list of
restricted plant materials and the reasons for such
restrictions shall be listed in the project’s CC&Rs.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits.

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources
There are no historic or prehistoric sites identified on the proposed project site. However, archaeologically sensitive sites have been identified within the project vicinity, and the potential for Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

Archaeological Resources:

4.4-1 Prior to any clearing, grubbing and/or earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the developer. land divider for consultation and
comment on the proposed grading with respect to
Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
archaeologically sensitive sites occurring on the proposed project site exists. The potential for disturbance to undiscovered potential impacts to sub-surface cultural resources.

Should the archaeologist, after The potential for
discovery of archaeological resources on the site
has been indicated as medium to high; therefore,

4.4-2 (A) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
archaeologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a
discovery clause/treatment plan, which shall include
mitigation monitoring to be implemented during
earthmoving on the project site. The treatment plan
shall be developed in consultation with the culturally
affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) Pechanga Tribe and shall
account for treatment of any archaeological remains
and associated data uncovered by brushing,
grubbing, or earthmoving.
(B) The project applicant shal l enter into a pre -
excavation agreement with the culturally affiliated
Luiseño Tribe(s). The agreement shall document
archeological monitoring requirements and specify
the disposition of any significant resources
discovered during monitoring.

Riverside
County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing,
grubbing or
grading permits

4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and again if necessary during the development of the final
project mitigation report, the project proponent shall
inquire if the Pechanga Tribe has developed a
standard retrievable archival system for cultural
materials. If such system is in place, the Pechanga
Tribe shall be given preference in housing any
collection. The landowner shall relinquish
ownership of all cultural resources, including all
Luiseno cultural sacred items, burial goods and all
archaeological artifacts that are found on the project
Riverside
County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist
Concurrent with
grading
activities
Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
site, to the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) for proper treatment and disposition.

4.4-4 Archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be
conducted on a full -time basis for all grading and
ground disturbing activities, including
archaeological testing, until the project
archaeologist in consultation with the culturally
affiliated Luiseño Tribe (s) Pechanga Tribe and the
County of Riverside determines that resources are
not likely to be encountered.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-5 If archaeological remains are found by the
archaeological monitor, earthmoving shall be
diverted temporarily around the deposits until they
have been evaluated, recorded, excavated, and/or
recovered as necessary. Earthmoving shall be
allowed to proceed through the site when the
archaeological supervisor, in consultation with the
culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) Pechanga Tribe
and the County of Riverside, determines the
artifacts are recovered and/or the site is mitigated to the extent necessary.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist;
NAHC
Concurrent
with
grading
activities.

4.4-6 If possible human remains are encountered during any earthmoving activities, all work shall stop in the
area in which the find(s) are present, and the
Riverside County Coroner must be notified. State
law dictates that the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) shall be notified in the event
that remains are determined to be human and of
Native American decent, in accordance with
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.4-7 If a previously unknown site is encountered and it requires additional mitigation, a plan or proposal
shall be prepared by the archaeologist, in
consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño
Tribe(s) Pechanga Tribe and County of Riverside,
outlining the plan of action that needs to be
implemented to mitigate the new site.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-8 Any recovered archaeological resources shall be
identified, recorded, mapped and artifacts
catalogued as required by standard archaeological
practices. Examination by an archaeological
specialist shall be included where necessary,
dependent upon the arti facts, features or sites that
are encountered. Specialists shall identify, date,
and/or determine significance potential.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-9 A final report of findings shall be prepared by the archaeologist for submission to the Eastern
Information Center and the County of Riverside.

The report shall describe parcel history, summarize
field and laboratory methods used, if applicable,
and include any testing or special analysis
information conducted to support the findings.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Archaeologist

At the completion of
grading activities.

Paleontological Resources
Portions of the proposed project site contains Quaternary alluvium (Qofa), which has a high potential for yielding fossils. The potential for disturbance to paleontological resources during grading in older alluvium is regarded as a potentially significant impact.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

Paleontological Resources

4.4-10 Prior to any earth moving in areas containing older alluvium, a vertebrate paleontologist retained by the
project proponent and approved by the County of
Riverside shall develop a storage agreement with
the LACM Vertebrate Paleontology Section, San
Bernardino County Museum, or another acceptable
museum repository to allow for the permanent
storage and maintenance of any fossil remains
Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist
Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
recovered in the project area as a result of the
monitoring progr am, and for the archiving of
associated specimen data and corresponding
geologic and geographic site data at the museum
repository.

4.4-11 The paleontologist shall develop a mitigation plan and a discovery clause/treatment plan that, when
implemented during earthmoving activities in the
project area shall allow for the recovery and
subsequent treatment of any fossil remains and
associated s pecimen and site data uncovered by
these activities.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-12 The paleontologist and a palaeontologic construction monitor shall attend a pre-grade meeting to explain
the monitoring program to grading contractor staff
and to develop procedures and lines of
communication to be implemented if fossil remains
are uncove red by earthmoving activities,
particularly when a monitor may not be on-site.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

4.4-13 Palaeontologic monitoring of earthmoving activities shall be conducted on a full -time basis by the
monitor during all earthmoving activities due to the
exposure of sensitive strata. Earthmoving activities
in areas of the project area where previously
undisturbed strata will be buried but not otherwise
disturbed shall not be monitored. The supervising
paleontologist shall have the authority to reduce
monitoring once he determines the probability of
encountering fossils has dropped below an
acceptable level.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.4-14 If the monitor finds fossil remains, earthmoving activities shall be diverted temporarily around the
fossil site until the remains have been recovered
and these activities are allowed to proceed through
the site by the monitor.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-15 If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the monitor is not on site, these
activities shall be diverted around the fossil site and the monitor called to the site immediately to recover
the remains.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-16 If fossil remains are found, an appropriate amount of fossiliferous rock shall be recovered from the
fossil site and processed to allow for the recovery of
smaller fossil remains. Test samples may be
recovered from other sampling sites in the rock unit.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.4-17 Any recovered fossil remains shall be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable
paleontologists. The remains shall then be curated
(assigned and labeled with museum repository
fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil
site numbers, as appropriate; placed in specimen
trays and, if necessary, vials with completed
specimen data cards) and catalogued, and
associated specimen data and corresponding
geologic and geographic site data shall be archived
(specimen and site numbers and corresponding
data entered into appropriate museum repository
catalogs and computerized data bases) at the
museum repository by a laboratory technician. The
remains shall then be accessioned into the museum
Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist

Upon
commencement of
grading activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
repository fossil collection, where they shall be
permanently stored, maintained, and, along with
associated specimen and site data, made available
for future study by qualified scientific investigators.

4.4-18 A final report of results and findings shall be prepared by the paleontologist for submission to the
County of Riverside and the museum repository
following accessioning of the fossil collection into
the museum repository fossil collection. The report
shall describe the geology and stratigraphy parcel,
summarize field and laboratory methods used,
include a faunal list and an inventory of catalogued
fossil specimens, evaluate the scientific importance
of the specimens, and discuss the relationship of
any n ewly recorded fossil site in the parcel to
relevant fossil sites previously recorded from the
fossil-bearing rock unit in the parcel vicinity and
from correlative rock units in other regions.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Project
Paleontologist
Upon completion of
grading activities.

4.5 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND DRAINAGE
The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

Mitigation is not required. None None

4.6 WATER QUALITY
Implementation of the proposed project would include grading that would result in potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Implementation of the proposed project also would permanently alter the composition of the surface runoff by grading the site surfaces; by construction of impervious surfaces; and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Although water quality features Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.6-1 The developer or builder for TTM No. 31194 shall be required, pursuant to requirements of the State
Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) construction permit, prior to issuance of
grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all
Riverside County
Flood Control
and Water
Conservation
Department;
Regional Water
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
would reduce direct impacts to water quality, cumulative impacts would remain significant and require mitigation.
construction activities associated with the proposed
project. Construction activities include clearing,
grading, or excavation that results in the
disturbance of at least one acre of total land area or
activity which is part of a larger common plan of
development of five acres or greater. The permit
requires the applicant to develop and implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
that specifies Best Manageme nt Practices (BMPs)
to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff, as well
as non-storm water discharges. Examples of BMPs
include, but are not limited to: energy dissipation
structures and rip - rap at storm wear discharge
points to stabilize flow and reduc e velocities;
mulching cleared or freshly seeded areas for
erosion/sedimentation control; geotextiles and mats
for erosion control during construction, storm drain
inlet/outlet protection for siltation control; and slope drains for erosion control. The per mit also requires
a monitoring, reporting and inspection program to
be developed and implemented to assure the
effectiveness of the controls.

Quality Control
Board

4.6-2 Prior to approval of a Final Map and final engineering drawings, the County shall verify that the Final Map
and engineering drawings indicate the size and
location of the structural source control BMPs
specified b y the project’s Water Quality
Management Plan.

Riverside
County Flood
Control and
Water
Conservation
District

Prior to approval
of Final Map and
final engineering
drawings.

4.6-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the County shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs specify the
homeowners’ association ownership and
maintenance requirements for private storm drains
Riverside
County Planning
Department

Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
and catch basins as specified in the project’s Water
Quality Management Plan.

4.6-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the County shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs contain the
activity restrictions and the property owner
environmental education awareness materials for
water quality specified by the project’s Water
Quality Management Plan.

Riverside
County Planning
Department

Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SLOPE STABILITY
The portions of the site that contain alluvium and undocumented fill (if any) are considered unsuitable in their present condition for support of structural loads. The presence of alluvium and potential for presence of undocumented fill represents a potentially significant impact that will require mitigation in the form of remedial grading.

Construction of proposed structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) will ensure that potential ground shaking impacts will not result in a significant impact. Liquefaction pestilential is low, seismically induced settlement is unlikely and the potential for tsunamis and seiches is non-existent.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in
compliance with the requirements of Riverside
County Ordinances, a detailed geotechnical
report(s) shall be submitted to the County of
Riverside Engineering Division for review and
approval. The report(s) shall identify and address
site-specific (a) underlying soil conditions, (b)
liquefaction potential, seismic parameters and
building requirements and slope stability. The
measures recommended by the final geotechnical
report(s) shall be identified on applicable grading
plans and shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the County Geologist.

Riverside
County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside
County
Geologist;
Project
Geologist
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

4.7-2 All earthwork and grading shall be performed in
accordance with all applicable requirements of the
Grading and Excavation Code and the Grading
Manual of the County of Riverside, in addition to the
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC), includ ing Appendix Chapter 33. Grading
shall also be performed in accordance with
applicable provisions of the Standard Grading
Specifications contained in the geotechnical report
Riverside County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside County
Geologist; Project
Geologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
prepared by Leighton and Associates (see EIR
Appendices H1. and H2.).

4.7-3 The project geotechnical engineer or qualified
representative shall be notified at appropriate times
to provide observation and testing services during
clearing operations and to verify compliance with
the recommendations made by the project
geotechnical reports. In addition, any buried
structures or unusual or adverse soil conditions
encountered that are not described or anticipated in
the project’s geotechnical reports shall be brought
to the immediate attention of the geotechnical
consultant.

Riverside County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside County
Geologist; Project
Geologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.7-4 All existing low-density and potentially collapsible soil materials, such as loose manmade fill and alluvium,
shall be removed to underlying competent bedrock
from each area to receive compacted fill. Prior to
placing structural fills, the exposed bottom surfaces
in each removal area shall first be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches or more, watered or air -dried as
necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture
conditions, and then recompacted in -place to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Actual
depths and horizontal limits of any removals shall
be determined during grading on the basis of in -
grading observations and testing performed by the
project geotechnical consultant and/or engineering
geologist.

Riverside County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside County
Geologist; Project
Geologist

Concurrent with
grading activities
and prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.7-5 In the event import soils are needed to achieve final design grades, all potential import materials shall be
free of deleterious/oversize materials, non -
Riverside County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside County
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
expansive, and approved by the project
geotechnical consultant prior to commencement of
delivery onsite.

Geologist; Project
Geologist

Fill shall not be placed without prior approval from
the geotechnical consultant. The project
geotechnical consultant or his/her representative
shall also be present on -site during all grading
operations to verify proper placement and adequate
compaction of all fill materials, as well as to verify
compliance wit h the other recommendations
presented in the project geotechnical reports.

Riverside County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside County
Geologist; Project
Geologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.7-7 No oversized rock (greater than 12 inches) shall b e place within 10 feet of the finished grade.

Riverside
County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside
County
Geologist;
Project
Geologist

Concurrent with
grading
activities.

4.7-8 Cut and fill slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:
vertical) and exceeding a vertical height of 30 feet
shall be constructed with drainage terraces in
accordance with Chapter 33 of the 1997 UBC.

Riverside
County
Engineering
Division;
Riverside
County
Geologist;
Project
Geologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.8 SOILS, SLOPES AND EROSION POTENTIAL
The majority of the on-site materials consist of low plastic clays to fine sandy silts, and generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. While not observed during field
reconnaissance, it is possible for undocumented fills or other materials with an expansion potential greater than low could be encountered during construction. If present, these materials would not be suitable for structural development, and this is regarded as a potentially significant impact.

Because the topographic character of the site will be maintained and because the project will comply with the Riverside County Grading Standards, significant impacts to landform would not occur.

Soils that have a high erosion susceptibility, along with fill materials used for development areas, would be subject to potentially significant project -related erosion because of the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.8-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan shall be submitted for
Planning Department approval. The Grading Plan
shall include: 1) techniques employed to prevent
erosion and sedimentation during and after the
grading process; 2) approximate time frames for
grading; 3) identification of areas which may be
graded during high probability rain months (January
through March ); and 4) preliminary pad and
roadway elevations.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

4.8-2 Where cut and fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall
be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed
for type and density of ground cover, shrubs , and
trees to ensure that plant material would be effective
as erosion control and that all slopes would be
landscaped per County Ordinance 457.

Riverside County
Planning
Department

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

4.8-3 All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Grading Standards including
requirements for erosion control during rainy
months. The requirements for compliance with
Riverside County Grading Standards shall be noted
on all grading plans.

Riverside County
Planning
Department;
Riverside County
Engineering
Division.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.8-4 Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping
within 90 days of completion of grading, unless
building permits are obtained.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Upon completion of
grading activities.

4.8-5 Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be performed to further
analyze on -site soil conditions and slope stability
and shall include the appropriate measures to
control erosion.

Riverside County
Planning
Department

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

4.8-6 Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales, determined necessary by the County of
Riverside at future stages of project review, shall be
lined with natural erosion control materials or
concrete.

Riverside County
Planning
Department

Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

4.8-7 The locations of potentially compressible soils shall be identified on all Grading Plans. Where
development is proposed in areas of compressible
soils, deep foundation systems shall be used, or
compressible soils shall be completely over
excavated and compacted.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

4.9 AGRICULTURE
Approximately 164.7 acres of the proposed project site are designated as Local Important Farmland. Upon project
implementation, farming on these soils would be precluded.

Williamson Act Contracts existed on the property, but Notices of Non-Renewal were recorded over 10 years ago, and dimishment of Menifee Agricultural Preserve No. 4, Map No. 902 was adopted by Resolution No. 2003-534 on December 1, 2003. The
proposed project is located within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned properties and is required to comply with County Ordinance No. 625.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.9-1 The project shall comply with the County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625). The
ordinance is intended to provide for a means of
giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in
newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided
parcels that th ey are moving into an agricultural
area and that a farm has been in operation legally
for at least three years shall not be or become a
nuisance simply because residential uses have
Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
entered the area and are offended by the odors,
dust, etc.

4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
The project would not result in the loss of an Aggregate Resource Area. The property is not located near a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine.

Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.11 TOXIC SUBSTANCES
During grading and construction, there is a low potential for discovery of hazardous materials; this possibility is regarded as a potentially significant impact.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.11-1 Users of household hazardous materials such as
paints, roofing materials and solvents during
construction shall comply with applicable federal,
state, and local regulation requiring elimination and
reduction of waste at the source by prevention of
leakage, by segregation of hazardous waste, and
by process of materials change.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
Prior to the issuance
of building permits.

4.11-2 All site improvements not removed from the property by the current owner shall be disposed of offsite, in
accordance with current local, state, and federal
disposal regulations. Any petroleum contaminated
materials, lead-based paints or products, mercury ,
asbestos containing materials and/or buried
trash/debris encountered during removal and/or
grading shall be evaluated by an experienced
environmental consultant prior to removal.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

4.11-3 In the event that any subsurface hazardous
materials, including soil and/or groundwater
contamination, are found during grading or
construction, all activity in the area of discovery
and/or in an appropriate radius of the area of
discovery shall temporarily cease and the County of
Riverside Environmental Health Department shall
be notified prior to the resumption of any
Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health

Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
construction activity in the area of discovery, the site shall be deemed safe by the appropriate entity prior
to the resumption of gradin g and/or constructions
activities.

Imported soil shall be free from con tamination.

Exported soil, if contaminated, shall be and handled
in accordance with prevailing environmental laws
and regulations, including Land Use Disposal
Restrictions, if applicable.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health

Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

4.11-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, soil
sampling shall occur to identify levels of methane,
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and other
agricultural chemicals. Methane and chemical
levels shall be verified to be within allowable limits
as regulated by prevailing environmental laws and
regulations prior to the issuance of building permits.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental
Health
Prior to the
issuance of grading
and building
permits.

4.12 CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC
A total of 4,632 average daily trips would be generated by the project. Vehicle trips would impact study area intersections and street segments in the Opening Year and Buildout Year 2025.

Less than
significant
direct impacts.

Cumulatively
significant
impacts to
freeway
mainline
segments.

4.12-1 Wickerd Road shall be constructed from the easterly project boundary to the westerly project boundary to
align with Garbani Road at its ultimate full -section
width as a Major roadway.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department
Prior to issuance of
building and
occupancy permits
Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Cumulatively
significant
impacts to
intersections
identified in EIR
Tables 4-11
and 4-12 in the
event that the
approval of
other
jurisdictions
(Caltrans and
Murrieta) for
identified
intersection
improvements
cannot be
obtained.

4.12-2 Garbani Road shall be constructed as a paved two- lane extension from Evans Road to the westerly
project to provide site access with a minimum of a
32 foot pavement section.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department

Prior to issuance of
building and
occupancy permits

4.12-3 Wickerd Road shall be constructed as a paved two- lane extension from the easterly project boundary to
Haun Road to provide site access with a minimum
of a 32 -foot pavement section.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department

Prior to issuance of
building and
occupancy permits

4.12-4 Internal roadways shall be constructed as Collector Roadways in accordance with County
Transportation Department standards.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department

Prior to issuance of
building and
occupancy permits

4.12-5 On-site traffic signing and striping shall be
implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the project site.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department

Concurrent with
project
implementation.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.12-6 Sight distance at each project access roadway shall be reviewed with respect to standard City of Perris,
Caltrans, and County of Riverside sight distance
standards at the time of preparation of final grading,
landscape, and street improvement plans.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department

Concurrent with
project
implementation.

4.12-7 The project applicant shall participate in the phased construction of off -site traffic signals through the
County’s traffic signal fee program.

Riverside County
Transportation
Department
Concurrent with
project
implementation.

4.13 AIR QUALITY
Temporary construction activity air emissions will
occur during project buildout, including dust, equipment exhaust and architectural surface treatments fumes.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance:

PM-10
construction
dust)

Direct and
cumulatively
significant and
unmitigable:

NOx
(construction
equip. exhaust)
VOC (arch.
surface
coatings)

4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
owner/permittee shall submit an
accelerated construction dust abatement
management program to the County of Riverside.

This involves developing a dust control program to
supplement the routine watering that constitutes
best available control measures (BACMs) in excess
of any minimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements.

BACMs that may be adopted and integrated into an
enhanced dust control program might include
hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while
awaiting construction, adding chemical binders or
surfactants to increase the effectiveness of
watering, and/or early paving or chip sealing of
roads. Soil disturbance should be terminated when
high winds (>25 mph) make dust control extremely
difficult.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department;
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

4.13-2 The project applicant/contractor shall reduce “spill - over” effects by preventing soil erosion, washing dirt
from vehicles entering public roadways, and
Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
washing/sweeping project access to public
roadways on a regular schedule.

4.13-3 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least
two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical
distance between top of the load and the top of the
trailer) in accordance with the requirements of
California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

4.13-4 (A) Prior to construction commencement for each phase of the proposed development, emissions
control from on -site equipment through a routine
mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups shall
be required. Electric or natural gas powered
construction equipment shall be used as feasible as
determined by the construction superintendent.

During construction, electricity should be used from
power poles instead of from portable generators as
feasible as determined by the construction
superintendent.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Prior to
commencement of
grading and
construction activity
phases.

4.13-5 The application of architectural surface treatments (i.e., paint, etc.) shall be limited to 100 gallons per day over the project buildout lifetime using the most
currently required low-VOC paint (100 grams or less
of ROG per liter) and high pressure -low volume
(HPLV) paint applicators.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department
Concurrent with
construction
activities.

In the long -term, the proposed project will contribute to the regional inability to attain the SCAQMD emissions standards due to its contribution of mobile source emissions.

Cumulatively
significant
and
unmitigable:

CO (mobile
source
Feasible mitigation for long -term CO emissions is not
available on a project-specific basis.

N/A N/A
Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
emissions)

4.14 NOISE
Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site.

The long-term noise impacts will be from traffic noise. Project- generated traffic will cause an incremental increase in area-wide noise levels throughout the Menifee Valley area.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.14-1 Construction activities shall comply with County Noise Ordinance No. 457, relating to construction
noise.

Riverside
County Building
and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-2 Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM - 5 PM weekdays and Saturdays.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-3 If blasting, drilling or rock crushing occur within 800 feet of any occupied residence, temporary noise
barriers (berms, walls, etc.) shall be erected to
mitigate noise from these activities to an exterior
noise level of 65 dB(A) or less at the nearest
residential lot line.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-4 Prior to any blasting operations, all residences within 800 feet of any potential blast location shall be
notified in writing of the blasting schedule, and again within a minimum of 72 hours in advance of blasting.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-5 All construction vehicles or equipment, whether fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-6 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied
residences.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

Corner Wrap Around and Open Space Lots
masonry block walls or combination berm and block
wall shall be constructed along those lots along
Wickerd Road t hat have been identified in the
County’s review of the acoustical analysis (see EIR
Appendix G1). The height shall be determined by
the adjacent wall height. These walls shall be
erected so that the top of each wall extends at least
6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the pad
elevation of the shielded lot. In cases where the
road is elevated above the pad, the wall shall extend
at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above
the highest point between the homes and the road.

Final noise barrier heights should be determined
when final grading plans show lot location, precise
road, and pad elevations.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.14-8 Mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) shall be provided for all homes located adjacent to Wickerd
Road and Evans Road.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-9 Upgraded windows wit h a Sound Transmission
Class (STC) rating 30 or higher shall be installed in
all homes located adjacent to Wickerd Road.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-10 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, homes facing Wickerd Road and Evans Road
should be provided with weather-stripped solid core
exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assembles free
of cut-outs and openings
Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

4.14-11 Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide the County of Riverside
Department of Public Health with an interior
acoustical report for review and approval. The
report must demonstrate that the interior noise of
those homes along Wickerd Road and Evans Road
has been reduced to at or below 45 Ldn.

Riverside County
Building and
Safety
Department

Prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.

Concurrent with
construction
activities.

4.15 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND RECREATION
The project would provide a neighborhood park on 6.8 6.4 acres and would provide 59.8 54.3 acres of open space and
landscaped areas. According to the State Quimby Act, 7.3 acres of parkland are required. The project would provide 0.51 0.9 acres less parkland than required, resulting in a significant impact.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.15-1 The project applicant shall be required to pay an in- lieu park fee to the County for its 0.51 0.9-acre park
deficiency prior to the issuance of building permits.

Riverside County
Parks and Open
Space District.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.16 FIRE PROTECTION
Implementation of the proposed project would place additional demand on the County Fire Department and would cumulatively impact the Department’s ability to service the planned population.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.16-1 In accordance with Riverside County Subdivision
Ordinance 460, fire flows shall have 1000 gallons
per minute at 20 psi residual pressure.

Riverside County
Fire Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits or water
improvement plans.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.16-2 All water mains and fire hydrants shall be
constructed in accordance with Ordinance 460.

Hydrant spacing at each intersection shall be no
more than 330 feet apart.

Riverside County
Fire Department

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits or water
improvement plans.

4.16-3 Disclosures of potentially damaging wildfires in the area must be disclosed to future homebuyers by the
seller as part of the buyer disclosure statements
prior to purchase as required by the California Civil
Code.

Riverside County
Fire Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

4.16-4 Prior to issuance of the grading permits, a fire protection/vegetation management plan shall be
prepared and submitted to the Fire Department for
review and approval.

Riverside County
Fire Department
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

4.16-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
applicant shall comply with the provisions of the
County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance
(Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that
the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

Riverside County
Fire Department

Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

4.17 SHERIFF SERVICES
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively impact the ability of the Sheriff’s Department to provide service to the project area.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.17-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
applicant shall comply with the provisions of the
County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance
(Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that
the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including sheriff protection facilities.

Riverside County
Planning
Department

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.17-2 The project applicant shall inform the Crime
Prevention Unit of the Sheriff’s Department of all
new homeowners associations. These associations
Riverside County
Sheriff’s
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
may be used as the foundation for establishing
Neighborhood Watch Programs.

4.18 SOLID WASTE
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of approximately599.83tons/yr. of solid waste, thereby cumulatively impacting the capacity of existing landfills.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.18-1 The 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, in accordance with Count y Resolution
No. 90 -688. The use of such programs would be
encouraged by the developer through information
(e.g., location, materials accepted, etc.) provided in
sales literature.

Riverside County
Waste
Management
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

4.18-2 The project applicant shall participate in established County-wide programs to reduce solid waste
generation.

Riverside County
Waste
Management
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

4.18-3 The master Homeowners’ Association and/or
landscape maintenance district or association shall
either mulch (shred and leave on landscaped
areas), compost on -site, or separate from other
types of waste to send to a composting facility within
the local area , green waste (i.e., trimmings from
grass, shrubs, or trees) from common project
landscaped areas and the community park.

Riverside County
Waste
Management
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

4.18-4 The project developer shall pursue and implement any available and feasible source reduction
programs for the disposal of construction materials
to the satisfaction of the Riverside County Waste
Management Department.

Riverside County
Waste
Management
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.18-5 The project applicant shall comply with the State Model Ordinance, which requires adequate areas
for the collection and loading of recyclable materials
to be provided within detached, single family
residential areas where solid waste is collected and
loaded in a location which serves five or more units.

Riverside County
Waste
Management
Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.19 WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES
Project implementation would result in a peak demand for 274,000 gallons of water per day. The project would provide the necessary water and wastewater facilities to serve the project.

The project is required to be in compliance with the basin plan of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. In addition, the project is required to obtain updated will-serve letters from the EMWD before subdivision or use permit implementation.

The project will also be conditioned to construct an on - site recycled water system and associated off-site recycled water facilities, which will provide a non-potable water source to the site for irrigating common landscaped areas, such as green-belts and open space areas.

Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.20 SCHOOLS
Implementation of the proposed project would generate
approximately 189 elementary students, 103 middle school students and 123 high school students.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.20-1 Prior to the issuance of each residential building permit(s), school fees shall be paid in accordance
with the requirements of the State of California
(Senate Bill 50) or the applicant shall enter into a
mitigation agreement with the Menifee Unified
School District and the Perris Union High School
District.

Menifee Union
School District;
Perris Union High
School District
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.21 LIBRARIES
Development of the proposed project would increase the region’s population, creating in turn an additional demand for library facilities and services.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.21-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
applicant shall comply with the provisions of the
County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance
(Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that
Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

Appendix A. 2007 Certified EIR - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY /

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including library facilities.

4.22 HEALTH CARE SERVICES
The proposed project would result in a population increase and create a greater demand for health services in the region. Health care service is a regional issue which generally responds to current demand.

Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

4.22-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the
applicant shall comply with the provisions of the
County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance
(Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that
the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including public health facilities.

Riverside County
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits.

4.23 ENERGY RESOURCES
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for energy resources. Energy suppliers have indicated an ability to serve the proposed project based on existing and planned capacities.

Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.24 UTILITIES
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for utilities. Utility service providers have indicated an ability to serve the proposed project based on existing infrastructure.

Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.25 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Fire Hazards Reduced to
below a level of
significance.

See Fire Protection, above.

Seismic Hazards See Soils and Erosion and Geology and Slope Stability, above Soils and Erosion See Soil and Erosion, above.

Flooding See Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage, above.

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum – Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.1.1 LAND USE

CONSISTENCY
Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.1.2 AESTHETICS,

VISUAL QUALITY,

LIGHT AND GLARE
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.2-1 The project shall comply with the applicable provisions of City of Menifee’s Municipal Code Chapter 6.01, Dark Sky Ordinance. The Dark Sy Ordinance is the same as County Ordinance No. 655, which was established to regulate the use of certain light fixtures, and requires evidence of compliance with the lighting standards contained therein. All outdoor lig hting systems shall comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

4.1.3 BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Vegetation Communities

4.3-1 TTM No. 31194-4 Lot E, (formerly Lot #503 of TTM 31194) (approximately 39.0 acres in the northeastern portion of the property) shall be preserved as open space and shall be covered by a conservation easement or other mechanism to ensure permanent preserva tion, with allowance for required maintenance of fuel modification zones. The conservation easement area shall be shown on the Final Map.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing,
or grading
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Sensitive Wildlife Species

4.3-2 Thirty days prior to grading, a qualified biologist shall make a determination regarding the presence or absence of the burrowing owl. The determination shall be documented in a report to be r eviewed and accepted by the City of Menifee. If the species is determined to be present, and the MSHCP’s stated objectives 1 – 4 for burrowing owl have not yet been met, mitigation shall be required in compliance with the MSHCP, Appendix C which states:
a. If the site contains or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and surrounding area supports less than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on -site burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols. b. If the site (including adjacent areas) supports 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat and is non -contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long - term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.3-3 If construction activities occur between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, a focused raptor survey will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. If active nests are located within the portion of the site to be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be disturbed, measures shall be initiated to avoid any impacts to nesting raptors. Measures to avoid impacts will include identifying the location and creating a buffer zone around the tree within which impacts will be avoided until the juveniles have fledged. a. The white-tailed kite is “fully -protected” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this species is documented as nesting on the Project Site during the raptor survey, or it is determined this species will be significantly impacted by development a 2080 permit for “take” shall be required from the CDFW.

City of Menifee
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.3-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay fees in accordance with the USFWS-approved HCP, to mitigate the projects potentially significant impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat.

City of Menifee
Planning
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters

4.3-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation to the City of Menifee verifying that the necessary permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Regional W ater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have been obtained. The USACE has a no net loss policy which requires that any unavoidable impacts to wetland values and functions be replaced. In addition, the RWQCB will add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction.

It is anticipated that the following measures or similar measures as approved by the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB would reduce impacts to USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas to a level less than significant:
a. On or off -site replacement of USACE jurisdictional waters and wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1;
City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
b. On- or off-site replacement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 1:1; and/or
c. Incorporation of design features into the proposed project that will avoid biological impacts to off -site blue -line streams that ultimately end up in the Railroad Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake).

4.3-6 Individual lot fencing shall be used to restrict access to the on -site wetland areas.

Back yard gates from individual residential lots that open onto the wetland area shall be prohibited. Fencing locations and materials shall be shown on the Final Map and approved by the County’s Environmental Programs Department (EPD) prior to issuance of building permits. Required fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

4.3-7 Night lighting during and after project construction shall be directed away from onsite wetland areas and, except for safety and other requirements, lighting shall be limited from the boundaries of onsite wetland areas. In the event that lighting in an area adjacent to the wetland area is necessary, a shield shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the wetland area is not increased. Lighting plans shall be approved by the County prior to issuance of building permits. Lighting restrictions and the reasons for such restrictions shall be inc luded in the project’s CC&Rs.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

4.3-8 The landscape plans for the project in areas adjacent or tributary to wetland areas shall not include those species listed in the MSHCP as “Plants That Should Be Avoided Adjacent To The MSHCP Conservation Area”. The County of Riverside Planning Department shall review and approve all plant material for the project, prior to issuance of building permits. Informat ion regarding the importance of avoiding the listed plants, even in front and backyard landscaping, shall be included in sales literature distributed to homeowners. The list of restricted plant materials and the reasons for such restrictions shall be liste d in the project’s CC&Rs.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.1.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AND

PALEONTOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Archaeological Resources:

4.4-1 Prior to any clearing, grubbing and/or earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the developer. The potential for discovery of archaeological resources on the site has been indicated as medium to high; therefore, consultation w ith the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) is required. A pre-grading meeting between the archaeologist, a Native American observer, and the excavation and grading contractor shall take place to ensure an understanding of the mitigation measures required during construction.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist
Prior to the
issuance of
grading
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

The mitigation and discovery/treatment plan should include a discussion of key personnel and their specific roles and respo nsibilities; archaeological monitoring methods; controlled excavation and/or destruction methods; environmentally sensitive areas procedures; preconstruction field surveys to identify known and unknown cultural resources; a discussion of archaeological res ource classes that may be encountered during construction; and protocols for identifying, evaluating, treating, and curating archaeological resources that may be encountered. The plan should also include the following attachments: an Environmentally Sensit ive Area Action Plan to preserve known bedrock milling features in place; cultural resource sensitivity training for construction personnel (i.e., Worker Environmental Awareness Program); methods for documenting bedrock milling features through close range photogrammetric documentation and viewshed analysis (i.e., direct line of sight and 180 -degree viewsheds); and methods of relocating bedrock milling features to the nearest dedicated open space where they will be preserved in perpetuity. The plan will be prepared in consultation with culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s).
(B) The project applicant shall enter into a pre -excavation agreement with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s). The agreement shall document archaeological City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist

Prior to the
issuance of
clearing, grubbing
or grading
permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
monitoring requirements and specific the disposition of any significant resources discovered during monitoring.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-3 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all Luiseño cultural sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project Site, to the culturally affiliated Luiseño Trib e(s) for proper treatment and disposition.

The Project proponent will hire a qualified archaeologist that meets Secretary of Interior Standards to oversee the surface collection of isolated prehistoric artifact RLCC-01-ISO. The field work shall be complet ed by an archaeologist and Native American monitor(s) on behalf of the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s).

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-4 Archaeological and tribal monitoring shall be conducted on a full -time basis for all grading and ground-disturbing activities, including archaeological testing, until the project archaeologist in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the City determines that resources are not likely to be encountered.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-5 If archaeological remains are found by the archaeological monitor, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the deposits until they have been evaluated, recorded, excavated, and/or recovered as necessary. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the site when the archaeological supervisor, in consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the City of Menifee, determines the artifacts are recovered and/or the site is mitigated to the extent necessary.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist;
NAHC

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-6 If possible human remains are encountered during any earthmoving activities, all work shall stop in the area in which the find(s) are present, and the Riverside County Coroner must be notified. State law dictates that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified in the event that remains are determined to be human and of Native American d escent, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-7 If a previously unknown site is encountered and it requires additional mitigation, a plan or proposal shall be prepared by the archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and City of Menifee, outlining the plan of action that needs to be implemented to mitigate the new site.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-8 Any recovered archaeological resources shall be identified, recorded, mapped, and artifact catalogued as required by standard archaeological practices. Examination by an archaeological specialist shall be included where necessary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Spe cialists shall identify, date, and/or determine significance potential.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-9 A final report of findings shall be prepared by the archaeologist for submission to the Eastern Information Center and the City of Menifee. The report shall describe parcel history, summarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing or special analysis inform ation conducted to support the findings.

The draft archaeological monitoring report will, at a minimum, present the results of monitoring field work, including enforcement of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Worker Environmental Awareness Program; eff orts to relocate bedrock milling features; copies of daily monitoring logs; and appended photogrammetric documentation and viewshed analysis of bedrock milling features. If archaeological resources are discovered while implementing the monitoring program, the final monitoring report may also report on the results of lab analysis and special studies, and document the final treatment and disposition of the artifacts. The archaeological monitoring report will be completed in consultation with the culturally af filiated Luiseño Tribe(s). The Project proponent is responsible for completing a final monitoring report that addresses comments from the lead agency, Project proponent, and/or consulting tribes. Final reports must be submitted to the lead agency, Project proponent, consulting tribes, and the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Archaeologist

At the completion
of grading
activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Paleontological Resources

Prior to issuance
of grading permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
earthmoving and the rock unit(s) being encountered. The review is for the purpose of assessing potential for fossil remains being encountered by earth moving. If previously undisturbed strata with potential for containing fo ssil remains will be encountered by earthmoving, measures 4.4-11 through 4.4-18 will be implemented.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-11 Museum Storage Agreement. The Western Science Center (WSC) will be the designated museum repository for any vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossil remains and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data that might be re covered from the site as a result of the Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP). Prior to any earthmoving on -site, the paleontologist will develop a formal agreement with the museum regarding final disposition and permanent storage and mai ntenance of the fossil collection and associated data. The agreement will cover, but not necessarily be limited to, museum requirements regarding: 1) level of treatment of the collection; 2) storage and maintenance fees, if any; 3) purchase of specimen sto rage cabinets and drawers, as well as specimen trays, vials, specimen data cards, and other curatorial supplies, if required.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-12 Discovery Clause/Treatment Plan: As part of the PRIMP, the paleontologist will develop a discovery clause/treatment plan (DC/TP) to allow for additional tasks — recovery; geologic mapping; fossiliferous rock sample processing; specimen preparation, identification, curation, cataloguing, data entry; specimen storage and maintenance by museum —and manpower required to treat a large or productive fossil occurrence that cannot be treated without diverting the monitor from routine monitoring. Th e DC/TP will also include approved procedures and lines of communication to be followed by specific individuals if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving, particularly when a palaeontologic monitor is not present on -site.

Names and telephone numbers of contact personnel will be included in the lines of communication. The preparation of this PRIMP ensures compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-12.

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist

Prior to issuance
of grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-13 Preconstruction Meeting: The paleontologist or field supervisor, as well as a palaeontologic construction monitor, will attend a preconstruction meeting to explain the PRIMP to construction contractor and Ric hland Communities staff. The presentation will summarize mitigation procedures to be employed by PRIMP City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
personnel and will detail procedures and lines of communication, as specified in the City of Menifee Conditions of Approval, to be followed by specific project personnel when fossil remains are found on-site.

The paleontologist or field supervisor will inform the construction contractor of the following items:
1) Routine mitigation measures (primarily monitoring and test screening) to be employed by a monitor during earthmoving.
2) The potential for fossil remains being uncovered by earthmoving in particular areas of the site and the need to implement specific actions and additional mitigation measures when a fossil occurrence is uncovered by earthmoving. 3) Functions and responsibilities of the monitor when fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving and can be recovered without diverting the monitor from monitoring —temporarily divert earth moving around fossil site until remains are evaluated and recovered, and ea rthmoving is allowed to proceed through the site by monitor; if approved by the construction contractor, enlist the assistance of earth -moving equipment and operator to expedite recovery of remains, obviate need for additional personnel, and reduce any pot ential construction delay.
4) Functions and responsibilities of the monitor when a fossil occurrence is uncovered by earthmoving and is sufficiently large or productive that it cannot be recovered without diverting the monitor from monitoring. a. Flag the site.
b. Advise construction contractor to avoid fossil site until further notice (usually less than 2 days).
c. Call the project paleontologist or field supervisor to site. 5) Functions and responsibilities of the paleontologist or field supervisor when notified by the monitor that a large or productive fossil occurrence has been Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
uncovered by earthmoving and cannot be recovered without diverting the monitor from monitoring. Evaluate occurrence to determine if recovery is warranted.
a. If recovery is warranted, notify construction contractor and Richland Communities of the necessity for implementing additional mitigation measures specified in DC/TP; initiate increased level of monitoring, if not already in effect, in immediate vicinity of fossil site and assigning additional personnel to PRIMP.
b. Within 24 hours after approval, mobilize recovery crew to recover occurrence; supervise recovery of occurrence and its transport to laboratory facility or to a location elsewhere at site approved by the construction contractor for initi al/field processing of a fossiliferous rock sample or to laboratory facility for preparation of a fossil specimen.
c. If warranted and approved by construction contractor, enlist the assistance of the earth-moving equipment and operator to expedite recovery of occurrence.
d. To obviate need for additional personnel and reduce any potential construction delay, after recovery of occurrence, have construction contractor allow earth moving to proceed through fossil site. e. Notify Richland Communities of recovery (or o f decision not to recover fossil occurrence, if appropriate) and of authorization for earth moving to proceed through fossil site.
6) Responsibilities of the construction contractor and earth -moving equipment operators if fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving, particularly if a monitor is not present at the site when the remains are encountered. a. Avoid disturbance of fossil site by earth moving.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
b. Notify monitor, the paleontologist, or the field supervisor and Richland Communities of the fossil occurrence.
c. Avoidance of fossil site by earthmoving activities.
d. Assist with equipment and operator to expedite recovery of occurrence.

These measures will obviate need for additional personnel, reduce any potential construction delay, and allow for earthmoving to proceed through the site following approval by monitor. The construction contractor and Richland Communities staff will be shown examples of fossil specimens similar to those that might be encountered by earthmoving on -site. If warranted, the paleontolog ist or field supervisor and a monitor will give a similar presentation to the earth -moving equipment operators at one of their earliest safety meetings. The operators will be instructed on recognizing fossil remains in the field, informed of their responsibilities if they observe fossil remains when the monitor is not present at the site (avoid disturbance of occurrence by earthmoving; have construction contractor call monitor to fossil site; expedite recovery of occurrence, if requested), and advised that unauthorized collecting of fossil remains is illegal.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-14 Monitoring Earthmoving: Earthmoving will be monitored by a palaeontologic monitor only in those areas of the site where earthmoving will disturb soils greater than five feet deep (monitoring will not be conducted in areas in which soils will be buried but not disturbed). Monitoring will not be implemented until earthmoving has reached a depth of five feet below current grade. Monitoring will consist of visually inspecting freshly exposed rock and debris for larger fossil remains and periodically dry test screening a small (25 pound) sample of rock and debris with a 20-mesh box screen for smaller vertebrate fossil remains. Monitoring will be conducted on a full- time basis. However, if too few or no fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving in areas underlain by a particular rock u nit, based on the professional recommendation of L&L, monitoring can be reduced to half or quarter time, generally, or suspended once 50 percent of earthmoving in the area underlain by the rock unit has been completed. Alternatively, if significant fossil remains are uncovered by earthmoving, based on the professional recommendation of L&L, City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
monitoring may be increased in areas underlain by the fossil -bearing rock unit, at least in the immediate vicinity of the fossil site.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-15 Large-Specimen Evaluation and Recovery Options
1) If a large fossil specimen (unable to be picked up easily by hand) is found as a result of monitoring earthmoving and the specimen can be recovered without significantly diverting the monitor from monitoring, earthmoving will be temporarily diverted around the fossil site and the specimen will be evaluated and, if warranted, excavated; covered w ith a protective plaster -impregnated burlap jacket, if required; and recovered.
2) If necessary and approved by the construction contractor, earth -moving equipment and an operator will be enlisted to expedite recovery of the specimen and obviate the need for additional personnel, and the construction contractor will be allowed to have earthmoving proceed through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the specimen. A temporary field number will be assigned to the specimen; the field number, a prelimi nary field identification, and pertinent specimen (field number, identification by taxon and element) and geologic (particularly stratigraphic level within rock unit) and geographic site data (location, elevation) will be recorded in the monitor’s daily monitoring log; and the field number recorded and the fossil site location plotted on a map of the site.
3) At the end of the day the monitor or (following their next site inspection) the field supervisor will transport the fossil remains and associated data to a laboratory facility for further treatment (see Mitigation Measure 4.4 -17). If appropriate, samples of fossil wood will be submitted for carbon -14 dating analysis.
4) If a fossil specimen is found and is sufficiently large that it cannot be recovered without significantly diverting the monitor from monitoring, the fossil site will be flagged with colored survey ribbon to temporarily divert earthmoving around the site, the construction contractor will be advised to avoid the site until further notice (usually less than 2 days), and the paleontologist or field supervisor will City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
be called to the site. The grading contractor will notify Richland Communities and L&L of the occurrence and of the avoidance of the site. The paleontologist or field supervisor will evaluate the specimen for significance and continuity to determine if recovery is warranted.
a. If specimen recovery is not warranted, no further action will be taken to preserve the fossil site or remains, the construction contractor will be allowed to have earth moving proceed through the site immediately, and Richland Communities will be notified of the decision not to recover the specimen and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site.
b. If specimen recovery is warranted, the paleontologis t or field supervisor will notify the construction contractor, Richland Communities, and the City of Menifee Community Development Director of the necessity for implementing additional mitigation measures specified in the DC/TP; initiating full -time monitoring, if not already in effect, at least in the immediate vicinity of the site in areas underlain by the fossil -bearing rock unit; and assigning additional personnel to the PRIMP. Within 24 hours after Richland Communities’ approval, as secured by L&L, a recovery crew will be mobilized to recover the specimen. The size of the crew will reflect the size of the specimen and the need to recover the specimen as quickly as possible.

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
number will be assigned to the specimen; the field number, a preliminary field identification, and pertinent specimen (field number, identification by taxon and element) and geologic (particularly stratigraphic level within rock unit) and geographic site data (location, elevation) will be recorded in the monitor’s daily monitoring log; and the field number will be recorded and the fossil site location plotted on a map of the site. The field supervisor and, if necessary, a crew member will transport the fossil specimen and associated site data to a laboratory facility for further treatment (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-17).

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-16 Small-Specimen Sample Evaluation, Recovery, and Processing. If a sufficient number of smaller vertebrate fossil remains are found at one site as a result of test screening by the monitor, the fossil site will be flagged with colored survey ribbon to temporarily divert earthmoving around the site. The construction contractor will be advised to avoid that site until further notice (usually less than two days) and, if requested by the monitor, in order to expedite recovery of a fossiliferous rock sample, reduce any potential construction delay, and obviate the need for additional personnel, the construction contractor will have earth -moving equipment and an operator acquire a rock samp le from the fossil site and transport the sample, if possible, to a nearby temporary location at the site approved by the construction contractor.

The construction contractor will notify Richland Communities and L&L of the occurrence and of the avoidance of the fossil/storage site. If a sample is recovered, the construction contractor can continue earthmoving through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the sample. The monitor will notify Richland Communities of the recovery of the sample and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site. The paleontologist or field supervisor will be called to the fossil/storage site to determine if the fossil site/sample is sufficiently productive to warrant recovery of a large sample of fossiliferous rock to process for additional small remains. (Previous experience has demonstrated that only some fossil sites require sampling/sample processing, but more than 95 percent of the City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist

Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
specimens recovered as a result of some mitigation programs were recovered as a result of sample processing.)
1) If the site/sample is determined too unproductive or the remains too poorly preserved or insufficiently diagnostic, no further action will be taken to preserve the fossil site/sample or remains, the construction contractor will be allowed to continue earthmoving through the fossil/storage site immediately, and Richland Communities will be notified of the decision not to recover/process a sample and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil/storage site. 2) If sample recovery is warranted, the paleontologist or field supervisor will notify the construction contractor and the City of Menifee Community Development Director of the necessity for implementing additional mitigation measures specified in the DC/TP and assigning additional personnel to the PRIMP. a. Within 24 hours after approval, a recovery crew will be mobilized to recover the sample. The size of the crew will reflect the need to recover the sample as quickly as possible. The fi eld supervisor will record the size and supervise recovery of the sample. Up to three tons of fossiliferous rock will be recovered. The sample will be excavated with hand tools for recovery. If necessary and if approved by the construction contractor, eart h-moving equipment and an operator will be enlisted to expedite transportation of the sample to the processing facility site, obviate the need for additional personnel, and reduce any potential construction delay. The construction contractor will be allowed to have earthmoving proceed through the fossil site immediately after recovery of the sample. The paleontologist or field supervisor will notify Richland Communities of recovery of the sample and of authorization for earthmoving to proceed through the fossil site.
b. A temporary field number will be assigned to the sample; the field number and pertinent specimen (field number, identification by taxon and element) and geologic (particularly stratigraphic level within rock unit) and geographic site data (locat ion, elevation) will Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
be recorded in the monitor’s daily monitoring log; and the field number will be recorded and the fossil site location plotted on a map of the site. The field supervisor and, if necessary, a crew member will transport the sample to another location at the site approved by the construction contractor or to an off -site location for initial/field processing (wet screening) of the sample. The total weight of all samples from each fossil-bearing rock unit at the site will not exceed three tons.
c. If warranted, the field supervisor will set up a field processing facility for wet screening the sample at a site location approved by the construction contractor. Wet screening will consist of sieving rock through a 20-mesh box screen (and/or finer) i mmersed in a tub of water to remove the smaller particles (clay and silt) from the larger particles (sand and rock) and small fossil remains. This could result in a reduction in sample weight/volume in excess of 90 percent. If necessary, rock will be soake d in an environmentally safe dispersant (citrus oil) prior to screening to improve separation of the clay particles from the rest of the sample during screening. The monitor will conduct wet screening if it can be accomplished without diverting the monitor from monitoring. If it is not possible to have the monitor perform the wet screening, a field technician will be assigned to the task. Following his next site inspection, the field supervisor will transport the concentrate (larger particles and small fossil remains) generated by initial processing to a laboratory facility for final/laboratory processing.
d. If fossil remains in the concentrate are sufficiently fossilized (dense), an environmentally safe heavy liquid (sodium polytungstate), if appropriate, will be used by the senior vertebrate paleontologist to separate the remains from the remaining sand and rock particles.

When added to a beaker filled with heavy liquid, the concentrate will separate, the particles floating to the surface, and the remains sinking to the bottom, from where they are retrieved. This technique can result in a further sample weight/volume reduction in excess of Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
90 percent (less than 1 percent of original sample size). The final concentrate will be examined under a microscope and fo ssil specimens recovered from any remaining sand and rock particles.

If the fossil bone in the original concentrate is not sufficiently dense for use of the heavy -liquid separation technique, the entire sample of concentrate will be sorted under a microscope for fossil remains.

Recovered fossil remains will then be treated (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-17).
e. During final processing of a sample, the senior vertebrate paleontologist will continually evaluate the results of field and laboratory processing. If the sample is insufficiently productive or the fossil remains are too poorly preserved, the senior vertebrate paleontologist will have the option of discontinuing further laboratory processing of the sample, having field processing of the remainder of the sam ple suspended, and disposing of the remainder of the sample and unprocessed concentrate. Similarly, processing will be discontinued if, after preliminary identification of some specimens, the remains are determined insufficiently diagnostic or diverse taxonomically, or the species represented are the same as those in another sample from the fossil -bearing rock unit. (Previous experience has demonstrated that only some fossil sites require sample processing, and only some of these sites require processing of an entire three-ton sample.) If appropriate, small splits from one or more samples will be submitted for palynological analysis.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

Upon
commencement of
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
corresponding site numb ers, placed in specimen trays and, if appropriate, vials with completed specimen data cards); catalogued (specimen and site numbers and specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data, respectively, archived [entered into appropriate cata logs and computerized databases]); and accessioned into the museum fossil collection, where they will be permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated data, made available for future study by qualified investigators. With the possible exception of tasks that might be conducted by museum staff (curation, cataloging), all treatment of fossil specimens will be conducted by a laboratory technician. Fossil specimen preparation, identification, curation, and cataloguing are now required before a fossil collection will be accepted by most museum repositories, including the WSC.

Moreover, the scientific importance of a fossil specimen cannot be evaluated until the specimen has been identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, and specimen identification often is not possible without prior preparation.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.4-18 Final Report. A final technical report of findings will be prepared by the paleontologist and will describe the site’s stratigraphy; summarize field and laboratory methods employed during the PRIMP; include a taxonomic list and an inventory of catalogued fossil specimens recovered as a result of t he PRIMP; evaluate the scientific importance of the specimens; and discuss the relationship of the fossil assemblage from any newly recorded fossil site at the Project Site to relevant fossil assemblages from fossil sites in other areas. The report will be submitted to the contractor, Richland Communities, and the City of Menifee Community Development Director. Submission of the final report will signify completion of the PRIMP and will ensure Richland Communities’ compliance with Public Resources Code Sect ion 21081.6 (mitigation monitoring, reporting, and compliance).

City of Menifee
Planning Department;
Project Paleontologist
Upon completion
of grading
activities.

4.1.5 HYDROLOGY,

FLOODING, AND

DRAINAGE
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Mitigation is not required. None None

4.1.6 WATER QUALITY Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.6-1 The developer or builder for TTM No. 31194 shall be required, pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, to obtain a NPDES City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
construction permit prior to issuance of grading permits. The NPDES permit will apply to all construction activities associated with the proposed project.

Construction activities include clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area or activity that is part of a larger common plan of development of o ne acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a SWPPP that specifies BMPs to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff and nonstorm water discharges. Examples of BMPs include but are not limited to installing energy dissipation structures and rip- rap at stormwater discharge points to stabilize flow and reduce velocities; mulching cleared or freshly seeded areas for erosion/sedimentation control; and using geotextiles and mats for erosion control during construction, storm dra in inlet/outlet protection for siltation control; and slope drains for erosion control. The permit also requires a monitoring, reporting, and inspection program to be developed and implemented to ensure the effectiveness of the controls.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.6-2 Prior to approval of a Final Map and final engineering drawings, the City shall verify that the Final Map and engineering drawings indicate the size and location of the structural source control BMPs specified by the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to approval
of Final Map and
final engineering
drawings.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.6-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the City shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs specify the homeowners association’s ownership maintenance requirements for private storm drains and catch basins, as specified in the project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.6-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the City shall verify that the project’s CC&Rs contain the activity restrictions and the property owner environmental education awareness materials for water quality specified by the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

4.1.7 GEOLOGY AND

SLOPE STABILITY
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and in compliance with the requirements of City ordinances, a detailed geotechnical report(s) shall be submitted to the City’s Engineering Division for review and approval. The report(s) shall identify and address site -specific (a) underlying soil conditions, (b) liquefaction potential, (c) City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
seismic para meters and building requirements, and (d) slope stability. The measures recommended by the final geotechnical report(s) shall be identified on applicable grading plans and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Geologist.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.7-2 All earthwork and grading shall be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.26, Grading Regulations, of the Menifee Municipal Code, in addition to the provisions of the 2021 International Building Code. Grading shall also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Standard Grading Specifications in the geotechnical reports p repared by Leighton and Associates (see Appendix G).

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.7-3 The project geotechnical engineer or qualified representative shall be notified at appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during clearing operations and to verify compliance with the recommendations made by the project geotechnical reports. In addition, any buried structures or u nusual or adverse soil conditions encountered that are not described or anticipated in the project’s geotechnical reports shall be brought to the immediate attention of the geotechnical consultant.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.7-4 All existing low -density and potentially collapsible soil materials, such as loose manmade fill and alluvium, shall be removed to underlying competent bedrock from each area to receive compacted fill. Prior to placing structural fills, the exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area shall first be scarified to a depth of 6 inches or more, watered or air -dried as necessary to achieve near -optimum moisture conditions, and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Actual depths and horizontal limits of any removals shall be determined during grading on the basis of in-grading observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant and/or engineering geologist.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading activities
and prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.7-6 An observation of clearing operations, removal of unsuitable surficial materials, and general grading procedures shall be performed by the project geotechnical consultant or his/her representative. Fill shall not be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. The project geotechnical consultant or his/her representative shall also be present on -site during all gradi ng operations to verify proper placement and adequate compaction of all fill materials, as well as to verify compliance with the other recommendations presented in the project geotechnical reports.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.7-7 No oversized rock (greater than 12 inches) shall be place within 10 feet of the finished grade.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading
activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.7-8 Cut-and-fill slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) and exceeding a vertical height of 30 feet shall be constructed with drainage terraces.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
grading activities.

4.1.8 SOILS, SLOPES

AND EROSION

POTENTIAL
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.8-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan shall be submitted for City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department approval. The Grading Plan shall include: 1) techniques employed to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process; 2) approximate time frames for grading; 3) identification of areas which may be graded during high probability rain months (January through March); and 4) preliminary pad and roadway elevations.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.8-2 Where cut-and-fill slopes are created higher than three feet, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Planning Department or City of Menifee Engineering and Public Works Department prior to Grading Plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees to ensure that plant materia l would be effective as erosion control and that all slopes would be landscaped per the City’s Development Code.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
or City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department

Prior to issuance
of grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.8-3 All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the Chapter 8.26, of the City’s Development Code, including requirements for erosion control during rainy months.

City of Menifee
Engineering Division.

Prior to issuance
of grading permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
The requirements for compliance with the City’s Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards shall be noted on all grading plans.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.8-4 Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed -free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Upon completion
of grading
activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.8-5 Prior to any grading activities, a soils report and geotechnical study shall be performed to further analyze on -site soil conditions and slope stability and shall include the appropriate measures to control erosion.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.8-6 Potential brow ditches, terrace drains, or other minor swales determined necessary by the City of Menifee at future stages of project review, shall be lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

4.1.9 AGRICULTURE Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.9-1 The project shall comply with the County’s “Right to Farm” Ordinance (Ordinance No. 625). The ordinance is intended to provide for a means of giving notice to prospective buyers of homes in newly built subdivisions and recently subdivided parcels that they are moving into an agricultural area and that a farm has b een in operation legally for at least three years shall not be or become a nuisance simply because residential uses have entered the area and are offended by the odors, dust, etc.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

4.1.10 MINERAL

RESOURCES
Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None
Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.1.11 TOXIC

SUBSTANCES
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental Health
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.11-2 All site improvements not removed from the property by the current owner shall be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any petroleum contaminated materials, lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materi als and/or buried trash/debris encountered during removal and/or grading shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental Health
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.11-3 In the event that any subsurface hazardous materials, including soil and/or groundwater contamination, are found during grading or construction, all activity in the area of discovery and/or in an appropriate radius of the area of discovery shall temporarily cease and the County of Riverside Environmental Health Department shall be notified prior to the resumption of any construction activity in the area of discovery, the site shall be deemed safe by the approp riate entity prior to the resumption of grading and/or constructions activities.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental Health

Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.11-4 If soil is to be imported or exported to or from the site during grading or other construction activities, the transported soil it shall be sampled for contaminants assessed prior to proposed off-site use or disposal. Imported soil shall be free from contamination. Exported soil, if contaminated, shall be and handled in accordance with prevailing environmental laws and regulations, including Land Use Disposal Restrictions, if applicable.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental Health

Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.11-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, soil sampling shall occur to identify levels of methane, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemicals.

Methane and chemical levels shall be verified to be within allowable limits as regulated by prevailing environmental laws and regulations prior to the issuance of building permits.

Riverside County
Department of
Environmental Health
Prior to the
issuance of
grading and
building permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.1.12 CIRCULATION

AND TRAFFIC
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.12-1 Wickerd Road shall be constructed from the easterly project boundary to the westerly project boundary to align with Garbani Road at its ultimate full-section width as a Major roadway.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of building and
occupancy
permits
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.12-2 Garbani Road shall be constructed as a paved two - lane extension from Evans Road to the westerly project to provide site access with a minimum of a 32 foot pavement section.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of building and
occupancy
permits
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.12-3 Wickerd Road shall be constructed as a paved two - lane extension from the easterly project boundary to Haun Road to provide site access with a minimum of a 32 -foot pavement section.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of building and
occupancy
permits
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.12-4 Internal roadways shall be constructed as Collector Roadways in accordance with the City of Menifee Public Works Department standards.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance
of building and
occupancy
permits
Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.12-5 On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
project
implementation.

Cumulatively significant
impacts to freeway
mainline segments.

4.12-6 Sight distance at each project access roadway shall be reviewed with respect to standard City of Menifee sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Concurrent with
project
implementation.

4.1.13 AIR QUALITY Reduced to below a level
of significance
Construction Activities

4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to the City of Menifee. This involves developing a dust control program to supplement the routine watering that constitutes best available control measures (BACM) in excess of any minimum SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. BACMs that may be adopted and integrated into an enhanced dust control program might include hydroseeding previously disturbed areas while awaiting construction, adding chemical binders or surfactants to increase the effectiveness of watering, and/or early paving or chip City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department; South
Coast Air Quality
Management District
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
sealing of roads. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (>25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.13-2 The project applicant/contractor shall reduce “spill- over” effects by preventing soil erosion, washing dirt from vehicles entering public roadways, and washing/sweeping project access to public roadways on a regular schedule.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

Reduced to below a level
of significance

4.13-3 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the t railer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
construction
activities.

Direct and cumulatively
significant and
unmitigable:

NOx (construction equip.
exhaust)
VOC (arch. surface
coatings)
Construction Emissions (NOx)

4.13-4 (A) Prior to construction commencement for each phase of the proposed development, emissions control from on -site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low emissions tune-ups shall be required. (B) Electric or natural gas powered construction equipment shall be used as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent. Diesel-powered (C) During construction, electricity should be used from power poles instead of from portable generators as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Prior to
commencement of
grading and
construction
activity phases.

Direct and cumulatively
significant and
unmitigable:

NOx (construction equip.
exhaust)
VOC (arch. surface
coatings)
Volatile Organics (VOC)

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
construction
activities.

4.1.14 NOISE Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Short-Term Construction Impacts

4.14-1 Construction activities shall comply with Menifee Municipal Code Section

8.01.101relating to construction noise.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-2 Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 6 :30 am to 7:00 pm weekdays and Saturdays.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-3 If blasting, drilling or rock crushing occur within 800 feet of any occupied residence, temporary noise barriers (berms, walls, etc.) shall be erected to mitigate noise from these activities to an exterior noise level of 65 dB(A) or less at the nearest residential lot line.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-5 All construction vehicles or equipment, whether fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-6 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied residences.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Long-Term Potential Noise Impacts

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department

Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
d. Corner Wrap Around and Open Space Lots. Masonry block walls or combination berm and block wall shall be constructed along those lots along Wickerd Road that have been identified in the County’s review of the acoustical analysis. The heigh t shall be determined by the adjacent wall height. These walls shall be erected so that the top of each wall extends at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the pad elevation of the shielded lot. In cases where the road is elevated above the pad, the wall shall extend at least 6 to 7.5 feet (depending on location) above the highest point between the homes and the road. Final noise barrier heights shall be determined when final grading plans show lot location, precise road, and pad elevations.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-8 Mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) shall be provided for all homes located adjacent to Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-9 Upgraded windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating 30 or higher shall be installed in all homes located adjacent to Wickerd Road.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-10 To minimize the potential interior noise impacts, homes facing Wickerd Road and Evans Road should be provided with weather-stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut-outs and openings City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Concurrent with
grading and
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.14-11 Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Menifee Building and Safety Department with an interior acoustical report for review and approval. The report must demonstrate that the interior noise of those homes along Wickerd Road and Evans Road has been reduced to at or below 45 Ldn.

City of Menifee
Building and Safety
Department
Prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.

Concurrent with
construction
activities.

4.1.15 OPEN SPACE,

PARKS, AND

RECREATION
Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.1.16 FIRE

PROTECTION
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.16-1 In accordance with Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460, fire flows shall have 1000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure.

Riverside County Fire
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits or
water
improvement
plans.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.16-2 All water mains and fire hydrants shall be constructed in accordance with Ordinance 460. Hydrant spacing at each intersection shall be no more than 330 feet apart.

Riverside County Fire
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits or
water
improvement
plans.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

Riverside County Fire
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.16-4 Prior to issuance of the grading permits, a fire protection/vegetation management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval.

Riverside County Fire
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.16-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 17-232), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

Riverside County Fire
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits.

4.1.17 POLICE

SERVICES
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.17-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 17 - 232), which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of public facilities, including police protection facilities.

Riverside County
Planning Department

Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.17-2 The project applicant shall inform the Problem Oriented Policing (POP) Unit of the City of Menifee’s Police Department of all new homeowners associations. These associations may be used as the foundation for establishing Neighborhood Watch Programs.

City of Menifee Police
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits

4.1.18 SOLID WASTE Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.18-1 The refuse hauler for the Project Site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (e.g., curbside recycling) in accordance with Chapter 6.30, Solid Waste Disposal and Organic Waste Diversion, of the Menifee Municipal Code. The use of such programs would be encouraged by the developer through information (location, materials accepted, etc.) provided in sales literature.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.18-2 The project applicant shall participate in established citywide programs to reduce solid waste generation.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.18-3 The master Homeowners’ Association and/or landscape maintenance district or association shall either mulch (shred and leave on landscaped areas), compost on- site, or separate from other types of waste to sen d to a composting facility within the local area, green waste (i.e., trimmings from grass, shrubs, or trees) from common project landscaped areas and the community park.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits.

Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.18-5 The project applicant shall comply with the State Model Ordinance, which requires adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials to be provided within detached, single family residential areas where solid waste is collected and loaded in a location which serves five or more units.

City of Menifee
Engineering and
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

4.1.19 WATER AND

WASTEWATER

SERVICES
Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.1.20 SCHOOLS Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.20-1 Prior to the issuance of each residential building permit(s), school fees shall be paid in accordance with the requirements of the State of California (Senate Bill 50) or the applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with the M enifee Union School District and the Perris Union High School District.

Menifee Union School
District; Perris Union
High School District
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

4.1.21 LIBRARIES Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.21-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Development Impact Fee (DIF)(Resolution No. 17-232), which requires a fee payment that the C ity applies to the funding of public facilities, including library facilities.

City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

4.1.22 HEALTH CARE

SERVICES
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

4.22-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Development Impact Fee (DIF)(Resolution No. 17-232), which City of Menifee
Planning Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building permits.

Appendix B. 2022 EIR Addendum - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY /

MONITORING PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
requires a fee payment that the C ity applies to the funding of public facilities, including public health facilities.

4.1.23 ENERGY

RESOURCES
Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.1.24 UTILITIES Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None

4.1.25 DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS –
Fire Hazards
Reduced to below a level
of significance.

See Fire Protection, above.

Seismic Hazards See Soils and Erosion and Geology and Slope Stability, above Soils and Erosion See Soil and Erosion, above.

Flooding See Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage, above.

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix C. Updated Biological Assessment
Reports and Jurisdictional Delineation
\\DARWIN\Shared Folders\Unified Projects\RLCC-03-187 Menifee Assemblage - Golden Meadows\2021 BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1\Report\RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final).doc

Celebrating 20+ Years of Service to Southern CA and the Great Basin, WBE Certified (Caltrans, CPUC, WBENC) Mailing Address: 700 East Redlands Blvd, Suite U, PMB#351, Redlands CA 92373 Delivery Address: 721 Nevada Street, Suite 307, Redlands, CA 92373 www.llenviroinc.com | Phone: 909-335-9897 | FAX: 909-335-9893

FINAL

UPDATED BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, BOTANICAL, BURROWING OWL,

AND NESTING RAPTOR SURVEYS, AND RIPARIAN BIRD HABITAT ASSESSMENT GOLDEN MEADOWS PROJECT, TRACT 31194, CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA

±204.65-Acre Property, ±4.68 Acres Offsite, ±209.33 Acres Surveyed

APNs 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -009, 360-350-001, and portions of offsite 360-180-009, 360-300-001, -008, 360-350-019, -022, -023, -024, 360-360-009, -010, -011, and 360-380-004, Tract 31194, Township 6 South, Range 3 West, Sections 15 and 16, USGS Romoland, 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle

Prepared For:

Brian Hardy
Richland Communities
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
949-261-7010

Prepared By:

Leslie Irish, Principal
Carla Wakeman, Senior Biologist
Guy Bruyea, Field Biologist
John Konecny, Field Biologist
Jeffrey Sonnentag, GIS and Graphics
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Report Summary:

The Project site is in the are a covered by the MSHCP but is not in the Criteria A rea. The site is mainly agricultural land and disturbed/ruderal areas with some coastal scrub, chaparral, and scattered riparian vegetation. One sensitive vegetation community is present, arroyo willow thickets. No listed plant species observed. Two special status plants, long -spined spineflower and southern California black wa lnut observed. One immature coast live oak and other trees present. Coastal California gnatcatcher present and nesting on the site. White-tailed kite observed foraging but no nesting. No vernal pools or fairy shrimp habitat. Riparian birds consi dered absent. Several special s tatus wildlife spe cies observed. One burrowing owl and occupied burrow observed in 2018 but not present in 2021. A preconstruction survey is required. Habitat suitable for nesting birds is present and preconstruction clearance survey and avoidance buffers recommended during the nesting season . Site is no t within a wildlife corridor.

Jurisdictional and MSHCP riparian/riverine areas present. Regulatory permits and a DBESP required.

Surveys Conducted By: Guy Bruyea and John Konecny
Surveys Conducted: May – November 2021
Report Date: October 2017, updated October 2018, July 2019, November 2021, revised December 2021
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) ii L&L

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ......iv

1.0) INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 8

1.1) Project Description ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8

1.2) Location................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................ ................................ ................................ .....10 Figure 2. Project Location ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 Figure 3a. Aerial Photograph ................................ ................................ ..........................12 Figure 3b. Development Plan ................................ ................................ .........................13

1.3) Vegetation and Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ...14

1.4) Soils and Topography ................................ ................................ ................................ .....14 Figure 4. Soils Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ........16

2.0) METHODS AND PERSONNEL ................................ ................................ .........................17

2.1) Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........17

2.2) General Biological and Botanical Survey Methods ................................ .........................18 Table 1. General Biological and Botanical Survey Dates and Weather Conditions .........18

2.3) Burrowing Owl Survey Methods ................................ ................................ .....................19 Table 2. Burrowing Owl Survey Dates and Weather Conditions ................................ .....19

2.4) Nesting Raptor Survey Methods ................................ ................................ .....................20

2.5) Riparian Bird Habitat Assessment Methods ................................ ................................ ....20 Figure 5. Burrowing Owl Survey Area ................................ ................................ .............21

3.0) RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................22

3.1) Literature Review Results ................................ ................................ ............................... 22

3.1.1) MSHCP Requirements ................................ ................................ .............................22

3.1.2) Precipitation ................................ ................................ ................................ .............22 Figure 6. MSHCP Cores and Linkages ................................ ................................ ...........23

3.1.3) Previous Surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ .....24

3.1.4) 2006 Environmental Impact Report ................................ ................................ ..........24

3.2) Vegetation Communities ................................ ................................ ................................ 27 Table 3. Vegetation Communities Present ................................ ................................ ......27 Table 4. Vegetation Community Impacts ................................ ................................ ........27

3.2.1) California Buckwheat Scrub ................................ ................................ .....................28

3.2.2) Chamise Chaparral ................................ ................................ ................................ ..28

3.2.3) Arroyo Willow Thickets and Mulefat Thickets ................................ ...........................29

3.2.4) Agriculture and Disturbed/Ruderal ................................ ................................ ...........30 Figure 7. Vegetation Community Map ................................ ................................ ............31

3.3) Plant Species ................................ ................................ ................................ .................32 Table 5. Special Status Plant Species Observations ................................ ......................32

3.3.1) Trees ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................34 Figure 8. Special Status Plant Observations ................................ ................................ ...35

3.4) Wildlife Species ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............36 Table 6. Listed and Special Status Wildlife Species Observations ................................ ..36 Figure 9. Special Status Wildlife Observations (2003-2021) ................................ ...........40

3.4.1) Listed and Fully Protected Wildlife ................................ ................................ ...........41 Coastal California Gnatcatcher ................................ ................................ .......................41 White-tailed Kite ................................ ................................ ................................ .............41 Figure 10. White-tailed Kite Nests Within 10 Miles of the Project Site .............................44 Fairy Shrimp ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................45 Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) iii L&L
Riparian Birds ................................ ................................ ................................ .................45 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ................................ ................................ ...........................46

3.4.2) Special Status Wildlife................................ ................................ .............................. 47 Burrowing Owl ................................ ................................ ................................ ................48 Nesting Birds ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................50

3.4.3) Wildlife Corridor ................................ ................................ ................................ .......50

3.5) Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat 51 Table 7. Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present ................................ ..................52 Figure 11. Jurisdictional Areas ................................ ................................ .......................53 Figure 12. Jurisdictional Areas with Development Plan ................................ ..................54

4.0) URBAN WILDLANDS INTERFACE ANALYSIS................................ ................................ 55

4.1) Drainage ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................55

4.2) Toxics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................56

4.3) Fencing ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................56

4.4) Barriers................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................56

4.5) Lighting ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................57

4.6) Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 57

4.7) Invasives ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................57

4.8) Grading/Land Development ................................ ................................ ............................57

4.9) Weed Abatement/Fuel Modification ................................ ................................ ................57 MSHCP Table 6-2. Plants to be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area ....58

5.0) SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ..........60

6.0) REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................ ................................ .......................65

6.1) Federal Endangered Species Act ................................ ................................ ...................65

6.2) Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ................................ ................................ ................66

6.2.1) Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 ................................ ................................ .....66

6.2.2) Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401 and Porter-Cologne ................................ .....67

6.2.3) California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 ................................ ........................67

6.3) California Endangered Species Act ................................ ................................ ................68

6.4) California Environmental Quality Act ................................ ................................ ..............68

6.5) California Natural Diversity Database ................................ ................................ .............69

6.6) California Rare Plant Rank ................................ ................................ .............................69

6.7) Information for Planning and Consultation ................................ ................................ ......69

6.8) Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................ ................................ ................................ 70

6.9) California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3513 ................................ .............70

6.10) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan .......................70

7.0) REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................74 APPENDIX A: PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES ................................ ................................ ...79 APPENDIX B: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALS FOR OCCURRENCE .................90 APPENDIX C: PRECIPITATION DATA ................................ ................................ .................. 115 APPENDIX D: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ................................ ................................ ................... 119 APPENDIX E: CNDDB FORMS ................................ ................................ ............................. 125 APPENDIX F: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DOCUMENTATION ................................ ..................... 140 APPENDIX G: SITE PLAN ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 147 Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) iv L&L

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L) conducted biological surveys on Richland Com munities’ ±204.65-acre Golden Meadows Project site (and associated offsite improvement areas of ±4.68 acres) in the City of Menifee, Califo rnia. The Project consists of construction of 572 single-family residential lots and associated roads a nd infrastructure. A blue-line stream runs through the site and t he Project includes an Avoidance Area along the stream that will retain native habitat and natural flows. Open space will also be retained in the northeast corner of the site. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project was published in 2006.

L&L has performed biological surveys on this property since 2003. The purpose of this study was to examine the site to determine presence/absence of biological resources on the pr operty and potential fo r special status species to occur , as well as update previous survey results.

Surveys in 20 21 included a biological resources assessment/habitat assess ment, focuse d botanical survey, protocol breeding sea son burrowing owl survey, nesting rapt or survey, an d riparian bird ha bitat assessment. This study reflects the most current field conditions and , where appropriate, makes comparative statements regarding past observed conditions.

The site i s within the area covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP requires habitat assessments, and focused surveys if suitable habitat is present, for riparian/ riverine res ources and associated species and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). There is one area of Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Conserved Lands approximately 0.68 miles north -northeast of the site , i dentified as the Ringing Rock Archaeological Site. Other than the Ringing Rock Site, there are no PQP or MSHCP Conserved Lands within a mile of t he site. The site is n ot w ithin or near any MSHCP Core Areas or Linkages.

The site consists mainly of cultivated agricultural fields (dry-farmed wheat) and disturbed/ruderal areas with some ar eas of distu rbed to relatively undisturbed California buckwheat scrub and chamise chaparral. The ephemeral blue-line stream runs through the agricultural fields and includes scattered and degraded riparian vegetation (arroyo willow thickets and mulefat thickets). Arroyo willow thicket is a sensitive vegetation community. No vernal pools or ponding areas were observed.

Land us e adjacent to the site includes anthropogenic disturbances suc h as rural residential development, agricultural areas, u nimproved roads, powerline easements, off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity, and trash dumping.

Two (2) special status plant s pecies were observed, southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) and long -spined spineflower ( Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina). Five (5) black walnut trees are present within the riparian area on the site. Two long-spined spineflower plants were present in 2017 but the species has not been observed during subsequent surveys.

Both of these species are covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

No other special status plants were observed onsite during previous or current surveys, but three (3) species have a low to moderate or moderate potential to occur : smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis ), Parry’s spin eflower ( Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi ), and small-flowered morning-glory (Convolvulus simulans). All of th ese species are covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

There is a si ngle im mature coast live oak tree and a number of other native and n on-native trees on the site, mainly in the riparian area. The City may regulate removal or replacement of trees and a tree survey may be required.

Previous and current su rveys have d ocumented coastal Californ ia gnatcatcher s (Polioptila californica californica) present on the Project site and nesting has been observed. This species is federally listed as threatened. All observations were in the California buckwheat scrub habitat in t he no rtheastern portion of the site . Coastal California gnatca tcher is a covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved. Under the MSHCP, focused surveys for this species are not required.

Two white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus) were observed on the Project site in 2005 and one in 2011, but this spec ies has not been observed on the site during more recent su rveys. This species is fully protected in California. The EIR includes a mitigation measure (4.3-5) requiring a nesting raptor survey prior to issuance of grading permits and a CDFW Incidental Take Permit (2080 permit) if white -tailed kite are documented as ne sting on the Project site. The California Natural Diversity Da tabase (CNDDB) has documented occurrences of five ( 5) white-tailed kite nests within 10 miles of the Project site but no white-tailed kite ne sting has b een observed onsite. White-tailed kite is a co vered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

No vernal pools, ponding areas, or potential habitat for fairy shrimp were observed. The riparian vegetation on the site is sc attered and degraded and there is no suitable habi tat for least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus ), southwestern wi llow flycatcher (Empidonax t raillii extimus ), or western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis).

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) vi L&L
Two other listed species have a moderate or high potential to occur on the Project site, although they have not been ob served: Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensii) and tricolored blackbird (foraging) (Agelaius tricolor). Both of th ese species are covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved . Under the MSHCP, focused trapping surveys for Stephens’ kangaroo rat are not required.

Habitat suitable for use by burrowing owl is present on much of the property but is regularly disturbed by agricultural activities . There were no observations of burrowing owls during biological surveys of the sit e in 2 003, 2004, 2 005, 2006, 2011, 2013, and 2017 . Surveys in 2018 observed one bur rowing owl and an active burrow . The owl was observed during the survey on May 30, 2018 but was not observed during subsequent surveys. Focused surveys in 2019 and 2021 did not d etect any burrowing owl, occupied burrows , or ow l sig n. A preconstruction clearance survey for burrowing owl (valid for 30 days) will be required.

Other special status w ildlife specie s have observed on the site during previous and current surveys: coast horned lizard ( Phrynosoma blainvillii), orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), coastal (western) whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern harr ier ( Circus hudsonius), California h orned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), great egre t ( Ardea alba ), great blue heron (fly over ) ( Ardea h erodias), Lawrence’s goldfinch ( Spinus lawr encei), loggerhead shrike ( Lanius ludovicia nus), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum ), southern California rufous-crowned s parrow ( Aimophila rufice ps canescens), B ell’s sage sp arrow ( Artemisiospiza belli belli), Nuttall’s woodpeck er ( Dryobates nuttallii), wrentit ( Chamaea fasciata ), Costa’s hu mmingbird ( Calypte costae ), rufous hummingbird ( Selasphorus rufus ), and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit ( Lepus ca lifornicus bennettii).

All of the se speci es are covered under the MSHCP an d considered adequately conserved except great egre t, Lawrence ’s goldfinch, California thrasher, Nuttall’s woodpe cker, wrentit, Costa’s hummingbird, and rufous hummingbird, which are not covered under the MSHCP.

Five (5) additional special st atus wildlife species have not been observed on the Project site during surveys but have a low to moderate potential to occur : Crotch bumble b ee (Bombus crotchii), southern California legless lizard (Anniella steb binsi), Dulzura pocke t mous e (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), and western mastiff bat (foraging) ( Eumops perotis ca lifornicus). Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved. The remaining four species are not covered under the MSHCP. Crotch bumble bee was previously Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) vii L&L
a candidate for state listing, but its status is currently in litigation. If this species becomes listed, focused surveys and incidental take permitting may be required.

Nesting birds are protected under State and fed eral laws and h abitat suitable for nesting birds (including raptors) is present within and a round the site. Scheduling Project activities ou tside the nesting seas on (generally February 1 through August 31) or conducting preconstruction nesting bird c learance surveys and establishing avoidance buffers around any active nests is recommended. If n esting birds are present, an avoidance buffer of 300 to 500 feet (or as recommended by a biologist) should be established around active nests until juvenile birds have fledged and/or a biologist has verified that the nest has become inactive.

The Project site is largely surrounded by scattered existing d evelopment and there is no connectivity between the site and conserved lands to the east (Diamond V alley Lake) and southwest (Santa Ro sa Pla teau, Clevela nd National Forest). Although there may be limited local movement of wildlife across the site, it is not within or adjacent to a wildlife corridor.

An ephemeral blue-line stream is present on the site and includes state waters and wet lands, federal waters, and MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat. All jurisdictional areas onsite will either be impacted by de velopment or i ncorporated into the Avoidance Area. The Avoidance Area will retain native riparian habitat and natural flows. Regulatory permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a nd California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will be required for impacts to jurisdictional areas. A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) will b e required for impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat.

Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal habi tat wer e not observed on the site and no wetland or vernal pool plant species were present. No evidence of ponding areas (i.e., cracked soils, tire ruts, etc.) were observed on the site during surveys.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 8 L&L

1.0) INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by L&L Environmenta l, Inc. (L&L) for Richland Communities. It describes the results o f biological surveys con ducted on a pr oposed residential development site located within the City of Menifee, Riverside County, California. The Project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel N umbers (APNs) 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -009, and 360 -350- 001 (totaling ±204.65 acres) and portions of APNs 360-180-009, 360-300-001, -008, 360-350- 019, -022, -023, -024, 360-360-009, -010, -011, and 360-380-004 where offsite improvements are planned (totaling ±4.68 acres).

The 2021 updated assessment consisted of (1) a record s search a nd literature review, conducted to determine the species of conc ern in the Project area and proximity to closest documented special status species observations, (2) field surveys to identify plants and wildlife on the site and assess presence/absence of ha bitat for spec ies of concern , (3) a foc used botanical su rvey, (4 ) a p rotocol breeding season s urvey f or burrowing o wl, and ( 4) a habitat assessment for riparian birds.

1.1) Project Description
The Project is identified as Golden Meadows (formerly known as Menifee Assemblage), Tract No. 31194 , and con sists of construction of 572 single-family residential l ots and associated roads and infrastructure (Figure 3b). The Project will be constructed in four (4) phases. Offsite impacts include improvements to existing roads and installation of flood control structures. The site plan is p rovided in App endix E. An En vironmental Impact Rep ort for the Project was published in 2006 (T&B 2006).

The property also inc ludes an Eastern M unicipal Wat er District (EM WD) tank site. The proposed tank site includes two large water tanks and an access road. The tanks will serve multiple developments, including Golden Mea dows. The tank site is located within the tract boundary, but it is not within the proposed Project boundary and is not a part of the Project.

The Project includes an Avoidance Area along the blue-line stream that retains native hab itat and natural flows. Open space will also be retained in the northeast corner of the site.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 9 L&L

1.2) Location
The site is l ocated in Paloma Valley, west of the Interstate 215 freeway (I-215), south of Newport Road, and east of Murrieta Road (Figure 1). It is located between Wickerd Road to the south and Garbani Road to the north. The site is situated in Sections 1 5 and 1 6, Township 6 South, Range 3 West, within the USGS Romoland 7.5’ series quadrangle map (Figure 2).

The site is generally bounded a s f ollows: to the west by agricultural lands, Evans Road (unimproved), rural residential areas, and a school; to the ea st by a mixture o f disturbed and relatively un disturbed vacant land, Sherman Road (unimproved), and a Frontier Communications building complex and Haun R oad beyond; to the north by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed vacant lands, rural resid ential a reas, Garbani Road (unimproved), and residential developments; and to the south by Wickerd Road (u nimproved), and a mix of disturbed and relativ ely undisturbed vacant lands and rural residential areas (Figure 3a).

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 10 L&L

Figure 1

Project Vicinity Map

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Project Vicinity
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 11 L&L

Figure 2

Project Location Map
(USGS Romoland 1979 quadrangle,
Sections 15 & 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Project Site
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 12 L&L

Project Site

Figure 3a

Aerial Photograph
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, February 2018)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Haun Road
Evans Road Garbani Road
Wickerd Road
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 13 L&L

Figure 3b

Development Plan
(Plan obtained from Hunsaker & Assoc. Irvine, Inc., 2021)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Water tank site
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 14 L&L

1.3) Vegetation and Setting
A review of historical a erial image s (NETRonline 2 021, Google Ea rth 2021) find s that most areas of the site have been disturbed in association with agricultural uses since at least 1938.

These areas are still under cultivation and do not support native habitat communities. Areas of California buckwheat scrub are present in the less disturbed areas on the property, mainly the slopes in the no rtheastern corner . Remnants of c hamise chaparra l are present along the southern site boundary.

An ephemeral drainage feature and mapped blu e-line stream is present trending from the southwest/central to the northwest p ortion of the site , as we ll as variou s other jurisdictional features. Much of this area has been impacted by agricultural activities and invasive plants, but limited areas of disturbed and degraded riparian vegetation are present in association with this drainage. No vernal pools or ponding areas were observed onsite.

Land use adjacent to the site includes anthropogenic disturb ances suc h as rural residential development, agricultural areas, unimproved roads, powerline easements, OHV activity, and trash dumping.

Two (2) unimproved roads are present on the pro perty. The first is an unnamed dirt r oad that begins at the eastern terminus of Daniel Road (in the northwestern corner of the site) and exits at the s outheastern corner of the site near the intersection of Wickerd Road and Asc ot Way.

The second is identified as Krubsack Road, which runs north-south through agricultural fields within the roughly west -central portion of the property and connects with Wickerd Road to the south and Daniel Road t o the north. Many OHV trails are al so present on the property , mainly in the n ortheastern cor ner. The 2021 survey found that earthen berms and rock piles had recently been placed on roads and trails to block entrance to the site.

1.4) Soils and Topography
Soils on the Project site were mapped as Wyman loam (WyC2), Vallecitos loam ( VeC2), Porterville clay (PsC ), Yokohl loam (YbC and YbE3), Cajalco fine sandy loam (CaC2 and CaD2), Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam (CbF2), Honcut sandy loam (HnC and HnD2), Las Posas loam (LaD2), and Las Posas rocky loam (LkD2 and LkF3) (NRCS 2021) (Figure 4).

The most common soils mapped for the subj ect property are Wyman loam on the c entral and western portion of the site (in agricultural areas) a nd Las Posas ro cky loams on vegetated Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 15 L&L

hillsides within the northern and eastern portions of the site. Clay soils are relatively uncommon on th e site, but P orterville c lay is mapped as present near the so utheastern portion of the property. Soils observed onsite range from mostly sandy-loamy within the agricultural areas to rocky l oamy on the vegetated hillsides. Crypto biotic c rusts are present, but only wit hin less disturbed portions of the site.

Topographically, much of the site is relatively flat and contains open land with low -relief rocky outcrops. Gently to st eeply sloping h ills and ridgelines are pres ent within t he north eastern portion of the property. The site has a combined maximum vertical relief of roughly 220 feet (67 meters) between the highest and lowest points on the property, with elevation ranging f rom approximately 1,500 to 1,720 feet (457 to 524 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL).

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 16 L&L

CaC2 = Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2-8% slope, eroded
CaD2 = Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8-15% slope, eroded
CbD2 = Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15% slope, eroded CbF2 = Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15-50% slope, eroded CkD2 = Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8-15% slope, eroded HnC = Honcut sandy loam, 2-8% slope
HnD2 = Honcut sandy loam, 8-15% slope, eroded
LaD2 = Las Posas loam, 8-15% slope, eroded
LaC = Las Posas loam, 2-8% slope
LaC2 = Las Posas loam, 5-8% slope, eroded
LkD2 = Las Posas rocky loam, 8-15% slope, eroded
LkF3 = Las Posas rocky loam, 15-50% slope, severely eroded PsC = Porterville clay
VeC2 = Vallecitos loam, eroded
WyC2 = Wyman loam, eroded
YbC = Yokohl loam, 2-8% slope
YbE3 = Yokohl loam, 8-25% slope, severely eroded

Figure 4

Soils Map
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, February 2016,
USDA Nat. Res. Cons. Serv. SSURGO Data)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 17 L&L

2.0) METHODS AND PERSONNEL

2.1) Literature Review
Certain plants and animals have been listed as threatened or endangered under state or federal Endangered Species Ac ts. Other species have not been form ally listed, but d eclining populations or ha bitat availability are reason s for concern regarding their long-term viability.

These species are included in lists compiled by resource management agencies or conservation organizations. In this report, the term “listed” refers to all species that are listed, or candidates for list ing, as thre atened or e ndangered by t he U.S. Fi sh and W ildlife S ervice (USFWS) or California D epartment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). “Special status species ” r efers to all species in cluded in one or m ore com pendia o f rare species, b ut n ot listed as threat ened or endangered by USFWS or CDFW.

Pertinent literature was reviewed to identify local occ urrences and habitat requirements o f special status species and communities occurring in the region. Liter ature reviewed included compendia provided by resource agencies ( CDFW 2021a, 2021b), a s earch of the California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB; CDFW 2021c) and California Native Plant S ociety Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021) for the P roject topographic quadrangle (Romoland) and ad jacent quadrangles ( Steele Peak, Perris, Lakeview, Lake Elsinore, Winchester, Wildomar, Murrieta, and Bachelor Mountain), and a search of USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; USFWS 2021a) for the P roject site. Reports of previous surveys completed for the site ( L&L 2003-2019) were also revie wed. Informa tion fr om p ast surveys is summarized and included in this report as appropriate.

Potentials for occurrence of plant and wildlife spe cies were evaluated and classified as either absent, not expected, low, moderate, high, or occurs. These classifications are based on the presence an d quality of habitat, g eographic and elevation range of species, proximity to a known occ urrence of a spec ies obtained f rom CNDD B or oth er re liable data, an d field observations. Classifications for individual speci es may b e modif ied based on b iologists’ experience and expert opinion.

Scientific names of plan ts follow Baldwin et al. (2012) with updates from the online Jepson eFlora (Jepson 2021). Scientific names of animals follow Ste bbins (1985), Jameson a nd Peeters (1988), Cornell (2021), and Arnett (2000), with u pdates from academic sour ces.

Current conserv ation st atus o f plant an d wildlife s pecies deter mined from CDFW ( 2021a, Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 18 L&L

2021b). Vegetation community cl assifications follow Sa wyer et al. (2009) with updates from CDFW (2020). State ranks (S ranks) for vegetation communities are from CDFW (2020). Other sources consulted for informati on regarding biological r esources include Brown (199 4), Recon (1985), Schoenherr (1990), and Small (1994).

In this report, the “Project site” or “site” includes all of the Project parcels (±204.65 acres) plus offsite impact areas (±4.68 acres) for a total of ±209.33 acres surveyed. Acreages are based on GIS calculations.

2.2) General Biological and Botanical Survey Methods
L&L biolog ist Guy Bru yea visited the Project site from Ma y through November of 2021 to conduct general biological and botanical surveys (Table 1).

Table 1. General Biological and Botanical Survey Dates and Weather Conditions Date Time Weather Wind (mph)

05.21.2021 0545-0845 Clear, 50-56º F 1-6

05.21.2021 1700-1930 Clear, 62-67º F 2-5

05.25.2021 0530-0830 Clear, 57-65º F 0-1

05.31.2021 0530-0830 Marine layer/Clear, 61-73º F 0-4

05.31.2021 1700-1930 Clear, 74-82º F 2-4

06.05.2021 0600-1100 Clear, 74-83º F 0-2

06.07.2021 0600-1000 Clear, 58-67º F 0-3

07.06.2021 0600-0900 Clear, 66-75º F 0-2

07.11.2021 0600-0830 Partly Cloudy, 73-81º F 1-2

08.01.2021 0630-1030 Clear, 76-87º F 1-4

11.08.2021 0800-1200 Clear, 66-75º F 0-3

11.09.2021 0900-1300 Clear, 70-79º F 1-5
A total of about 40.5 person-hours were spent onsite during surveys in 2021. All ha bitat types onsite were visited on foot . The site was surveyed by cond ucting a se ries of transects across the subj ect proper ty where possible, stopping periodically f or obse rvations and notations. A general habitat map and field notes were completed at the time of the survey. All field surveys were conducted during daylight hours. Digital photographs were taken to record the condition of the site during the present survey.

The methodology used is consi stent w ith recommendations by th e California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2001), CDFW ( 2018, 2000), and USFW S (2000). All plant species observed were identified in the field or c ollected for l ater identification or c onfirmation. All species were recorded in field notes and the locations of special status species were documented using GPS.

Plants of uncertain identity were collected and subsequently identified from keys, descriptions, Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 19 L&L

and illustrations in Baldwin (2012), Abrams (1923, 1944, and 1951), Abrams and Ferris (1960), Munz (1974), and Parker (1999).

Vegetation community mapping of the si te was also verified in 2021. The vegetation mapping from the 2018 biological survey report (L&L 2018a) was used as a ba sis and verified through field observations. Vegetation community classification is consistent with the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2020) and Sawyer et al. (2009).

2.3) Burrowing Owl Survey Methods
Protocol breeding season b urrowing owl surveys were conducted by Mr. Bruyea concurrently with a portion of the general biological and botanical surveys (Table 2).

Table 2. Burrowing Owl Survey Dates and Weather Conditions Date Time Sunrise* Sunset* Weather Wind
(mph)

05.21.2021 0545-0845 0547 -- Clear, 50-56º F 1-6

05.21.2021 1700-1930 -- 1952 Clear, 62-67º F 2-5

05.31.2021 0530-0830 0542 -- Marine layer/Clear, 61-73º F 0-4

05.31.2021 1700-1930 -- 1958 Clear, 74-82º F 2-4

06.05.2021 0600-1100 0541 -- Clear, 74-83º F 0-2

06.07.2021 0600-1000 0541 -- Clear, 58-67º F 0-3

07.06.2021 0600-0900 0547 -- Clear, 66-75º F 0-2

07.11.2021 0600-0830 0550 -- Partly Cloudy, 73-81º F 1-2 *sunrise/sunset times from timeanddate.com
A total of about 25.5 person-hours were spent during burrowing owl surveys in 2021. The s ite was examined for suitable burrow sites and for signs of occup ation by burrowing owl, including pellets, feathers, whitewash, prey remains, and eggshell fragments, as well as individual owls.

A search for potentially suitable burrows wi thin dirt, wood, and rock debris piles, a rtificially created berms, and other loc ations was conducted during the surveys. T he surveys were concentrated in areas typically associated with burrowing owl habitat, including open areas onsite and areas where California ground squirrel activity (i.e., suitable burrows) was expected.

An add itional 150 -meter (50 0-foot) buffer area su rrounding the site was visually inspected, where possible, in areas identified as potential burrowing owl habitat (Figure 5). Any developed areas were visually surveyed with binoculars due to trespassing concerns on private property.

Transects were walked throughout the property where suitable habitat is present. Coupled with binocular surveys of any re stricted areas, this allow ed for complete visual ground coverage of the survey area. Distance between transects was approximately 15 to 20 meters.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 20 L&L

Per MSHCP protocol for b urrowing owl surv eys (RCA 2006), surveys sho uld be cond ucted during weather that is conducive t o ob serving owl s out side their burro ws a nd detecting burrowing owl sign. Surveys will not be accepted if they a re conducted during rain, high winds (>20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90°F. Surveys should be conducted in the morning one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise or in the early evening two (2) hours before sunset t o one (1) hour after sunset. Surveys were conducted during approp riate ho urs and weather conditions (Table 2).

2.4) Nesting Raptor Survey Methods
Concurrently with the bur rowing o wl survey , th e sit e was examined to dete rmine the presence/absence of nesting raptors on the property, in particular white-tailed kite. This survey primarily focused on exa mining trees onsite and within 500 feet of the Project site for evidence of raptor nesting.

2.5) Riparian Bird Habitat Assessment Methods
A habitat assessment for riparian bird species least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western ye llow-billed c uckoo was conduc ted by John Konecny of Konecny Biological Services. Mr. Konecny holds USFWS Section 10(a) permit TE837308-7 for southwestern willow flycatcher.

The habitat assessment was conducted on Sept ember 29, 2021 and focused on the riparian vegetation on the site . Weather conditions during the survey were mild with litt le wind and scattered overcast. No call prompting of any species was conducted.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 21 L&L

Figure 5

Burrowing Owl Survey Area
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, August 2021)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 22 L&L

3.0) RESULTS

3.1) Literature Review Results

3.1.1) MSHCP Requirements
The site is located within the area covered by the MSHCP but is not within the Criteria Area.

There is one area of Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Conserved Lands approximately 0.68 mi les north-northeast of the site. This PQP area is identified as Ringing Rock Archaeologi cal Site under the management of the Riverside County Parks and Open Space District. Other than the Ringing Rock Site, t here are no other PQP or MSHCP Conserved Lands within a mile of the site. The site is not within or near any MSHCP Core Areas or Linkages (Figure 6).

Surveys req uired by the M SHCP are a habitat as sessment to address riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitats and associated species and burrowing owl (RCA 2021). If suitable habitat is present, focused surveys are required.

The MSHCP mapped vegetation layer (1994 baseline) depicts the site as largely agricultural land w ith areas of coastal sa ge scrub, grassland, a nd chaparral . No riparian habitat or Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is mapped on the parcel in the 1994 baseline (RCA 2021).

3.1.2) Precipitation
Precipitation d ata was obtain ed f rom the Clark, Sage, a nd Cranston Remote Aut omated Weather St ations (RAWS) (WRCC 2021). The Clark RAWS is located about 16.8 miles north-northwest of the Project site at an elevation of 1,720 feet; Sage RAWS is about 14.7 miles east-southeast of th e s ite at an elevation of 1,516 fe et; Cranston RAWS is about 21.0 mi les east-northeast of the site at an elevation of 1,950 feet (WRCC 2021).

Total precipitation recorded by the Clark, Sage, and Cranston RAWS for the 2021 water year1 was 4.96, 6.19, and 6.75 inches, respectively. Average annual precipitation for the Project area is 10 to 15 inches (WRCC 2018). Precipitation data is provided in Appendix C.

1 A water year is October through September. For example, the 2021 water year is October 2020 through September 2021.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 23 L&L

Figure 6

MSHCP Cores and Linkages
(Riverside County MSHCP)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Project Area
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 24 L&L

3.1.3) Previous Surveys
L&L reviewed the results of previous biological surveys of the site, which inclu ded a general biological survey an d a jurisdi ctional delineation in 2 003 (L&L 2 003a, 2003b), spring botanical survey and focused surveys for Qu ino checkerspot butterfly and coastal California gnatcatcher in 2004 (L&L 2004a, 2004b, 2004c), burrowing o wl survey , habitat assessment for riparian birds, and updated jurisdictional delineation in 2005 (L&L 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), burrowing owl survey, focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, and a h abitat assessment for yellow-billed cuckoo in 2006 (L&L 2006a, 2006b), burrowing owl survey in 2007 (L&L 2007) , s urveys for special status p lants, burrowing owl , and updated jur isdictional delineation in 20 11 (L&L 2011), habitat assessment an d burrowing owl survey in 2013 (L&L 2013), general biological and botanical survey in 2017 (L&L 2017), burrowing owl and nesting raptor surveys and update d j urisdictional del ineation in 2018 (L&L 2018a, 20 18b), and burrowing owl surveys and an updated juri sdictional delineation in 2019 (L&L 2019a, 2019b).

Previous survey results are summarized and incorporated into this report as appropriate.

3.1.4) 2006 Environmental Impact Report
The 2006 Fina l Environmental Impac t Report (EI R) fo r the Project (T&B 2006) includes the following mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources:

4.3-1 TTM No. 31194, Lot #503 (approximately 39.0 acres in the northeastern portion of the property) shall be preserved as open space and shall be cove red by a conservation easement or other mechanism to ensure permanent preservation, with allowance for required maintenance of fuel modification zones. The conservation easement area shall be shown on the Final Map.

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 25 L&L

less than 3 pairs o f burrowing ow ls, then the o n-site burrow ing owl s s hall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols. b. If the site (including adjacent areas) supp orts 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habita t and is non -contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at l east 90 percent of the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site.

4.3-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be required to pay Local Development Mitigation Fees (p er County Ordinance No. 4.62.070) for implementation of the MSHCP.

4.3-4 Prior t o issuance of grading permits, the applicant s hall pay fees in accordance with the USFWS-approved HCP, to mitigate the project ’s potentially significant impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat.

4.3-5 If construction activities occur between February 1 and August 31 a nd within 150 feet of suitable nestin g locations, a focused raptor survey will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. If active nests are located within the portion of the site t o be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be disturbed, mea sures shall be initiated to avoid any impacts to nesting raptors. Measures to avoid impacts will include identifying the loca tion and creat ing a buffer z one around th e tree within which imp acts will be avoided until the juveniles have fledged.
a. The whit e-tailed kite is “fully -protected” by the California Department of Fish and Game. If this species is documented as nesting on the project s ite during the raptor survey, or it is determined this species will be significantly impacted by development a 2080 permit for “take” shall be required from the CDFG.

4.3-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation to the County of Riverside verifying that the nece ssary permits required by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have been obtained. The ACOE has a no net l oss policy which requires that any unavoidable impacts to wetland values and functions be replaced. In addition, the RWQCB will add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. It is anticipated that the following measures Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 26 L&L

or similar measures as approved by the ACOE, CDFG, and RWQC B would reduce impacts to ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas to a level less than significant:
a. On or off-site repl acement of AC OE juri sdictional water s and wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1;
b. On or of f-site replacement of CDFG jurisdictional stream bed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 1:1; and/or
c. Incorporation of design feat ures into the proposed proj ect tha t w ill avoid biological impacts to off -site blue -line streams that ulti mately end up in the Railroad Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake).

4.3-7 Individual lot fencing shall be used to restrict access to the on -site wetland areas.

Back yard gates from individual residential lots that open onto the wetland area shall be prohibited. Fencing l ocations and materials shall be shown on the Final Map and approved by the County’s Environmental Programs Department (EPD) pr ior to issuance of building permits. Required fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

4.3-8 Ni ght ligh ting during and after project constru ction shall be directed away from onsite wetland areas and, except for safety and other r equirements, l ighting shall be limited from the boundaries of onsite wetland areas. In the event that lighting in an area adjacent to the wetland area is necessary, a shield shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the wetlan d area is not increased. Lighting plans shall b e a pproved by th e County prior to issuance of building permits. Lighting restrictions and the reasons for such restrictions shall be included in the project’s CC&Rs.

4.3-9 The landscape plans for the project in areas adjacent or tributary to wetland areas shall not include those species listed in the MSHCP as “Plants That Should Be Avo ided Adjacent to The MSHCP Conservati on Area .” The County of Riverside Planning Department shall review and approve all plant material for the project, prior to issuance of building permits. Information regarding the importance of avoiding the listed pla nts, even in front and backyard landscaping, shall be included in sales literature distributed to homeowners. The list of restricted plant materials and the reasons for such restrictions shall be listed in the project’s CC&Rs.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 27 L&L

3.2) Vegetation Communities
Much of the property has been disturbed by current and historical cultivation and past sheep grazing and does not support native habitat. Less disturbed areas are present, primarily in the northeastern portions of the site, with a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed California buckwheat scrub and chamise chaparral. Sparse riparian vegetation and trees are found along the blue-line stream in the northwestern/central portion of the site (Figure 7).

The agricultural fields are dry far med for wh eat. Evidence of widesp read sheep grazing was observed throughout all areas of the site in 2 013. Hillsides c ontaining California buckwheat scrub along the farmland edges, especially to the north and east, had been severely damaged by sheep graz ing. Very few an nuals remained (none in some areas) and many of the perennials had been stripped of ve getation and/or trampled. No evidence of current sheep grazing was observed during surveys in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2021 and regrowth of native annuals and perennials was observed in the buckwheat scrub areas.

Table 3. Vegetation Communities Present
Vegetation Community
Area Present (acres)
Onsite Offsite Total
California Buckwheat Scrub 41.69 0 41.69
California Buckwheat Scrub/Ruderal 2.52 0 2.52
Chamise Chaparral 2.05 0.18 2.23
Arroyo Willow Thickets and Mulefat Thickets 1.31 0.05 1.36 Agriculture and Disturbed/Ruderal 157.08 4.45 161.53
Total 204.65 4.68 209.33

Table 4. Vegetation Community Impacts
Vegetation Community
Area Impacted (acres)*
Onsite Offsite Total
California Buckwheat Scrub 18.49** 0 18.49**
California Buckwheat Scrub/Ruderal 2.52 0 2.52
Chamise Chaparral 2.05 0.18 2.23
Arroyo Willow Thickets and Mulefat Thickets 1.31 0.05 1.36 Agriculture and Disturbed/Ruderal 154.30 4.45 158.75
Total 178.67 4.68 183.35
*Any discrepancy in totals due to rounding error. **Includes the water tank site. The water tank site is a separate project covered under a separate CEQA process by EMWD and not a part of the Golden Meadows Project.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 28 L&L

3.2.1) California Buckwheat Scrub
In previous reports, this vegetation community was referred to by the older name of Riversidean sage scrub (Holland Element C ode 32700). Under th e m ore rec ent S awyer et al. (2009) classification, this type of coas tal scrub is best cl assified as California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance). CDFW ra nks t his community as S5 ( secure – common, widespread, and abundant) and it is not considered sensitive.

California buckwheat scrub is present on the northeastern portion of the site on south, west, and east-facing slopes containing numerous rocky outcrops. Native shrubs and other conspi cuous plants commonly observed in these areas include Calif ornia buckw heat ( Eriogonum fasciculatum), Cal ifornia sagebrush ( Artemisia californ ica), and white sage (Salvia apiana ).

Other conspicuous pl ants include brittlebush (Encelia fari nosa), yellow bush -penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides), wishbone bush ( Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), and black sage ( Salvia mellifera). Annuals are also ab undant in this community and include natives such as wreath pl ant (Stephanomeria virgata) and western sunflower (Helianthus a nnuus) and non -natives such a s shortpod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana ), red brome (Bromus rubens), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), and Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus).

Open patches can be found throughout portions of th e buckwheat scrub onsite and contain a mixture of native and non -native annuals . Na tives include popcorn flower ( Plagiobothrys species), large flowe r rancher’s fiddleneck ( Amsinckia inte rmedia), comm on cryptantha (Cryptantha intermedia), evening primrose (Camissonia species), wild carrot (Daucus pusillus), slender tar weed ( Deinandra fas ciculata), and phacelia ( Phacelia species). Other plants observed include chia (Salvia columbariae), perezia (Acourtia microcephala), hooked navarretia (Navarretia hama ta), sapphire woollystar (Eriastrum sapphirinum), an d fringed spineflower (Chorizanthe fimbriata).

3.2.2) Chamise Chaparral
In previous reports, this vegetation community w as referred to by the o lder name of no rthern mixed chaparral (Holland Element Code 37130). Under the more recent Sawyer et a l. (2009) classification, this vegetati on community is best classified as chamise chap arral (Adenostoma fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) or chamise–black sage chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum– Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance). CDFW ranks chamise chaparral as S5 (secure – common, Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 29 L&L

widespread, an d abundant) and chamise-black sage chaparral at S4 (apparently secure – uncommon but not rare). The chaparral on the site is not considered sensitive.

Common species found in the chaparral areas onsite are chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), black sage, and oth er perennials. A po orly developed unde rstory is usually present in association with chaparral and is characteristic of this vegetation community on the site.

Only smal l patches of remnant chaparral were observed on the site along the southern boundary. The survey in November 2021 found that a portion of the chamise chaparral on the site had been mowed to the ground.

3.2.3) Arroyo Willow Thickets and Mulefat Thickets
In pr evious reports, the r iparian vegetation onsite was referred to by the older names of southern arroyo willow riparian (Holland Element Code 61320), mulefat scrub (Holland Element Code 63310), a nd disturbed wetland (Holland Element Code 11200). U nder the mo re recent Sawyer et al. (2009) classification, this vegetation community is best classified as arroyo willow thickets ( Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance) and m ulefat thickets ( Baccharis sali cifolia Shrubland Alliance). CDFW ranks arroyo willow thickets as S4 (apparently secure – uncommon but not rare ); however, it is considered sensitive. Mulefat thickets are r anked as S5 (secure – common, widespread, and abundant) and not considered sensitive.

Arroyo willow thickets and mulefat thickets are dependent on the presence of at least periodic surface or subsurface water. The northwestern portion of the site contains a degraded blue-line stream sparsely inhabited by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), or a mix of the two. A si ngle Fremont cottonwo od tree (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii), five southern California black walnut trees (Juglans californica), black willow (Salix gooddingii), and scattered blue e lderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea) and non-native tamarisks (Tamarix species) are also present . The u nderstory is dominated by native and n on-native annuals, including ( but not limited to) s hortpod mu stard, western sunflower, large-flowered rancher’s fiddleneck, Spanish clover (Acmispon americanus), wild ra dish (Raphanus sativus), mayweed (Anthemis cotula ), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serri ola), and non-native grass es, including wheat (Triticum aestivum) and oat (Avena species).

Surface water was not observed within any of the onsite drainage features during the surveys.

Over the course of surveys since 2003, it has been noted that the density and health of riparian Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 30 L&L

shrubs and trees appears to be declining. Over time, some areas of the streambed and gaps in riparian vegetation have been incorporated into the surrounding agricultural fields.

3.2.4) Agriculture and Disturbed/Ruderal
In previous reports, agricultural fields and disturbed/ruderal areas onsite were referred to by the older designations of Holland Element Code s 18300 and 11300. Agricult ure is not include d under t he more rece nt Sawyer et a l. (2009) class ification. D isturbed/ruderal a reas that are strongly d ominated by annual non -natives may be classified a s semi-natural stands, s uch as Brassica (nigra) and Other Mustards Semi-natural Herbaceous S tands or Bromus ruben s— Schismus barbatus Semi-natural Herba ceous Stand s. These are not co nsidered s ensitive vegetation communities.

The majority of the site is under cultivation and consists of dry-farmed wheat crops. Invasive plants are found within farmed portions of the site, and include lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium murale), calabazilla (Cucurbita foetidissima), and knotweed (Polygonum aviculare).

Disturbed habitat incl udes unvegetated areas (such as roads ) and areas that contain mostly non-native plant species, incl uding ornamentals and ruderal invasives. Some non-native and weedy spe cies have in vaded thes e areas, inclu ding short -pod mustard, red brome , red stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and va rious non-native grasses. Other non-native plant species observed in these areas include horehound ( Marrubium vulgare), Rus sian thistle ( Salsola tragus), and tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus).

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 31 L&L

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Figure 7

Vegetation Community Map
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, February 2016)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California
California Buckwheat Scrub / Ruderal
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 32 L&L

3.3) Plant Species
A total of 127 plant species were o bserved onsite during biological surveys conducted by L&L from 2003 through 2021. Of the 127 plant species present, 46 (36 percent) are non-natives. A list of all plant species identified onsite during previous and current surveys is included in Appendix A.

No state or federally listed plants were observed during surveys and the Project site is not within USFWS designated critical habitat for any listed plant species. Two special status plant species were observed on th e site dur ing surveys, long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) and southern California black walnut ( Juglans californica). Details of special status plant observations are provided in Table 5 and locations are mapped on Figure 8.

Table 5. Special Status Plant Species Observations
Species Date GPS Coordinates
(Decimal Degrees)
Number
Detected
Elevation
(feet)
Long-spined spineflower
Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina 05.12.2017 33.655304, -117.187238 2 ~1600 Southern California black walnut
Juglans californica

09.22.2005

11.08.2021 33.653919, -117.192902 1 1517

09.22.2005

11.08.2021 33.653955, -117.192924 1 1518

11.08.2021 33.654018, -117.193226 1 1519

11.08.2021 33.653468, -117.192879 1 1517

11.08.2021 33.652603, -117.192823 1 1522
Long-spined spineflower is an annual herb in the Polygonaceae (Buckwheat) family. It is found in c haparral, c oastal s crub, meadows and seeps, v alley and foot hill grassla nds, and vernal pools at 100 to 5,020 feet elevation. It flowers from April through July. This species is found in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties and Baja California, Mexico (CNPS 2021).

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 33 L&L

This species is not state or federally list ed as threatened or e ndangered. It has a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B. 2 (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, moderately threatened in California). It is a cov ered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

Long-spined spineflower was observed on the site in 2 017. Two (2) plants were observed on clay soil s within California buckwheat scrub in the nort heast portion of the sit e along an east-west ridgeline. This area has been impacted by OHV use and the species has not been observed during subsequent surveys. Long-spined spineflower has also been documented by the CNDDB (Element Occurrence #57) on the east-central portion of the s ite. This record is from 2004 and estimates at least 100,000 plants on five acres of the site. It was not observed in this location during L&L surveys.

Southern California black walnut is a deciduous tree in the Juglandaceae (Walnut) family. It is found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland at 165 to 2,955 feet eleva tion. It is endemic to California and f ound in portions of southern, c entral, and northern California (CNPS 2021).

This species is not state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. It has a CRPR of 4.2 (limited distribution , moderate ly threate ned in California). It is a cover ed spe cies under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

Five (5) southern California black walnut trees were observed in the riparian area in the central portion of the site. Representative photos are provided in Appendix D.

Three (3) additional special status plant species have a low to moderate or moderate potential to occur on the P roject site but not been observed during surveys (see Appendix B) . These species are:
• smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis ; CRPR 1B.1 [rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, seriously threatened in California]), • Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi; CRPR 1B.1), and • small-flowered morning-glory (Convolvulus simulans; CRPR 4.2).

These three (3) species are all covered under the MSHCP and considered ade quately conserved.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 34 L&L

3.3.1) Trees
There is a single immature coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) present on the site within the riparian area . Other n ative trees on the site are blue eld erberry, south ern California black walnut, Fremo nt c ottonwood, arroyo willow , and black willow . Non-native and escaped ornamental trees on the s ite include Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle ), eucalyptus, tree tobacco ( Nicotiana glauca), and tamarisk. The City ma y regulate removal or replacem ent of trees and a tree survey may be required.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 35 L&L

Figure 8

Special Status Plant
Observations
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, August 2021)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 36 L&L

3.4) Wildlife Species
A total of 85 vertebrate wildlife species, plus domestic dog, have been detected during L&L’s biological survey s of the s ite from 20 03 through 202 1. An additional 15 common butterfly species were observed (during Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys in 2004) but this does not represent a comprehensive list of insects present. A list of all wildlife species identified onsite is provided in Appendix A. Details of listed and special status species observations are provided in Table 6 and observations are mapped on Figure 9. CNDDB forms for 2021 observations are included in Appendix E.

Table 6. Listed and Special Status Wildlife Species Observations Species Date GPS Coordinates
(Decimal Degrees)
Number
Detected
Elevation
(feet)
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii

04.26.2011 33.655640, -117.188980 1 1723
2004* -- -- --
Orange-throated whiptail
Aspidoscelis hyperythra 2004* -- -- --
Coastal (western) whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
2005* -- -- --
2004*
Raptor nest site 2013, 2017,
2018, 2019 33.652749, -117.192797 1 nest
(inactive) 1520
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii

06.07.2021 33.653876, -117.193126 1 1518

05.21.2021 33.653050, -117.192942 1 1522
2007* -- -- --
2005 33.652173, -117.191589 2 1524
2004* -- -- --
Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
2013* -- -- --
2011* -- -- --
2004* -- -- --
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus

04.26.2011 33.653036, -117.191520 1 Fly over
2005 33.652143, -117.193236 1 1523
2005 33.655034, -117.194991 1 1508

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 37 L&L

Species Date GPS Coordinates
(Decimal Degrees)
Number
Detected
Elevation
(feet)
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris actia

07.06.2021 33.649724, -117.189071 Several 1542

06.05.2021

05.21.2021 33.650884, -117.185290 Several 1558

05.25.2021 33.651187, -117.197238 Several 1537

05.28.2019 33.653331, -117.191005 Several 1524

04.16.2019 33.650844, -117.185067 Several 1557

06.14.2018 33.653079, -117.191911 Several 1520

05.24.2018 33.650510, -117.185130 Several 1548

04.25.2017 33.653816, -117.188586 Several 1556

04.08.2017 33.653324, -117.194038 Several 1519

04.01.2017 33.652212, -117.186278 Several 1560

09.17.2013 33.651900, -117.186140 20+ 1561
2004* -- -- --

07.2003* -- -- --
Great egret
Ardea alba 2004* -- -- --
Great blue heron
Ardea herodias

04.01.2017 33.655683, -117.194971 1 Fly over
2005* -- -- --
Lawrence’s goldfinch
Spinus lawrencei 2004* -- - --
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus 2005 33.654408, -117.193684 1 1517
California thrasher
Toxostoma redivivum
2005* -- -- --
2004* -- -- --
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
2004* -- -- --
Bell's sage sparrow
Artemisiospiza belli belli 2004* -- -- --
Nuttall's woodpecker
Dryobates nuttallii 07.06.2021 33.653838, -117.193080 1 male 1517 Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 38 L&L

Species Date GPS Coordinates
(Decimal Degrees)
Number
Detected
Elevation
(feet)
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica

06.07.2021

05.31.2021 33.654966, -117.184909 2 males
1 female 1643

04.16.2019 33.655093, -117.189888 1 1629

03.11.20191 33.655673, -117.184620 1 1557

05.24.2018 33.655112, -117.185740 2 (a pair) 1576

04.01.2017 33.655336, -117.190141 1 male 1621

03.28.2017 33.654170, -117.185007 1 male 1656

03.28.20172 33.655604, -117.184969 2 (a pair) 1576

04.29.2011 33.65529, -117.19003 2 (a pair) 1637

04.26.2011 33.65548, -117.19102 1 male 1557

04.19.2004 33.656002, -117.192037
(just offsite)
Active
nest 1547

04.04.2004 33.655400, -117.190183 Active
nest 1624

04.04.2004 33.651783, -117.184550 Active
nest 1627
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia 05.30.2018 33.650610, -117.188668 1 adult 1 burrow 1536
Wrentit
Chamaea fasciata

07.11.2021 33.651355, -117.184692 1 1610

05.31.2021 33.655169, -117.188866 1 1672

07.2003* -- -- --
Costa’s hummingbird
Calypte costae
2011* -- -- --
2004* -- -- --
Rufous hummingbird
Selasphorus rufus 2004* -- -- --
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californium bennettii

05.25.2021 33.653599, -117.188042 1 1563

06.14.2018 33.654478, -117.193719 1 1512

03.28.20173 33.654645, -117.185019 2 1650

04.01.2017 33.654137, -117.187498 2 1583
2013 33.655294, -117.190818 1 1563
2013 33.651907, -117.188694 1 1545
2013 33.649095, -117.188265 1 1570
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 39 L&L

Species Date GPS Coordinates
(Decimal Degrees)
Number
Detected
Elevation
(feet)
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californium bennettii
(continued)
2013 33.649251, -117.179982 (offsite) 1 1513

04.26.2011 33.649020, -117.188010 1 1579

04.26.2011 33.651790, -117.188670 1 1546

04.26.2011 33.655230, -117.190810 1 1557

04.26.2011 33.655703, -117.186478 1 1661

04.26.2011 33.654188, -117.184800 1 1667

04.26.2011 33.652306, -117.184658 1 1632

04.26.2011 33.654389, -117.186578 1 1607

04.26.2011 33.654851, -117.190446 1 1592

04.26.2011 33.655064, -117.189181 1 1657

04.26.2011 33.655727, -117.185042 1 1570
2004* -- -- --
*Details of observations are not av ailable. 1. Coastal California g natcatcher detected during unrelated survey of adjacent property. 2. Coastal California gnatcatcher was also detected in the same approximate areas on 04.08.2017, 04.25. 2017, and 05.06.2017. These ar e likely the same indi viduals previously detected in th e area. 3. Black-tailed jackrabbit was also detected in the same approximate areas on 04.08.2017 and 05.06.2017; number of individuals was not determined.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 40 L&L

Figure 9

Special Status Wildlife
Observations (2003-2021)
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, August 2021)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 41 L&L

3.4.1) Listed and Fully Protected Wildlife
Biological surveys conducted on the Project site by L&L from 2003 to 2021 detected two listed or fully protected wildlife species on the site, coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), discussed below.

Two other listed species have not been observed on the Project site during surveys but have a moderate or high potential to occur , Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensii ) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) (see Appendix B).

Stephens’ kangaroo rat is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. Based on potentially suitable habitat and multiple documented occurrences in the Project vicinity (CDFDW 2021c), this species has a high potential to occur on the site. Stephens’ kangaroo rat is a covered spec ies under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved . Focused trapping surveys for this species are not required by the MSHCP.

Tricolored blackbird is state listed as threatened. Based on potentially suitable foraging habitat and several eBird records (eBird 2021) in the Project vicinity, this species has a low to moderate potential to forage on the site, but there is no suitable nesting habitat. Tricolored blackbird is a covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Coastal California gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened and a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Coastal Californ ia gna tcatcher is a co vered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved. Focused surveys for this spe cies are not required by the MSHCP; however the MSHCP limits disturbance to outside the nesting season.

Surveys from 2004 to 2021 have documented coastal California gnatcatchers on the Project site (Table 6). Nesting was observed in 2004 and breeding pairs were prese nt in 2011, 2017, and 2018. Coastal California gnatc atchers were observed in 2021 and, a lthough nesting was not observed, it is likely. All o bservations were in the California buckwheat scrub habitat in the northeastern portion of the site (Figure 9).

White-tailed Kite
White-tailed kite ( Elanus leucurus) is a CDFW Fully Prote cted speci es. The classification of Fully Protected was California’s initial effort to identify and protect rare wildlife species. With a few exceptions, Fully Pr otected species have subseq uently been lis ted under th e California Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 42 L&L

and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. One of the exceptions is white -tailed kite, which is not state or federally listed, but retains its Fully Protected status. White-tailed kite is a covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

White-tailed kite forages in open g rasslands, farmlands, meadows, a nd wetlands. Nests are located near foraging areas in substantial groves of dense, broad -leafed trees. Nests are built near the top of oaks, willows, or other trees, usually between 20 to 1 00 feet above the ground.

The nest is composed o f loosely piled sticks, lined with grass, straw, or rootlets. White-tailed kite breeds from February to October, with a peak from May to August (Zeiner et al. 1990).

The CNDDB (CDFW 2021c) has documented oc currences of five (5 ) white -tailed kite nest s within 10 miles of the Project site (Figure 10):

Occurrence 38 is app roximately 9.3 m iles south -southwest of the Project site. T he occurrence is located at the S anta Rosa Pla teau Preserve within oak savannah a nd native grassland at an elevation of 1,950 feet. Successful nesting was last documented in 1988 and 1989. Google Earth im ages show undisturbed habitat present in that area and the occurrence is presumed extant.

Occurrence 39 is approximately 9.2 miles southwest of the Project site. The occurrence is described as loca ted on p rivate land between two par cels of Santa Rosa Plat eau Preserve property. The habitat is oa k savannah and native grassland at an elevation of 1,820 feet. The nest was last observed in 1989 ( active nest, outcome un known) and noted as threatened by proposed development. Examination of Google Earth images shows undisturbed habitat present in that area. The occurrence is presumed extant.

Occurrence 62 is approximately 7.5 miles southeast of the Project site in Murrieta. The occurrence is located in southern riparian scrub habitat at an elevation of 1,240 f eet.

The record notes that the area was proposed for development, and Google Earth images now s how the occurrence within a narrow area of ha bitat surr ounded by residential developments. A pair of white-tailed kites was last observed in 1999. Th e occurrence is presumed extant but may have been extirpated by development.

Occurrence 112 is approximately 9.4 miles west -northwest of the Project site and ju st north of L ake Elsinore. The occurrence is lo cated in willow ripari an woodland a t an elevation of 1,258 feet. Successful nesting was documente d in 2006. Google Earth images show undisturbed habitat at that location and the occurrence is presumed extant.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 43 L&L

Occurrence 115 is approximately 7.1 miles northeast of the Project site. The occurrence is located in a small grove of trees associated with a rural residence in Winchester, north of Diam ond Valley Lak e. Agricultural fields a re als o pre sent in the area. Successfu l nesting was do cumented in 2005 and 2006. Google Earth im ages show tre es and agricultural fields re main in the area, as described i n the CNDDB record. The occurrence is presumed extant.

Two white-tailed kite s were observed on the Project si te in 2005 an d on e in 2011 (Table 6 , Figure 9). No kites have been observ ed during more recent surveys. Although thi s species may forage on the Project site and potentially suitable nesting habitat is present, no nesting has been observed there. A raptor nest was present in a eucalyptus tree in the riparian area on the site but has been observed during surveys to be either inactive or potentially associated with red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nesting. The 2021 survey found that this nest is no longer present.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 44 L&L

Numbers refer to the CNDDB Element Occurrence.

Figure 10

White-tailed Kite Nests within
10 Miles of the Project Site
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, August 2021)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
Project Site
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 45 L&L

Fairy Shrimp
The two l isted fairy shrimp s pecies kno wn from th e area are vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a fe derally li sted threatened specie s, and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), a federally listed endangered species. Both species are covered by the MSHCP and surveys are required where suitable habitat is present.

Vernal pool f airy shrimp is r estricted to seasonal pools and prefers cool-water pools that are often short lived. Riverside fairy shrimp is restricted to deep seaso nal vernal pools, ephemeral ponds, stock pon ds, and ot her human-modified depressions . Riverside fairy shrimp prefer s warm-water pools that remain filled for extended periods of time (Dudek 2003).

Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal habi tat were not observed on the site and no wetland or vernal pool plant species were present. No evidence of ponding areas (i.e., cracked soils, tire ruts, etc.) were observed on the site during surveys. No fairy shrimp or potential fairy shrimp habitat was observed during current or previous surveys.

Riparian Birds
Least Bel l’s v ireo ( Vireo b ellii pusillus) is state and federally lis ted as e ndangered. It is a covered sp ecies under the MSHCP and consid ered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 and mitigation is required if the species is present. This species is migratory and breeds in California, arriving in March and departing by September or October. Males establi sh and defend territori es in ri parian woodlands and riparian scrub. Territory size ra nges from 0.5 t o 7.5 acres (USFWS 1998).

Dense shrub cover is required for nesting.

There are two (2) CNDDB documented occurrences of nesting least Bell’s vireo within five (5) miles of the site. The closest is Element Occurrence (EO) #412, located along the San Jacinto River just south of Canyon Lake, 4.2 miles to the west-northwest of the site. This occurrence is from 2002 and documents one (1) least Bell’s vireo territory.

EO # 407 is 4.5 miles west-northwest of t he site along the San Jacinto River east of La ke Elsinore. This occurrence had one least Bell’s vireo territory in 2003, two territories in 2004 and 2005, one singing male in 2006, six territories and two pairs with fledglings in 2009, and nine territories in 2010.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 46 L&L

Southwestern willow fl ycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is state and f ederally l isted as endangered. It is a covered spe cies under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 and mitigation is r equired if the species is present. This species in habits dense riparian forests with ample numbers of willows and other associated trees and shrubs.

Western yello w-billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus o ccidentalis) is feder ally listed as threatened a nd state li sted as e ndangered. I t is a covered species under the MSH CP and considered adequately conserved, but surveys are required in suitable habitat as described in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 and mitigation is required if the species is present. This species inhabits extensive riparian thickets or forests with dense, low-level or understory foliage and abutting on slow-moving watercourses, backwaters, or seeps.

There are no CNDDB documented occurrences of nesting southwestern w illow f lycatcher or western yellow-billed cuckoo within five (5) miles of the site.

The habitat a ssessment f ound tha t riparian vegetation on the site is distributed intermittently along a linear ar ea that is approximately 1,500-feet long (Figure 7). The ripari an area is no more than two or three shrubs across at its widest points and surrounded by agricultural fields.

The understory is poorly developed and has several introduced species. Representative photos are included in Appendix D.

No least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow-billed cuckoo have been incidentally detected during surveys. Riparian vegetation onsite is scattered and degraded, the understory is poorly developed, and the streambed does not have persistent water flow. Typical habitat to support least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo is not present and these species are considered absent from the site.

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quin o) is federally listed as endangered. No adults, larvae, or pupae were observed onsite during focused surveys in 2004 , al though potentially suitable habitat and larval host and nectaring plant species are present. This species has not been incidentally observed during any subsequent surveys. Quino checkerspot butterfly is a covered species un der the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved . Focused surveys are not required by the MSHCP.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 47 L&L

3.4.2) Special Status Wildlife
In add ition to coastal California gnatcatcher and white-tailed kite, discussed above, biological surveys cond ucted on the Project site by L&L from 200 3 to 2021 detected 19 special stat us wildlife species on the site:
• orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra; CDFW Watch List), • coastal (western) whiptail ( Aspidoscelis tigris stej negeri; CDFW Species of Special Concern),
• coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; CDFW Species of Special Concern), • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; CDFW Watch List),
• southern California rufous-crowned sparrow ( Aimophila ruficeps canescens; CDFW Watch List species),
• great egret (Ardea alba; CDFW Special Animal),
• great blue heron (fly over) (Ardea herodias; CDFW Special Animal), • Bell’s sage sparrow ( Artemisiospiza belli belli; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern , CDFW Watch List species),
• burrowing owl ( Athene cunicula ria, USFWS Bi rd of Conservation Concern , CDFW Species of Special Concern),
• Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern , CDFW Special Animal),
• wrentit (Chamaea fasciata; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern), • northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; CDFW Species of Special Concern), • Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern), • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; CDFW Watch List), • loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; USFWS Bird of Conservation Con cern, CDFW Species of Special Concern),
• rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, CDFW Special Animal),
• Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; USFWS Bird of Conservat ion Concern, CDFW Special Animal),
• California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern), and • San Diego black-tailed j ackrabbit ( Lepus ca lifornicus bennettii; CDFW Species of Special Concern).

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 48 L&L

All of these species are covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved, with the exception of great egret, Costa’s humm ingbird, wrentit, Nuttall’s woodpecker, rufous hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, and California thrasher, which are not covered under the MSHCP. Burrowing owl is discussed below. Special status species o bservations are listed in Table 6 and mapped on Figure 9.

Five (5) additional special status wildlife species have a low to moderate potential to occur on the Proj ect si te but have not been observed during L&L surveys (see Appendix B) . These species are:
• Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CDFW Special Animal2), • southern California legless lizard (Anniella s tebbinsi; CDFW Species of Special Concern),
• Dulzura pocke t mouse (Chaetodipus calif ornicus femoralis; CDFW Species of Special Concern),
• northwestern San Di ego pocket mouse ( Chaetodipus fal lax fallax ; CDFW Spe cies of Special Concern), and
• western mastiff b at (foraging) ( Eumops perotis californicus ; CDFW Species o f Special Concern).

Northwestern San Die go pocket mouse is covered under the MSHCP and consi dered adequately conserved. The remaining four species are not covered under the MSHCP.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game C ode and is a CDFW Species of Spec ial Concern. It is a small, ground-dwelling owl found in open dry grassland, desert, or shrubland areas and in uncultivated agricultural areas, rangelands, and other open areas with low-growing vegetation.

Burrows are an e ssential element of burrowing owl habitat. Although the burrowing owl is capable of excavating its own burrows in soft soils, i t typically modifies and inhabits abandoned

2 Crotch bumble bee was previously a candidate for state listing, but the Sacramento Superior Court ruled that insects are not eligible for listing u nder the California Endangered Speci es Act: Almond Alliance o f California v . Califor nia De partment of Fish and Wildlife, Sacrame nto Superi or Cou rt No. 34-2019- 80003216 (Nov. 13, 20 20). The California Fish and Game Commis sion filed an intent to appea l th is decision in Febr uary 2021. The sta tus of this species may be aff ected by subsequent litigation or changes to regulations.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 49 L&L

burrows of small mammals, such as ground squirrels and pocket gophers. The burrowing owl has also been known t o use man-made structures such as cement culverts, debris piles, and other artificial burrows.

Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by observation of at least one (1) owl o r sign of owl (molted f eathers, cas t pellets, prey remains, eggshell f ragments, or excrement) at or near a burrow entrance. A site is considered occup ied if at least one (1) owl has been identified onsite in the past t hree (3) years, because (if undisturb ed) burrowing owls exhibit high site fidelity (CDFG 2012, CBOC 1993).

The site has suitable burrowing owl habitat. Focused surveys for burrowing owl in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011, and 2013 did not detect burrowing owls utilizing the site. No burrowing owl or sign was observed during 2017 general biological surveys.

Focused surveys in 2018 observed a single adult burrowing owl onsite and one (1) burrow with signs of occupation (Table 6, Figure 9). The owl was observed on May 30, 2018. The occupied burrow was found very close to where the owl was observed. Pellets, scat, feathers, owl tracks, and pieces of sh redded cloth were ob served at the burrow entrance. The burrow wa s monitored during subsequent site visits, but there were no add itional observations of burrowing owl adult s or j uveniles. It was not determine d if the owl was usi ng the burrow for nesti ng.

Coyote a nd/or dog t racks were observed around the burr ow, but th e burrow itself was not disturbed and there were no signs that o wls had been predated. No other active burrows or burrowing owls were observed during surveys in 2018.

Focused surveys in 2019 did not detect any burrowing owl, occupied burrows, or owl sign. The agricultural fields on the site, including the site of the 2018 burrow observation, had tall, dense non-native vegetation at that time, which created unsuitable conditions for burrowing owl. Thick vegetation was also present at the burrow site in 2021, unt il the agricultural fields were mowed (sometime between August and November surveys).

No burrowing owls, owl sig n (pellets, scat, feather s, tracks, et c.), or occupied burrows were observed onsite during the 2021 protocol breeding season survey. No owls or owl sign we re observed at the 2018 burrow site in No vember 2021 after the agricultural fields were mowed.

Potentially suitable bu rrowing owl habitat is present o n th e site, including small mammal burrows. Potentially suitable habitat is also present within the 150-meter buffer area (Figure 5), but no owls, owl sign, or occupied burrows were observed in the buffer.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 50 L&L

There are 47 CNDDB docum ented occurrences of bur rowing owl wi thin five (5) miles of the Project site (CDFW 2021c). These occurrences date between 1998 and 2016.

Because suitable habitat is present, the MSHCP requires a preconstruction clearance survey for burrowing owl within 30 days prior to the start of site disturbance. If burrowing owls are found on the site at that time, additional mitigation is required under the MSHCP (see Section 6.10).

Nesting Birds
There i s habi tat suitable for n esting birds (inc luding rap tors) withi n and adjacent to the site .

Nesting birds may utilize trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, and open ground on and adjacent to the site for nesting. Some relatively large eucalyptus trees are present on the western portion of the site and along the western boundary alon g Eva ns Ro ad. Red-tailed hawks ( Buteo jamaicensis) have been observed onsite and may be utilizing the trees for nesting.

A potential (inactive) raptor nest site was found in a large eucalyptus tree on the site in 2013. It was located in a eucalyptus tree in th e west-central portion of the site (Table 6, Figure 9). No raptors were observed utilizing the nest site during surveys in 2013, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The 2021 survey found that the nest was no longer present and likely fell from the tree.

3.4.3) Wildlife Corridor
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable w ildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization c reates is olated “islands” of wildlife hab itat. In the ab sence of habitat linkages that all ow movement to adjoining open space ar eas, various studies have concluded that s ome wildlife species, especially larger and more mobile mammals, will n ot likely persist over time in fragme nted or isolated h abitat ar eas because movement barriers prohibit th e infusion of new individuals and genetic variation.

Wildlife movement activities usually fa ll into on e of three movement categories: dispersal (e.g., juvenile ani mals dispersing from na tal areas or indiv iduals ex tending their range), seasonal migration, and movements r elated to h ome range a ctivities (e .g., foraging for food or wate r, defending territories, or searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).

Drainages often serve as wildlife corridors and travel routes; however, the riparian vegetation on the site is not continuous. The site is largely surrounded by scattered existing development and Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 51 L&L

there is no connectivity between the site and conserved lands to t he east (Diamond V alley Lake) and southwest (Santa Rosa Plateau, Cleveland National Forest).

The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (CDFW 2021d) maps the Project site and surrounding areas as “limited co nnectivity opportun ity.” Although the re may be limited local movement of wildlife on and across the site, it is not within or adjacent to a wild life corridor or potential corridor.

3.5) Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Under MSHCP Volume 1, Section 6.1.2, areas associated with wetland and streambed systems must be evaluated for consideration as riparian/riverine or vernal pool habitat. Riparian/riverine areas are defined within the MSHCP as:
“. . . lands whi ch cont ain Habitat d ominated by t rees, shr ubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichen s, whic h occ ur close t o or wh ich depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.”
Vernal pools are defined within the MSHCP as:
“. . . season al wetlands that occur in d epression area s that have wetl ands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetati on an d hydrology) during th e wetter portion of the growing season but n ormally la ck wetlands indic ators of hydrology and/o r veg etation during t he drier portion of the gro wing se ason.

Obligate hydrophytes and f acultative we tlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. . .” An ephemeral drainage is present on the s ite and ma pped as a USGS blue-line stream (Figure 11). This drainage includes riparian vegetation such as a rroyo willow, Fremont cottonwood, and mulefat (see Section 3.2.3). A jurisdictional delineation was completed in 2011 and updated in 2018 and 2019.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021

RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 52 L&L

The delin eation found 0.153 acre of unvegetated state streambed (which is also MSHCP riverine habitat) and 1.208 acre of state wetland (which is also MSHCP riparian habitat). The survey also identified 0.065 acre of federal Waters of the U.S. (WoUS), none of which is federal wetland (Table 7).

All jurisdictional areas onsite will either be impacted by Project development or incorporated into the Avoidance Area (Figure 12). The Avoidance Area will retain native riparian habitat.

Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal hab itat were not observed on the site and no wetland or vernal pool plant species were present. No evidence of ponding areas (i.e., cracked soils, tire ruts, etc.) were observed on the site during surveys.

Table 7. Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present
Feature
Total Present (acres)
State Streambed /
MSHCP Riverine
State Wetland /
MSHCP Riparian Federal Waters Federal Wetland
1 0.037 0.373 0.005 0
1b 0.025 0.148 0.025 0
2 0.065 0.642 0.025 0
3 0 0 0 0
4 (offsite) 0.023 0.046 0.009 0
5 (offsite) 0.004 0 0.001 0
TOTALS* 0.153 1.208 0.065 0
*Any discrepancy in totals due to rounding error.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 53 L&L

Figure 11

Jurisdictional Areas
(Photo obtained from Google Earth, 3-9-2011)

Golden Meadows, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
1 1b
4 2
3 5
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 54 L&L

Figure 12

Jurisdictional Areas with
Development Plan
(Plan obtained from Hunsaker & Assoc. Irvine, Inc., 2021)

Menifee Assemblage, TT 31194
City of Menifee, California

L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING

RLCC-03-187
December 2021
1 1b
4 2
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 55 L&L

4.0) URBAN WILDLANDS INTERFACE ANALYSIS
The Project proposes an Avoidance Area along the riparian area on the site as well as an Open Space Area in the northeast corner of the site. An Ur ban Wildlands Interface Analysi s is included here in case the MS HCP requires imple mentation of the Urban Wildlands Interfac e Guidelines (Section 6 .1.4 of the MSHCP). If these areas are not conserved and/or the Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines are not applicable, this section will be withdrawn.

The main porti on of the Avoidance Area will be a channel about five (5) feet deep with 4:1 slopes. At the south end is a smaller portion that will be contoured as a basin about five (5) feet deep with 4:1 slopes. Offsite flows from the south will be picked up by v-ditches along the tract boundary and the d itches will convey the f lows to this basin. Water will flow from the basin underneath an internal street and into the main portion of th e Avoidance Area through a box culvert. The Avoidance Area will retain native riparian habitat.

The Avoided Area and Open Space Area will be owned and ma intained by the Homeowners Association (HOA) according to HOA guidelines.

4.1) Drainage
Runoff from the development will be treated in water quality basins to remove common pollutants and reduce peak flows before being discharged into the Avoidance Area.

During construction, all contractors and subcontractors will use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage, capture, control, eliminate, and preve nt sediment, debris, and pollutants from being discharged in to streambeds and drainages. A Storm Wat er Polluti on Pr evention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared for the Project. Construction BMPs address sediment and erosion control, non-sediment pollutants, and non-storm water BMPs.

If grading occurs when the ephemera l streambed is wetted, a bypass will be r equired.

A Bypass Plan will be d eveloped by the SWPPP consultant prior to ini tiation of grading unless all grading can occur when the ephemeral streambed is dry.

Post-construction BMPs in clude minimizing urban ru noff, minimiz ing the impervious footprint, conserving natural ar eas, and m inimizing Direc tly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs).

Project plans incorporate BMPs to address water quality in low flows and first flush storm runoff, as well as to control post-construction peak flow volumes . These BM Ps include three (3) Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 56 L&L

detention basins, two (2) infiltration basins, three (3) sand filter basins, two (2) modular wetland systems, and a CDS (Continuous Deflective Separation) stormwater treatment unit.

4.2) Toxics
Land uses proposed in proximity to the Avoidance Area that use chemicals that are potentially toxic, or that may adversely affec t wi ldlife species, habitat, or w ater quality shall i ncorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the Avoidance Area. The greatest risk is from landscaping fertilizer and herbicide/pesticide runoff.

4.3) Fencing
The siting and design of fencing should not impede wildlife movement. Given the location of the Avoidance Area within the residential development, wildlife using the site are likely to be common species that are comfortable with proximity to human disturbance.

The Project boundar y and back and side yards will be fenc ed according to a fencing pl an approved by the lead agency. No direct access between residences and the Open Space Area or the Avoidance Area will occur or be allowed.

Mitigation Measure 4.3 -7 in the 2006 E IR requires i ndividual lot fencing to be used to restrict access to the on-site wetland areas. Back yard gates from individual residential lots that open onto the wetland area shall be prohibited.

4.4) Barriers
Proposed land uses adjace nt to the Avoidance Area and Open Space Area shall incorporate barriers in Project designs, where appropriate, to minim ize un authorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or trash dumping. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.

The Project will install two (2) o r more information boards (to be located at each end of the Avoidance Area and at other access points, as needed ) providing a description of suitable uses and asking residents to remain on existing trails and to keep pets on a leash.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 57 L&L

4.5) Lighting
Night lighting shall be directed away from the Avoidance Area and Open Space Area to protect species from direct night lighti ng. Shielding shall be in corporated in Project designs to ensur e ambient lighting in the Avoidance Area and Open Space Area is not substantially increased.

Mitigation Measure 4.3 -8 in the 2006 EIR requires that n ight lighting during and after project construction shall be directed away f rom onsite wetland areas and, except for safety and other requirements, lighting shall be limited from the boundaries of onsite wetland areas. In the event that lighting in an area adjacent to the wetland area is necessary, a shield shall be incorporated in Project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the wetland area is not increased.

4.6) Noise
Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting the Avoidance Area and Open Space Area shall incorporate setbac ks, berms, or wal ls t o m inimize the ef fects of noi se on wildlife resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards.

4.7) Invasives
Invasive spec ies (refe r to MSHCP Ta ble 6 -2, be low) shall not be used in d evelopment or restoration plan activities. Mitigation Measure 4.3-9 in the 2006 EIR requires that the landscape plans for the Project in areas adja cent or tribut ary to wetland areas shall not include thos e species lis ted in the MSHCP a s “Plants That Shoul d Be Avo ided Adjacent to The MSHCP Conservation Area” (MSHCP Table 6-2).

4.8) Grading/Land Development
Manufactured slopes will be required to extend into the Avoidance Area to support the Project design. Grading should not extend into the Open Space Area.

4.9) Weed Abatement/Fuel Modification
Weed abatemen t a nd fuel modification zones may encroach into portions of the Avoidance Area. Weed abatement and fuel modification zones should not encroach into the Open Space Area.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 58 L&L

MSHCP Table 6-2. Plants That Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area (Taken Directly from MSHCP Section 6.1.4)

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Acacia spp. (all species) acacia
Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow
Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven
Aptenia cordifolia red apple
Arctotheca calendula cape weed
Arctotis spp. (all species & hybrids) African daisy
Arundo donax giant reed or arundo grass
Asphodelus fistulosus asphodel
Atriplex glauca white saltbush
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Carex spp. (all species*) sedge
Carpobrotus chilensis ice plant
Carpobrotus edulis sea fig
Centranthus ruber red valerian
Chrysanthemum coronarium annual chrysanthemum
Cistus ladanifer (incl. hybrids/varieties) gum rockrose Cortaderia jubata [syn.C. Atacamensis] jubata grass, pampas grass Cortaderia dioica [syn. C. sellowana] pampas grass
Cotoneaster spp. (all species) cotoneaster
Cynodon dactylon (incl. hybrids varieties) Bermuda grass Cyperus spp. (all species*) nutsedge, umbrella plant
Cytisus spp. (all species) broom
Delosperma ‘Alba’ white trailing ice plant
Dimorphotheca spp. (all species) African daisy, Cape marigold Drosanthemum floribundum rosea ice plant
Drosanthemum hispidum purple ice plant
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth
Elaegnus angustifolia Russian olive
Eucalyptus spp. (all species) eucalyptus or gum tree
Eupatorium coelestinum [syn. Ageratina sp.] mist flower Festuca arundinacea tall fescue
Festuca rubra creeping red fescue
Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel
Fraxinus uhdei (and cultivars) evergreen ash, shamel ash Gaura (spp.) (all species) gaura
Gazania spp. (all species & hybrids) gazania
Genista spp. (all species) broom
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Hypericum spp. (all species) St. John’s Wort
Ipomoea acuminata Mexican morning glory
Lampranthus spectabilis trailing ice plant
Lantana camara common garden lantana
Lantana montevidensis [syn. L. sellowiana] lantana
Limonium perezii sea lavender
Linaria bipartita toadflax
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass
Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass
Lonicera japonica (incl. ‘Halliana’) Japanese honeysuckle Lotus corniculatus birdsfoot trefoil
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 59 L&L

MSHCP Table 6-2. Plants That Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area (Continued)

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Lupinus arboreus yellow bush lupine
Lupinus texanus Texas blue bonnets
Malephora crocea ice plant
Malephora luteola ice plant
Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum little ice plant
Myoporum laetum myoporum
Myoporum pacificum shiny myoproum
Myoporum parvifolium (incl. ‘Prostratum’) ground cover myoporum Oenothera berlandieri Mexican evening primrose
Olea europea European olive tree
Opuntia ficus-indica Indian fig
Osteospermum spp. (all species) trailing African daisy, African daisy, Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde
Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass
Pennisetum setaceum fountain grass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phoenix dactylifera date palm
Plumbago auriculata cape plumbago
Polygonum spp. (all species) knotweed
Populus nigra ‘italica’ Lombardy poplar
Prosopis spp. (all species*) mesquite
Ricinus communis castorbean
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust
Rubus procerus Himalayan blackberry
Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree
Saponaria officinalis bouncing bet, soapwart
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree, California pepper
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Spartium junceum Spanish broom
Tamarix spp. (all species) tamarisk, salt cedar
Trifolium tragiferum strawberry clover
Tropaelolum majus garden nasturtium
Ulex europaeus prickly broom
Vinca major periwinkle
Yucca gloriosa Spanish dagger

An asterisk (*) indicates some native species of the genera exist that may be appropriate.

Sources: California Exotic Pest Plant Council, United States Department of Agriculture-Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Plant Society, Fremontia Vol. 26 N o. 4, October 1998, The Je pson Manual: Higher Plants of Californ ia, and County o f San Di ego Department of Agriculture.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 60 L&L

5.0) SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to identify bio logical resources present or potentially present on the site. The MSHCP requires a habitat assessment to address riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitats and associated species and burrowing owl. F ocused surveys are required if suitable habitat is present.

L&L also analyzed the potential for impacts to state an d fed eral jurisdictional w aters, special status species, and sensitive vegetation communities. The recommendations are based on the literature revi ew, L&L’s knowledge of spe cies and habi tats in the region, the biological field survey, and analysis of aerial images.

MSHCP
The site is located within the area covered by the MSHCP but is not within the Criteria Area.

There is one area of PQP Conserved Lands approximately 0.68 miles north-northeast of the site (Ringing Rock Archaeological Site) . There ar e no other PQP or MSHCP Con served Lands within a mile of the site. The site is not within or near any MSHCP Core Areas or Linkages.

Sensitive Vegetation Communities
The site is co mposed of agricultural lands and disturbed/ruderal areas, California buckwheat scrub, chamise chaparral, arroyo willow thickets, and mulefat thickets. Arroyo willow thickets and mulefat thickets are riparian vegetation communities and arroyo willow thicket is considered sensitive. The majority of arroyo willow thicket will be retained in the Avoidance Area.

Listed and Special Status Plant Species
No state or federally listed plants were observed during surveys and the Project site is not within USFWS designated critical habitat for any listed plant species. Two special status plant species were observed on the site during surveys, long-spined spineflower and southern California black walnut. Both are covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

Trees
There is a single immature coast live oak tree present on the site within the riparian area. Other native and non-native trees are also present. The City may regulate removal or replacement of trees and a tree survey may be required.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 61 L&L

Listed and Fully Protected Wildlife Species
Surveys detected two listed or fully prot ected wildlife species on the site, coastal Califor nia gnatcatcher and white-tailed kite.

Multiple surveys from 2004 through 2021 have documented coastal California gnatcatchers on the Project site, including observations of breeding pairs and nesting. All observations were in the California buckwheat scrub habitat in the northeastern p ortion of the site . Under Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 of the 2006 EIR, the northeastern porti on of the property shall be preserved as open space and covered by a conservation easement or similar mechanism. Coastal California gnatcatcher is a co vered species under the MSHCP and consid ered adequately conserv ed.

Focused surveys for this spe cies are not required under the MSHCP . Scheduling Project activities outside the nesting season and/or conducting preconstruction nesting bird c learance surveys and establishing avoid ance buffers around any active nests is recommended, as described below. Monitoring of active nest sites during Project activities is recommended.

Two white-tailed kites were observed on the Project s ite in 2005 and one in 2011. No kites have been observ ed during more re cent surveys. Although th is species may forage on the Project site and potentially suitable nesting habitat is present, no n esting has be en observed there. White-tailed kit e is a covered species under the MSHCP and consid ered adequately conserved.

Under Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 of the 2006 EIR, if construction activities occ ur between February 1 and August 31 a nd within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, a focused rap tor survey will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. If active nests are located within the portion of the site to be disturbed or within 150 feet of the area to be disturbed, mea sures shall be initiated to avoid any impacts to nesting raptors, including avoidance bu ffers around active nests. Under this mitigation measure, if white-tailed kite nesting is found on the Project s ite, an incidental take permit from CDFW is required.

Two other listed species have not been observed on the Project site during surveys but have a moderate or high potential to occur , Stephens’ kangaroo rat and tricolored blackbird (foraging).

Stephens’ kangaroo rat is a covered spec ies un der the MSHCP and consider ed adequately conserved. Focused trapping surveys for this s pecies are not required by the MSHCP .

Tricolored blackbird is also a covered species under th e MSHCP and considered adequately conserved.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 62 L&L

Fairy Shrimp
Pools or depressions characteristic of ve rnal h abitat were n ot observed on the site and no wetland or vernal pool plant species were present. No evidence of ponding areas (i.e., cracked soils, tire ruts, etc.) were observed on the site during surveys. No fairy shrimp or potential fairy shrimp habitat was observed during current or previous surveys.

Riparian Birds
No least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow-billed cuckoo have been incidentally detected during surveys. Riparian vegetation onsite is scattered and deg raded, the understory is poorly developed, and the streambed does not have persistent water flow. Typical habitat to support least Bell’s vireo , southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo is not present and these species are considered absent from the site.

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
No Quino checkerspot butterfly adults, larvae, or pupae were observed onsite during focused surveys in 2004, although potentially suitable habitat a nd larval host and nectaring plants are present. This speci es has not been inc identally observed during any subsequent surveys.

Quino checkerspot butterfly is a covered species under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved. Focused surveys are not required by the MSHCP.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Biological surveys from 2003 to 2021 detected 19 special st atus wildlife species on the site:
orange-throated whiptail , coastal (western) whiptail , coast horned lizard, Cooper’s haw k, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, great egret, great blue heron (fly over), Bell’s sage sparrow, burrowing owl, Costa’s h ummingbird, wrentit, northern harrier, Nuttall’s woodpecker, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, rufous hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California thrasher, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit.

All of these species are covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved, with the exception of great egret, Costa’s hummingbird, wrentit, Nuttall’s woodpecker, rufous hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, and California thrasher, which are not covered under the MSHCP. Burrowing owl is discus sed below. Scheduling Project activities outsid e the nesting season or conducting preconstruction ne sting b ird c learance surveys and establishing avoidance buffers around any active nests is recommended, as described below.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 63 L&L

Five (5) additional special s tatus wildlife species have not been observed on the Project si te during L&L surveys but have a low to moderate potential to occur . These sp ecies are Crotch bumble bee, southern California legless lizard, Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, and western mastiff bat (foraging) . Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is covered under the MSHCP and considered adequately conserved. The remaining four species are not covered under the MSHCP.

Crotch bumb le bee was previou sly a candidate for state li sting, but in November 2020 the Sacramento Sup erior Court ruled that i nsects are not eligible f or listing u nder th e California Endangered Species Act. The California Fish and Game Commission filed an intent to appeal this decis ion in Febr uary 20 21. The s tatus of this species may be aff ected by subsequent litigation or c hanges t o regulations. If Crot ch bumble bee becomes a listed or candidate species, focused surveys and incidental take permitting may be required.

Burrowing Owl
One (1) adult burrowing owl and an occupied burrow were observed onsite in 2018. No owls or owl sign were observed in 2019 or 2021 . Because suitable habitat is present , the MSHCP requires a preconstruction clearance survey for burrowing owl within 30 days prior to the start of site d isturbance. If burrowing owls are found on the site at tha t time, additio nal mitigation is required under the MSHCP and Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the 2006 EIR.

Nesting Birds
There is habitat suitable for n esting birds (including raptors) within and adjacent to the site.

Nesting birds may utilize trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, and open ground on and adjacent to the site for nesting.

Nesting birds are protected un der st ate and f ederal laws. Project activities, incl uding initial vegetation trimming/clearing, tree trimming/removal, ground disturbance, etc., should be avoided during the nesting season ( generally February 1 to August 31). If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a nesting bird clearance survey is recommended within three (3) days prior to the start of Project activities within the nesting season. If active nests are present, avoidance of nest s ites is required an d a buffer o f 300 to 500 feet (or as determined by a biologist) i s recommended until a biologist has verifie d that juvenile birds are no long er dependent on t he nest or the nest has otherwise become inactive. An active nest is defined as a nest with eggs, chicks, or dependent juveniles, or a nest actively being constructed or utilized for reproduction.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 64 L&L

Wildlife Corridors
The site is largely surrounded by scattered existing development and there is no connectivity between the site and conserved lands to the east and southwest. Although there may be limited local movement of wildlife on and across the site, it is not within or adjacent to a wildlife corridor or potential corridor.

Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat An ephemeral drainage with scattered riparian vegetation is present on the site and mapped as a USGS blue-line stream. A jurisdictional delineation found 0.153 acre of unvegetated state streambed (which is also MSHCP riverine habitat) and 1.208 acre of state wetland (which is also MSHCP riparian habitat). The survey also identified 0.065 acre of federal waters. There is no federal wetland.

All jurisdictional areas onsite will either be impacted by Project development or incorporated into the Avoidance Area. Monitoring of Project activities adjacent to t he Avoidance Area is recommended.

Pools or depressions characteristic of vernal habi tat were not observed on the site and no wetland or vernal pool plant species were present. No evidence of ponding areas (i.e., cracked soils, tire ruts, etc.) were observed on the site during surveys.

Regulatory pe rmits from USACE, RWQCB, a nd CDFW will be required for impact s to jurisdictional areas. A DBESP will be required for impact s to MSHCP riparian/riverine habitat.

Mitigation Meas ure 4.3 -6 also requires on or off-site rep lacement of CDFW and federal jurisdictional wa ters and wetlands at a ratio of no less than 1:1 and incorporation of design features that will avoid biological impacts to offsite blue -line streams that flow to Canyon Lake.

Monitoring of Project activities that disturb vegetation or soil in and adjacent to the Avoidance Area is recommended.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 65 L&L

6.0) REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The following summary of t he regulatory environment is pr ovided for information purposes and is not intended for review or comment by the lead or wildlife agencies.

6.1) Federal Endangered Species Act
Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), 1973 (as amended) prohibits “take” of federally listed threatened and endangered species. Candidate species receive no protection under FESA, but the USFWS encourages conservation of these species. “Take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hu nt, s hoot, wound, k ill, tr ap, capt ure, or c ollect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is fur ther defined to inclu de habi tat mo dification or degradation when it actually kills or injures wildlife by impairing essent ial beh avioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Incidental take is t ake that results fro m, bu t is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Incidental take of federally listed species may be authorized under Section 7 of FESA for federal properties or where federal actions (i.e., federal permitting or federal funding) are involved or under Section 10 of FESA for non-federal actions.

Section 7 requires all Federal agencies, in "consultation" with the USFWS, to ensure that their actions are not likely to j eopardize the c ontinued existence of listed species or result in destruction or adverse mod ification of critical habitat. The Section 7 process requir es preparation of a federal Biological Assessment to determine whether a proposed major construction activity under the authority of a Federal action agency is likely to ad versely affect listed species, proposed species, or designated critical habitat. After formal consultation, the USFWS will issu e a Bi ological Opinion stating whether or not a federal action is li kely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or r esult in the destruction or adve rse modification of critical habitat.

Section 1 0 lays out th e guidelines under wh ich a perm it may be issued t o authorize take of endangered or threatened speci es (in the a bsence of a ny federal nexus). Application for a n incidental take permit under Section 10 is subject to certain requirements, including preparation by th e pe rmit applicant of a conservation plan , generally known as a " Habitat Conservation Plan" or "HCP." An HCP is a plan that outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species. The plan usually includes measures to minimize Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 66 L&L

impacts, such as provisions for permanently protecting land, re storing habitat, an d relocating plants or animals to another area.

6.2) Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Three ag encies ge nerally r egulate activities within streams, wetlands, and r iparian areas in California: (1 ) the U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers (USACE) regul ates activities u nder S ection 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; (2) the Regional W ater Quality C ontrol Board (RWQCB) regulates activities under Section 401 of the f ederal Clea n Water Act and the State P orter- Cologne W ater Quality Control Act; and (3) the California D epartment of Fish and Wi ldlife (CDFW) regulates activities under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616.

6.2.1) Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act applies to "W aters of the United States" (WoUS).

By definit ion the se include wat erways t hat c ould be us ed for interstate commerce and their tributaries, including any waters that flow into traditional navigable waters. In non-tidal waters, the limits of jurisdiction are "ordinary high water marks" (OHWM) such as stream banks.

There have been recent changes to the definition of WoUS and the agencies are interpreting WoUS consistent wit h t he pre-2015 r egulatory r egime until further notice. Under this rule, WoUS includes:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which a re subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet mead ows, playa la kes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect in terstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
a. Which are or could be used by inter state or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
b. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 67 L&L

c. Which are used o r could be used f or industrial purposes by indu stries in interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the Unite d States under this definition;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;

6. The territorial sea;

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in pa ragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this sect ion; w aste tr eatment system s, i ncluding treatment p onds or lagoons designed to meet the requiremen ts of C WA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which als o meet the criteria of th is definition) are not waters of the United States.

Final determination and delineation of federal jurisdiction is made by the USACE and not by the project biologists. Therefore, fieldwork and documentation of the site conditions are done as a preliminary delineation until the USACE reviews and concurs with the results.

6.2.2) Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401 and Porter-Cologne The RWQCB has jurisdiction over wetlands, WoUS, and Waters of the State under Section 401 of the CW A and the Porter-Cologne Wa ter Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) under the California Water Code (§ 13000, et seq.) Permitting is required for activities that will result in a discharge of soils, nutrients, chemicals, detrital materials, or other pollutants into WoUS, Waters of the State, or adjac ent w etlands that w ill affect the wat er quality o f those bo dies and t he watershed.

6.2.3) California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
The CDFW, through provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1600-1616), is empowered to issue agreements (“Lake and Streambed Alteration Ag reements”) f or pro jects that will adversely affect wildlife habitat associated with an y river, stream, or lake edges. The Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement will typically include required measures to mitigate impacts.

Sections 1600-1616 of the Calif ornia Fish and Game Code apply to stream channels, defined elsewhere in the Code as follows:

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 68 L&L

"A stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically through a bed or channel having banks and su pports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." The state definition does not specify a flow rate or inundation frequency and provides no clear distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional lands.

While th e federal USACE criteria (hydrology, soils, a nd vegetation) are used to evalua te the presence or absence o f wetlands within the project site, the de termination o f sta te wetland status is not based on the combined presence of the three criterion because the state can take jurisdiction of a ny one of the three: (1) the presence of open water or saturated soils, ( 2) presence of vegetation i ncluding riparian or we tland species, and/or (3) water-modified or oxygen-depleted soils.

6.3) California Endangered Species Act
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) definitions of endangered and threatened species parallel those defined in the FESA. The CESA defines an endangered species as “. . . a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a signi ficant p ortion, of its r ange due to one or more c auses incl uding loss of habitat, c hange in habitat, ove r exploitation, pre dation, competition or disease.” Endangered species are in serious danger of becoming extinct and threatened species are likely to b ecome endangered s pecies in the f oreseeable futur e (according to Sections 2062 and 2067, respectively, of the California Fish and Wildlife Code).

Candidate species a re t hose under f ormal revi ew by the CDFW for listing as endangered or threatened (Section 2067). Prior to b eing c onsidered for protected s tatus, the CDFW designates a speci es as being of s pecial concern. Species of Special Concern are those for which the CDFW has information indicating population decline.

6.4) California Environmental Quality Act
The Californi a Env ironmental Qualit y Ac t (C EQA) and C EQA G uidelines (§ 1500 0 et seq .) require identification of environmental effects from discretionary projects. Significant effects are to be mitigated by avoidance, minimization, rectification, or compensation whenever possible.

Effects to all state and federal listed species are considered significant under CEQA. In addition to formally listed species, CEQA considers effects to species that are demonstrably endangered or rare as important or significant. These defi nitions can include st ate designated species of Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 69 L&L

special concern, federal candidate and proposed species, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) tracked species, and California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B and 2 plants.

Appendix G of the C EQA Guidelines specifically addresse s bi ological resources and encompasses a broad range of resources to be considered.

6.5) California Natural Diversity Database
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is a database that ranks overall condition of listed and special status species and sensitive vegetation communities on global (throughout its range) and state (within California) levels. The CNDDB includes documented occurrences of listed and special status species that have been reported to CDFW. State ranking is numerical, ranging from one to five (S1 to S 5), with one indicating very few remaining individuals or little remaining habitat and f ive indi cating a dem onstrably secure to ineradicable p opulation condition. State ranks (S ranks) may also include an extension (e.g., S1.x) indicating current threats ranging from one (very threatened) to three (no current threats known).

6.6) California Rare Plant Rank
The California Native Pla nt So ciety (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Sp ecies includes documented occurrences of special status plant species that are available through the Consortium of California Herbaria and other sources. The CNPS, in coordination with CDFW, has ca taloged Ca lifornia's rare and endangered plants into lists according to po pulation distributions and viability. These lists are numbered and indicate the following California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR): (1A) presumed extinct in California; (1B) rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range; (2A) presumed e xtirpated in Cal ifornia, but more common in other states; (2B) threatened or endangered in California, but more common in other states; (3) more information is ne eded to establish rarity; and (4) plants of limited distribution in California (i.e., naturally rare in the w ild), but whose populations do not appear to be susceptible to t hreat. A CRPR may also have an extension (e.g., 1B.x) that indicates current level of threat: seriously threatened (x.1), moderately threatened (x.2), or not very threatened (x.3).

6.7) Information for Planning and Consultation
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for P lanning and Consultation (IPaC) is a database that includes federally listed endangered or threatened species a nd species proposed for listing, designated critical habitat, Birds of Conse rvation Concern, and other federally regulated lands and biological resources.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 70 L&L

6.8) Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Mi gratory Bird Treaty Act (MB TA) o f 1918 (16 USC 703-711) is an international treaty that made it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purc hase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other pa rts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by im plementing regulations (5 0 CFR 2 1). Executive Ord er 1318 6 ensures th at environmental ana lyses of federal actio ns req uired by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other established environmental review processes evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds, w ith e mphasis on species of con cern. Disturbance that cause s nest abandonment and/or loss o f reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) or loss of habitat upon which the birds depend could be considered “take.”

6.9) California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3513 California Fish and Game Co de Sec tion 3 503 prohibits ta ke, p ossession, or need less destruction of bird nests o r egg s except as otherwise provided by the Code; Sectio n 3503.5 prohibits take or possession of birds of prey or their eggs except as otherwise provided by the Code; and Section 3513 provides for the adoption of the provisions of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, described above.

6.10) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Count y of Riverside, including ei ght (8) a dditional land ju risdictions and 14 c ities, have prepared a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for western Riverside County.

The MSHCP will build upon existing preserves and provide connectivity and wil dlife corridors throughout the region. The MSHCP proposes to conserve approximately 500,000 acres and 146 different species.

The MSHCP was approved by the county on June 17, 2003 and an Implementation Agreement (IA) between the USFWS, the CDFW, and the County was executed and an associated USFWS Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit (No. TE-088609) was issued on June 2 2, 2004. The pe rmit grants take authorization for certain species identified in the permit as "Covered Species Adequately Conserved."
The MSHCP esta blishes seven ( 7) co re reserve areas and associated li nkages between proposed and exi sting core areas. The MSHCP divides these areas into Ce lls using USGS coordinates.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 71 L&L

Focused surve ys are required fo r species identified as not adequately c onserved under t he MSHCP if suitable habitat is present onsite. If f ocused surveys are determined necessary and species identified as not a dequately conserved under the MSHCP o ccur onsite, the proponent may b e requi red to u ndergo a Ha bitat Acquisition and Negotiation Str ategy ( HANS) determination with the County of Riverside. If a single-family home or mob ile home is to be placed on an existing legal lot, permitting will be reviewed according to the procedures outlined in MSHCP Section 6.1.1, Expedited Review Process for Single-Family Homes or Mobile Homes to Be Located on an Existing Lot within the Criteria Area.

MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (Riparian/Riverine Habitat)
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires an assessment of the potentially significant effects of the proposed project on Riparian/riverine areas, and vernal pools as curr ently required by C EQA using available information augmented by project-specific mapping. Riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools are defined as follows:
• Riparian/riverine Areas are l ands that have flow for all or a portion o f the year and which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year. • Vernal p ools are season al w etlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of al l three par ameters (soi ls, vegetation, and hydrology) duri ng the wett er portion of the gro wing sea son but normally lack wetlands ind icators o f h ydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portio n of the growing seas on. Obligate h ydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the w etter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics, and the definition of the wa tershed supporting vernal pool hydrology, must be made on a case-by case basis. Such determinations should consider the length of the time the ar ea exhibits upland and we tland characteristics and t he manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. Evidence concerning the persistence of an area’s wetness can be obtained from its history, vegetation, soils, and drainage ch aracteristics, uses, to which it has been subjected, and weather and hydrologic records.

With the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands habitat or resulting from hu man actions to create open waters or fr om t he alteration o f na tural stream courses, areas demon strating charac teristics as described abo ve which ar e artificially create d a re n ot included in these definitions.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 72 L&L

Burrowing Owl
Section B ( Species Accounts) of V olume 2 of t he MSHCP (Dudek 2003) lists the following objectives for burrowing owl conservation/protection:

Objective 1
Include within the MSHCP C onservation Area at l east 27,470 acres of suitable primary habitat for the burrowing owl including grasslands.

Objective 2
Include w ithin the MSHCP Conservation Area at l east 5 Core Areas and interconnecting linkages. Core a reas may include th e following : (1) Lake Skinner/Diamond Valley Lake area (Existing Core C plus Proposed Extension of Existing Cores 5, 6, 7; 29,060 ac res); (2) playa west of Hem et ( Proposed Noncontiguous Habitat Block 7; 1,250 acres) ; (3) San Jacin to Wild life Area/Mystic La ke area inc luding Lake Perris ar ea (Existing Core H; 17,47 0 acres); (4) Lake Mathews (Existing Core C plus Proposed Extension of Existing Cores 2; 23,710 acres); and (5) along the Santa Ana Rive r (9,670 acres). The Core Areas sho uld sup port a c ombined tot al breeding population of approximately 120 burrowing owls with no fewer than five pairs in any one Core area.

Objective 3
Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area at least 22,120 acres of su itable secondary habitat for the bur rowing owl including playas and verna l pools, and agriculture outside of the Core Areas identified above. Areas where additional suitable habitat could be co nserved include west of the Jurupa Mountains, near Temescal Wa sh (i.e., vicinity of Alberhill), ne ar Teme cula Creek, wi thin the Lakeview Mountains, Banning, the Badlands, Gavilan Hills, and Quail Valley.

Objective 4
Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area the known nesting locations of the burrowing o wl at Lake P erris, My stic Lake/S an Jacinto Wild life ar ea, Lake Skinner are a, the area around Diam ond Vall ey L ake, playa wes t of Hem et, Lakeview Mou ntains, Lake Mat hews/Estelle Moun tain Re serve and Sycamore Canyon Regional Park.

Objective 5
Surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted as part of the project review process for pub lic and pri vate project s within the burrowing owl survey area where suitable habitat is p resent (see Burrowing Owl Survey Area Map, Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP, Volume I). The locations of this spe cies determined as a result of survey efforts shall be conserved in accordance with procedures described within Section 6.3.2, MSHCP, Volume I and the guidance provided below:

Burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted utilizing accepted protocols as follows.

If burrowing owls are detected on the project site then the action(s) taken will be as follows:

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 73 L&L

If the site is within the Criteria Area, then at least 90 percent of the area wi th long -term conservation value will be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Otherwise:

1) If the site contains, or is part of an area supporting less than 35 acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer t han 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on -site bur rowing owls will be p assively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.

2) If the site (including adjacent areas ) supports three or more pairs of burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat and is n on-contiguous with MSHCP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent o f the area with long-term conservation value and burrowing owl pairs will be conserved onsite.

The survey and conse rvation r equirements sta ted in this object ive will be eliminated when it is demonstrated that Objectives 1 – 4 have been met.

Objective 6
Pre-construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl within the survey area where suitable habitat is present will be conducted for all Covered Activities through the life of the permit. Surveys will be conducted within 30 days prior to disturbance. Take of active nests will be avoided. Passive relocation (u se of one-way doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present outside the nesting season.

Objective 7
Translocation sites for the burrowing ow l will be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be id entified, t aking into consideration unocc upied ha bitat a reas, presence of burrowing mammals t o provid e su itable burrow s ites, existing co lonies an d effects t o other Covered Species. Reserve Ma nagers will consu lt with the Wildlife Agencies regarding site selection prior to translocation site development.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 74 L&L

7.0) REFERENCES

Abrams, L. 1923-1951. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volumes I-III. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Abrams, L. and R. Ferris. 19 60. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Volume IV. Stanf ord University Press, Stanford, California.

Arnett, R . H. Jr. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of th e Insects o f America No rth o f Mexico. CRC Press, New York, New York. 1003 pp.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J., Keil, R. Patt erson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, e ditors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Brown, David E . 1994. Biotic C ommunities: Southw estern United States and Mexico .

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 342 pp.

CBOC ( California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Pro tocol and Mitigation Guidelines. April.

CDFG (California Department of Wildlife, formerly the California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2021a. Special Vasc ular P lants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. October.

_____. 2021b. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. October.

_____. 2021c. Natural Diversity Data Base. Rare Find 5.

_____. 2021d. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS

_____. 2020. California Natural Community List.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities

_____. 2018. P rotocols f or Surveyi ng and Evalu ating Impa cts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 20.

_____. 2000. Guidelines for Ass essing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Th reatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. May 8.

CNPS (Ca lifornia N ative Plant S ociety). 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Pl ants of California. https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/Simple

_____. 2001. CNPS Botanical Surve y Guide lines.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 75 L&L

Cornell (Cornell Lab oratory of Or nithology). 2021. B irds of the Wor ld Onl ine. Ithaca, NY . https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home

Dudek (Dudek & Associates, Inc.). 2003. Western Riverside County MSHCP, Vol. I. The Plan and Vol. II-A through E. The MSHCP Reference Document.

eBird (Corne ll Lab oratory of O rnithology a nd National Aud ubon Soci ety). 2021. Accessed October/November 2021. Online data. https://ebird.org

Google Earth. 2021. Google Earth Pro 7.3.4.8248. Aerial images.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary desc riptions of the terres trial natural communiti es of California. State of California Resources Agency.

Jameson, E. W. and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Jepson (Jepson Flora Project, eds.) 2021. Jepson eFlora. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/

L&L (L&L Environmental, Inc.) 2003a. General Biological Survey Report for the Menifee Tract 31194 Riverside County, California. Report prepared for Woodside H omes. Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

_____. 2003b. Jurisdictional Delineation for the Menifee Assemblage APN #360-300-002, 003- 006, 008, and 360-350-001, Menifee, Riversi de County, California. Report prepared for Woodside Homes. Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

_____. 2004a. A Spr ing Botanical Survey, on Tra ct 31194, Menifee Assemblage, Riverside County, California. Report prepared for Woodside Homes.

_____. 2004 b. Focus ed Survey for the Quino Che ckerspot Butterfly on Tract 31194 , Menifee Assemblage, Riverside Count y, California . Report pr epared for Woo dside H omes.

Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

_____. 2004c. Focused Survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on Tract 31194, Menifee Assemblage, Riv erside County, Cali fornia. Report pre pared for Woodside H omes.

Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

_____. 2005a. A Burrowing Owl Species Survey for the Menifee Assemblage Project Menifee, Riverside County, Ca lifornia. Report prepare d for Woodsid e Hom es. Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

_____. 2005b. Results of a Focused Habitat Assessment Surve y for the Least Bell ’s Vire o, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher , and Yello w-billed Cuckoo on Menifee Assemblage, ±204.7 Acre Project, Trac t 31194, Me nifee, California. Report pr epared for W oodside Homes. Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

_____. 2005 c. Jurisdictional Impacts on the 204.7 ± Acre Project, Tract 311 94, Menifee , California. Report prepared for Wood side Homes. Included in the technical appendix of the 2006 Environmental Impact Report.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 76 L&L

_____. 2006 a. Foc used Breeding Season Burrowin g Owl Habitat Assessment and Burr ow Survey for Menifee Asse mblage, Riv erside County, Cal ifornia. Report prepar ed for Woodside Homes.

_____. 20 06b. F ocused Least Bell’s Vireo and S outhwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey and Habitat Assessment for Yellow-Billed Cuckoo for the Menifee Assemb lage Site, County of Riverside, California. Report prepared for Woodside Homes.

_____. 20 07. Fo cused Br eeding Seaso n Burrow ing Owl Hab itat Asses sment a nd B urrow Survey for Menifee Ass emblage, River side County, C alifornia. Report prepar ed for Woodside Homes.

_____. 2011 (201 2 & 2013 revis ions). R evised Up dated Biological Assessment, Burrowing Owl, and Jur isdictional Delineation Surveys for Tract 31194, Golden Meadows, City of Menifee, California. Report prepared for Richland Communities.

_____. 2013. Biological Assessmen t an d Bree ding Season Burrowing O wl Sur veys for TR 31194, Golden M eadows, City of Me nifee, Calif ornia. Report prepared f or Rich land Communities.

_____. 2017. Updated Biological Assessment, Botanical, Burrowing Owl, and Nesting Raptor Surveys for Tract 31194, Golden Meadows, City of Menifee, California. Report prepared for Richland Communities.

_____. 2018a . Focused Burrowing Ow l and Raptor Ne st Surveys for Tract 31194, Golden Meadows, City of Menifee, California. Report prepared for Richland Communities.

_____. 2018b. Updated Juri sdictional Delineation for TR 31194, Golden Meadows, Ci ty of Menifee, California. Report prepared for Richland Communities.

_____. 2019 a. Focused Burrowing Owl Survey for Tract 31194, Golden Meadows, Ci ty of Menifee, California. Report prepared for Richland Communities.

_____. 2019b. Updated Juri sdictional Delineation for TR 31194, Golden Meadows, City of Menifee, California. Report prepared for Richland Communities.

Munz, Philip A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

NETRonline (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC). 2021. Historical aerial images. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2021. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

Parker, Robert et al . 1999. Weeds of the West . T he Western So ciety of Weed Science.

Newark, California. 630 pp.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 77 L&L

RCA (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority). 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habi tat Cons ervation Plan Area. http://www.wrc-rca.org/mshcp-species-survey-protocols/

_____. 2020. Status of Covered Speci es N ot Adequately Conserved . December 1 . http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/annual-reports/

_____. 2021. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Information Map. Accessed October 2021.
https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29 ebd3acd67467abd

Recon. 1985. The Distribution, St atus, and Co nservation of Vernal Poo l an d Alkali Playa Wetlands of the Upper Salt Creek Drainage, Hemet, California.

Sawyer, John O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 1300 pp.

Schoenherr, Allan A. (editor). 1990. Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California.

Southern California Botanists, Claremont, California. 114 pp.

Small, Arnold. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista, California. 342 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Mass.

T&B (T&B Pla nning Consultants, Inc. ). 2006. Final Environmental I mpact Report No. 458 .

Tentative Tract Map No . 31194, Change of Zone No. 06764 , General Plan Amendment No 00729 (Sch No. 2003061122), Riverside County, California. Lead Agency: Riverside County Planning Department. Prepared for Woodside Homes. June 30, 2006.

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildl ife Service). 2021. Information for Planning and Consu ltation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

_____. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporti ng Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, P roposed an d Candidate Plant s. January.
https://www.fws.gov/ventura/docs/species/protocols/botanicalinventories.pdf

_____. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell’s Vireo. Portland, OR. 139 pp.

USGS (U. S. Geological Su rvey). 1979. Romoland, California 7.5-Minute topographic map.

USGS, Denver, Colorado.

WRCC (W estern Regional Climate Center). 2018. Precipitation Maps : PRISM Pre cipitation Maps 1981-2010. https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/prism_precip_maps.php

_____. 2021. Monthly Summary Time Seri es Precipitation Data f or the Clark, Sage, an d Cranston Remote Automated Weather Stations. https://wrcc.dri.edu/

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 78 L&L

Zeiner, D.C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 79 L&L

APPENDIX A: PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
Plant and wildlife species identified on the Go lden Meadows site during surveys from 2003 to 2021. One asterisk ( *) in dicates a non -native speci es; two aste risks (**) indica tes a special status species; a question mark (?) i ndicates uncertainty regarding identification or native status. The list incl udes c ommon butterfly species that were observed during Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys in 2004 but does not represent a complete inventory of insects present.

Scientific Name Common Name

VASCULAR PLANTS

DICOTYLEDONS

ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY

Sambucus nigra ssp. cerulea
(S. mexicana) Mexican elderberry, blue elderberry

AMARANTHACEAE AMARANTH FAMILY
* Amaranthus albus

Tumbleweed, tumbling pigweed
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC or CASHEW FAMILY
* Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree

APIACEAE CELERY FAMILY
Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake weed, wild carrot

ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY

Acourtia microcephala
(Perezia microcephala) Scapellote, perezia
Ambrosia acanthicarpa

Annual bur-sage, annual sandbur
* Anthemis cotula Mayweed, dog mayweed
Artemisia californica

California sagebrush
Baccharis salicifolia (B. glutinosa)

Mulefat
Bebbia juncea Sweetbush
* Centaurea melitensis Tocalote
Chaenactis artemisiifolia White pincushion, wormwood pincushion Corethrogyne filaginifolia var.
filaginifolia
(Lessingia filaginifolia)

California-aster, sand-aster

Deinandra fasciculata
(Hemizonia fasciculata) Fascicled tarplant, slender tarweed Encelia farinosa Brittlebush
*
Erigeron bonariensis
(Conyza bonariensis) Flax-leaved horseweed
Erigeron canadensis
(Conyza canadensis)

Horseweed, mare's tail
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden-yarrow
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 80 L&L

Scientific Name Common Name
Eriophyllum multicaule Many-stem woolly daisy
Gutierrezia californica (G. bracteata) California matchweed Helianthus annuus

Western sunflower
Helianthus gracilentus Slender sunflower
* Lactuca serriola

Prickly lettuce

Lasthenia californica
(L. chrysostoma) California goldfields
Layia platyglossa Tidy-tips

Logfia filaginoides
(Filago californica) California filago
*
Matricaria discoidea
(Chamomilla suaveolens,
M. matricarioides) Pineapple weed
*
Oncosiphon pilulifer
(Matricaria globosa) Stinknet
Rafinesquia californica

California chicory
* Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel
* Sonchus oleraceus

Common sow thistle
Stephanomeria virgata Wreath plant
Stylocline gnaphaloides

Everlasting neststraw
Tetradymia comosa Hairy horsebrush, common-thorn

Uropappus lindleyi
(Microseris lindleyi, M.
linearifolia) Silverpuffs
*? Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur

BORAGINACEAE BORAGE OR WATERLEAF FAMILY

Amsinckia intermedia
(A. menziesii var. intermedia) Large flower rancher's fiddleneck Cryptantha species

Unid. cryptantha
Cryptantha intermedia

Common cryptantha
Heliotropium curassavicum

Wild heliotrope
Pectocarya linearis Slender pectocarya
Phacelia minor

Wild Canterbury bells
Phacelia ramosissima Branching phacelia
Plagiobothrys species

Popcornflower

BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
* Brassica nigra Black mustard
* Hirschfeldia incana
(Brassica geniculata)

Shortpod mustard
Lepidium nitidum Shining peppergrass
* Raphanus sativus Wild radish
* Sisymbrium irio

London rocket
* Sisymbrium orientale Wild mustard, hare's ear cabbage Thysanocarpus curvipes Fringepod
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 81 L&L

Scientific Name Common Name

CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY

Cylindropuntia californica var.
parkeri (Opuntia parryi) Valley cholla

CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
* Atriplex suberecta Sprawling saltbush, Australian saltbush * Chenopodium murale Nettle-leaved goosefoot, lamb's quarters * Salsola tragus

Russian thistle

CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY
Calystegia macrostegia Morning-glory
Cuscuta californica Chaparral dodder, witch's hair

CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY
Crassula connata (C. erecta) Pygmy-weed, pygmy stonecrop

CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY, CUCUMBER FAMILY
Cucurbita foetidissima

Calabazilla
Marah macrocarpa

Chilicothe, wild cucumber

EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Croton setiger (C. setigerus,
Eremocarpus setiger, E.
setigerus)

Turkey-mullein, doveweed

Euphorbia albomarginata
(Chamaesyce albomarginata)

Rattlesnake sandmat, rattlesnake weed

FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY, PEA FAMILY

Acmispon americanus
(Lotus purshianus, L.
unifoliatus) "Spanish" clover

Acmispon glaber
(Lotus scoparius) Deerweed
Lupinus species Unid. lupine
Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine, dove lupine
* Medicago polymorpha California burclover
* Vicia villosa Winter vetch

FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak

GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
* Erodium botrys Long-beak filaree
* Erodium cicutarium

Redstem filaree

JUGLANDACEAE WALNUT FAMILY
** Juglans californica Southern California black walnut Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 82 L&L

Scientific Name Common Name

LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
* Lamium amplexicaule Common henbit
* Marrubium vulgare

Horehound
Salvia apiana

White sage
Salvia columbariae

Chia
Salvia mellifera Black sage
Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegar weed

MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY
* Malva parviflora

Cheeseweed

MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY
* Lysimachia (Anagallis) arvensis Scarlet pimpernel

MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY, EUCALYPTUS FAMILY
* Eucalyptus species

Ornamental eucalyptus, gumtree

NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY

Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia
(M. californica) Wishbone bush

ONAGRACEAE EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissonia species

Unid. evening-primrose
Eulobus californica (Camissonia
californica)

California false mustard, mustard evening primrose

PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY
Eschscholzia californica California poppy

PHRYMACEAE LOPSEED FAMILY

Diplacus (Mimulus) aurantiacus
(M. puniceus, M. longiflorus) Bush monkeyflower, sticky monkeyflower Erythranthe (Mimulus) guttatus Seep monkeyflower

PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY
Antirrhinum nuttallianum Nuttall snapdragon, violet snapdragon Keckiella antirrhinoides Yellow bush-penstemon
Plantago erecta California plantain

POLEMONIACEAE PHLOX FAMILY
Eriastrum sapphirinum

Sapphire woollystar
Navarretia hamata Hooked navarretia

POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Chorizanthe fimbriata Fringed spineflower
**
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina Long-spined spineflower
Eriogonum fasciculatum
var. foliolosum

Leafy California wild buckwheat, interior California
buckwheat
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 83 L&L

Scientific Name Common Name

Eriogonum fasciculatum
var. polifolium

Mojave Desert California buckwheat
* Polygonum aviculare (P. arenastrum) Common knotweed
* Rumex crispus Curly dock

PORTULACACEAE PURSLANE FAMILY
* Portulaca oleracea

Common purslane

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise

RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY, COFFEE FAMILY
*? Galium aparine Goose grass, annual bedstraw

SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii

Fremont cottonwood
Salix gooddingii

Goodding's black willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow

SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY, SNAPDRAGON FAMILY
Scrophularia californica California figwort, coast figwort

SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii (D. meteloides)

Jimsonweed, tolguacha
* Nicotiana glauca

Tree tobacco

Solanum americanum
(S. nodiflorum) White nightshade

TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY
* Tamarix species

Unid. tamarisk

URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY
* Urtica urens Dwarf nettle

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE CALTROP FAMILY
* Tribulus terrestris

Puncture vine

MONOCOTYLEDONS

AGAVACEAE CENTURY PLANT FAMILY, AGAVE FAMILY
Hesperoyucca whipplei
(Yucca whipplei)

Chaparral yucca

LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY
Calochortus splendens Splendid mariposa lily

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
* Avena barbata Slender wild oat
* Avena fatua Wild oat
Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 84 L&L

Scientific Name Common Name
* Bromus species Non-native brome
* Bromus diandrus (B. rigidus) Ripgut brome
* Bromus rubens
(B. madritensis ssp. rubens)

Red brome
* Digitaria sanguinalis Hairy crabgrass
* Festuca species (Vulpia species) Annual fescue
* Hordeum murinum Wall barley, hare barley
* Lamarckia aurea Goldentop grass
* Phalaris species Unid. canary grass
* Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass
* Triticum aestivum Wheat

THEMIDACEAE BRODIAEA FAMILY
Dichelostemma capitatum
(D. pulchella, Brodiaea pulchella)

Blue dicks, wild hyacinth
Muilla maritima Common muilla, rough muilla

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 85 L&L

Scientific Name Common Name

VERTEBRATES

Reptiles

Colubridae Colubrid Snakes
Pituophis catenifer

Gopher snake

Phrynosomatidae Spiny Lizards
** Phrynosoma blainvillii Coast horned lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Sceloporus orcutti Granite spiny lizard
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched lizard

Teiidae Teiid Lizards
** Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange-throated whiptail
** Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal (western) whiptail

Birds

Accipitridae Hawks, Eagles, and Harriers
** Accipiter cooperii

Cooper's hawk
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk
Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk
** Circus hudsonius (C. cyaneus) Northern harrier
** Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite

Aegithalidae Long-tailed Tits
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit

Alaudidae Larks
** Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark

Anatidae Ducks, Geese, Swans
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard (fly over)

Apodidae Swifts
Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated swift

Ardeidae Herons
** Ardea alba Great egret
** Ardea herodias Great blue heron (fly over)

Cardinalidae Cardinals
Passerina amoena Lazuli bunting

Cathartidae Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture

Updated Biological Resources Assessment
Tract 31194, Golden Meadows (Menifee Assemblage), Menifee, California December 2021 RLCC-03-R187.BA5.BO11.NB4.BS2.LS1.rev2(final) 86 L&L

Charadriidae Plovers
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer

Columbidae Pigeons and Doves
* Columba livia Rock dove, common pigeon
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove

Corvidae Crows and Jays
Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax Common raven

Cuculidae Cuckoos
Geococcyx californianus Greater roadrunner

Falconidae Falcons
Falco sparverius American kestrel

Fringillidae Finches
** Spinus (Carduelis) lawrencei Lawrence's goldfinch
Spinus (Carduelis) psaltria Lesser goldfinch
Spinus (Carduelis) tristes American goldfinch
Haemorhous (Carpodacus) mexicanus House finch

Menifee City CouncilDecember 6, 2023

Menifee City Council
December 6, 2023