Menifee City Council
December 6, 2023

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 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
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Larry Ross
Date: June 30, 2006
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 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
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Larry Ross
EIR CONSULTANT:

T&B Planning Consultants, Inc.
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780
Attn: Tracy Zinn
TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS:

EnGEN Corporation | Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Giroux and Associates | Air Quality
Hunsaker & Associates | Civil Engineering, Hydrology
L&L Environmental | Biology, Archaeology
Leighton and Associates, Inc. | Geotechnical
Urban Crossroads | Acoustics, Traffic
PROJECT SPONSOR:

Woodside Homes
23121 Antonio Parkway, Ste. 120
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Attn: Peter Evans
Draft EIR: May 6, 2005
Final EIR: June 30, 2006
TTM NO. 31194 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION NAME AND NUMBER PAGE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 Page i
Final EIR ...........................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Document Purpose and Legal Authority ...................................................................1-1

1.1.1 Document Purpose ........................................................................................1-1

1.1.2 Legal Authority .............................................................................................1-2

1.2 Scope and Content .....................................................................................................1-3

1.2.1 Scope.............................................................................................................1-3

1.2.2 Content ..........................................................................................................1-4

1.3 Summary of Proposed Project Actions......................................................................1-5

1.4 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................................................1-6

1.5 Summary....................................................................................................................1-7

2.0 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Local Setting .................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Regional Setting............................................................................................2-1

2.2 Surrounding Land Uses and Development ................................................................2-5

2.3 Existing Physical Site Conditions..............................................................................2-7

2.4 Planning Context .......................................................................................................2-9

2.4.1 General Plan and Zoning...............................................................................2-9

2.4.2 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP).........................2-9

2.4.3 Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) .....................................................................................................2-10

3.0 Project Description..............................................................................................3-1

3.1 Statement of Objectives.............................................................................................3-1

3.2 Tentative Tract Map No. 31194.................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 General Description.......................................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Circulation Improvements.............................................................................3-4

3.2.3 Drainage Plan ................................................................................................3-4

3.2.4 Water and Sewer Plans..................................................................................3-8

3.2.5 Earthwork and Grading .................................................................................3-8

3.2.6 Description of Off-Site Improvements..........................................................3-8

3.3 Change of Zone 06764.............................................................................................3-11

3.4 General Plan Amendment No. 00729......................................................................3-11

3.4 Subsequent Discretionary Approvals ......................................................................3-11

4.0 Environmental Analysis........................................................................................4-1

4.1 Land Use Consistency ...............................................................................................4-1

4.2 Aesthetics, Visual Quality and Light & Glare.........................................................4-27

4.3 Biological Resources ...............................................................................................4-38

4.4 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources...................................................... 4-54

4.5 Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage .........................................................................4-63

4.6 Water Quality...........................................................................................................4-68

4.7 Geology and Slope Stability ....................................................................................4-74

4.8 Soil, Slopes and Erosion Potential...........................................................................4-81 TTM NO. 31194 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION NAME AND NUMBER PAGE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 Page ii

4.9 Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................4-87

4.10 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................4-93

4.11 Toxic Substances .....................................................................................................4-98

4.12 Circulation and Traffic ..........................................................................................4-101

4.13 Air Quality.............................................................................................................4-126

4.14 Noise......................................................................................................................4-141

4.15 Open Space, Parks, and Recreation .......................................................................4-155

4.16 Fire Services ..........................................................................................................4-158

4.17 Sheriff Services......................................................................................................4-161

4.18 Solid Waste............................................................................................................4-165

4.19 Water and Wastewater Services ............................................................................4-168

4.20 Schools...................................................................................................................4-172

4.21 Libraries.................................................................................................................4-175

4.22 Health Care Services..............................................................................................4-178

4.23 Energy Resources ..................................................................................................4-179

4.24 Utilities ..................................................................................................................4-181

4.25 Disaster Preparedness ............................................................................................4-183

5.0 Cumulative Effects ..............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Description of Cumulative Projects...........................................................................5-1

5.2 Cumulative Effects Impact Analysis .........................................................................5-3

6.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics .....................................................................................6-1

6.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented ..............................................................................6-1

6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented .....................................6-1

6.3 Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project .....................................................6-2

6.4 Effects Found Not to be Significant ..........................................................................6-3

7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project....................................................................7-1

7.1 Alternatives Under Consideration .............................................................................7-1

7.2 Alternatives Considered and Rejected.......................................................................7-2

7.3 Alternative Analysis ..................................................................................................7-3

8.0 References .................................................................................................... 8-1

TTM NO. 31194 TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURE NAME AND NUMBER PAGE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 Page iii
Final EIR
Figure 1 Revised Tentative Map................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 Revised Illustrative Tentative Map............................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Revised Roadway Cross-Sections ................................................................................ 6 Figure 4 Revised Master Drainage Plan...................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Trails Plan..................................................................................................................... 8 Draft EIR
Figure 2-1 Regional Map.............................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map..............................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-3 Aerial Photograph......................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-4 Surrounding Development.........................................................................................2-6 Figure 3-1 Tentative Map (8.5x 11 Black and White) ................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Illustrated Tentative Map-Landscape Plan (Color Illustrative) .................................3-3 Figure 3-3 Circulation Plan .........................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-4 Roadway Cross-Sections ...........................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-5 Master Drainage Plan ................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-6 Master Water Plan .....................................................................................................3-9 Figure 3-7 Master Sewer Plan ...................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3-8 Off-Site Grading and Roadway Improvement Plan.................................................3-13 Figure 3-9 Off-Site Infrastructure Improvement Plan...............................................................3-14 Figure 3-10 Change of Zone Map ...............................................................................................3-15 Figure 3-11 Wickerd Road Realignment Map ............................................................................3-16 Figure 3-12 General Plan Amendment Exhibit ...........................................................................3-17 Figure 4-1 Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan Land Use Map..................................................4-4 Figure 4-2 SCMVAP Scenic Corridors Map.............................................................................4-28 Figure 4-3 Photo Key Map........................................................................................................4-29 Figure 4-4 Vantage Points 1 and 2 ............................................................................................4-30 Figure 4-5 Vantage Points 3 through 5......................................................................................4-32 Figure 4-6 Vantage Points 6 through 8......................................................................................4-33 Figure 4-7 Existing Vegetation Communities...........................................................................4-40 Figure 4-8 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands.........................................................................4-46 Figure 4-9 Existing Conditions Hydrology Map.......................................................................4-64 Figure 4-10 Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map .....................................................................4-66 Figure 4-11 Topographic Map.....................................................................................................4-75 Figure 4-12 Geologic Map ..........................................................................................................4-76 Figure 4-13 Soil Types and Locations.........................................................................................4-83 Figure 4-14 County Agricultural Resources Map .......................................................................4-88 Figure 4-15 Mineral Land Resource Zones and Classification ...................................................4-94 Figure 4-16 RCIP Mineral Resources Map .................................................................................4-95 Figure 4-17 Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element ............................................4-102 Figure 4-18 Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls.............................4-103 Figure 4-19 Study Area Roadways............................................................................................4-104 Figure 4-20 Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .....................................................4-108 Figure 4-21 Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes......................................................4-109 Figure 4-22 Project (Opening Year) Trip Distribution..............................................................4-113 Figure 4-23 Opening Year with Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes........................4-116 TTM NO. 31194 TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURE NAME AND NUMBER PAGE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 Page iv
Figure 4-24 Opening Year with Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........................4-117 Figure 4-25 Summary of Intersection Improvements (1 of 3)...................................................4-118 Figure 4-25 Summary of Intersection Improvements (2 of 3)...................................................4-119 Figure 4-25 Summary of Intersection Improvements (3 of 3)...................................................4-120 Figure 4-25A General Plan Amendment Circulation Element Recommendations......................4-123 Figure 4-26 SCMVAP Trails and Bikeway System..................................................................4-124 Figure 4-27 Circulation Recommendations...............................................................................4-125 Figure 4-28 Noise Monitoring Locations..................................................................................4-146 Figure 4-29 Noise Attenuation Requirements...........................................................................4-152 Figure 4-30 Fire Stations Location Map ...................................................................................4-160 Figure 4-31 Sheriff Stations Location Map...............................................................................4-162 Figure 4-32 School Facilities Location Map .............................................................................4-173 Figure 4-33 Public Services Map ..............................................................................................4-176 Figure 5-1 Location of Cumulative Projects ...............................................................................5-2 Figure 7-1 Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative.......................................................7-10 TTM NO. 31194 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE NAME AND NUMBER PAGE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 Page v
Final EIR
Table A Revised Land Use Abstract .......................................................................................... 2 Draft EIR
Table 1-1 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................1-3 Table 3-1 Land Use Abstract .....................................................................................................3-4 Table 4-1 Existing Vegetation Communities Summary ..........................................................4-39 Table 4-2 Vegetation Impact Summary ...................................................................................4-49 Table 4-3 Soil Series and Type ................................................................................................4-81 Table 4-4 Storie Index Rating..................................................................................................4-89 Table 4-5 Storie Index Rating of On-Site Soils .......................................................................4-90 Table 4-6 Intersection Analysis for Existing Traffic Conditions...........................................4-107 Table 4-7 Project Trip Generation .........................................................................................4-112 Table 4-8 Intersections Analysis for Opening Year Project Traffic Conditions....................4-114 Table 4-9 Intersection Analysis for Post 2025 Project Conditions ........................................4-115 Table 4-10 Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................................................4-128 Table 4-11 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary 1996-2001..................................4-129 Table 4-12 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan ................................................................4-132 Table 4-13 Total Daily Construction Emissions......................................................................4-135 Table 4-14 Project-Related Emissions Burden ........................................................................4-136 Table 4-15 Micro-scale Air Quality Impact Analysis..............................................................4-138 Table 4-16 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................................4-143 Table 4-17 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure.....................................4-144 Table 4-18 Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements....................................................4-147 Table 4-19 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs ..................................................................4-149 Table 4-20 Hourly Traffic Flow Distribution ..........................................................................4-150 Table 4-21 Future Exterior Noise Levels (dBA LDN) ............................................................4-150 Table 4-22 Interior Noise Impacts (dBA CNEL).....................................................................4-151 Table 4-23 Fire Stations Servicing TTM No. 31194 ...............................................................4-158 Table 4-24 Southwest Sheriff Station Response Times...........................................................4-161 Table 4-25 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ........................................................................4-166 Table 4-26 Current and Projected Water Supplies (AF/YR) ...................................................4-168 Table 4-27 Summary of Domestic Water Demand..................................................................4-170 Table 4-28 Summary of Estimated Wastewater Flows............................................................4-171 Table 4-29 School Enrollment, Capacity, and Student Generation .........................................4-174 Table 4-30 Estimated Project Electrical Demand ....................................................................4-183 Table 4-31 Estimated Natural Gas Consumption.....................................................................4-183 Table 6-1 Regional Growth Forecast .........................................................................................6-3 Table 7-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Relative to the Proposed Project ..............................................................................................7-4 TTM NO. 31194 TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 Page vi

TECHNICAL APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

TAB NAME OF REPORT
A. Environmental Assessment No. 38942, Notice of Preparation and Written Comments B1. General Biological Survey Reports
B2. Jurisdictional Delineation
B3. Focused Survey for the California Gnatcatcher
B4. Focused Survey for the Quino Checkershot Butterfly
B5. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) (Revised) B6. Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl
B7. Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
C. Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Reports
D1. Hydrology Study (Revised)
D2. Water Quality Management Plan (Revised)
E. Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplement
F. Air Quality Impact Analysis (Revised)
G. Noise Study
H1. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
H2. Geotechnical Review Update
I. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
J1. Water Report
J2. Sewer Report
J3. Water Supply Assessment
K. Written Correspondence
L. Title Report
TTM NO. 31194 FINAL EIR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared in accordance with State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15132 which states that a Final EIR shall include:
a. The Draft EIR or a version of the draft.
b. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

In accordance with the above listed requirements, the Final EIR for Tentative Tract Map No. 31194, Change of Zone No. 06764, General Plan Amendment No. 00729 and associated discretionary actions consists of the following:

1. Comment letters and responses to public comment; and

2. Circulated Draft EIR No. 457 and Technical Appendices, SCH No. 2003061122 with additions shown as underline text and deletions shown as stricken text.

Responses to Public Comment

A total of thirteen (13) comment letters were received during the public comment period, which closed on June 20, 2005. One comment letter was received after the public comment period closed.

A copy of each comment letter and a response to each substantive environmental point raised in those letters follows this introduction. The California State Clearinghouse letter and letters from State agencies appear first, followed by letters from regional agencies and organizations, County agencies, and then all other comment letters in the order of date received. No comments from any Federal agency were received.

On the following pages, each comment letter appears on the left-hand-side of the page, and each comment is numbered. Responses to the numbered comments appear on the right-hand-side of the page. Comment letters were received from the following agencies, persons and organizations.

State
• California State Clearinghouse, June 21, 2005
• California Department of Fish and Game, June 20, 2005 • California Department of Toxic Substances Control, June 22, 2005 Regional
• Southern California Association of Governments, May 25, 2005 TTM NO. 31194 FINAL EIR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2
• South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 21, 2005 County
• Riverside County Waste Management Department, May 10, 2005 • Riverside County Transportation Commission, May 23, 2005 Local and Other
• City of Loma Linda, May 12, 2005
• Imperial County Planning and Development Services, May 16, 2005 • City of Chino Hills, June 6, 2005
• Miranda, Tomaras, & Ogas, LLP, June 17, 2005
• Wagon Wheel Ranch, June 20, 2005
• William Zeidlik, June 20, 2005
• Tri Valley Trails, June 22, 2005*
* Received after the close of the public comment period.

Corrections and Additions

Since the time the Draft EIR was circulated for public review, revisions have been made to TTM No. 31194 in response to County staff review and comment. This section summarizes updates made to the project description resulting from revisions to the Tentative Tract Map to address County staff comments. The updated TTM No. 31194 does not alter any environmental impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR.

A copy of revised TTM No. 31194 is shown as Figure 1, Revised Tentative Map, a revised illustrated plan is provided as Figure 2, Revised Illustrated Tentative Map, and revised street cross-sections are shown in Figure 3, Revised Roadway Cross-Sections. The TTM revisions also resulted in adding a retention/water quality basin, as shown on Figure 4, Revised Master Drainage Plan. A revised land use abstract is provided below.

TABLE A: REVISED LAND USE ABSTRACT
Land Uses in TTM No. 31194 Acreage
Residential Lots (483 lots) 102.5
Neighborhood Park (3 lots) 6.4
Open Space/Drainage Easement (6 lots) 0.5
Water Quality Basin (3 lots) 2.7
Open Space/Landscape (29 lots) 51.1
Roads 43.6
TOTAL: 206.8
Source: Hunsaker & Associates, October 2005
Several public comments were made regarding the proposed trail system. An illustration showing the proposed trail system on-site is included as Figure 5, Trails Plan.

An updated Hydrology Report is included as Appendix D1 and an updated Water Quality Management Plan is included as Appendix D2, which reflects revisions made to the Tract Map.

TTM NO. 31194 FINAL EIR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 3
A revised air quality study was prepared to address comments made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The revised air quality study is included as Appendix F.

An updated Determination of Biologically Equivalent and Superior Preservation report in compliance with the MSHCP is included as Appendix B5, a focused survey for burrowing owl is added as Appendix D6, and a focused habitat assessment for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern flycatcher and yellow billed cuckoo is added as Appendix B7.

The new and revised technical reports do not result in a change to any of the environmental impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR. Impacts to freeway segments under the control of Caltrans remain cumulative significant and unavoidable. Also, air quality emission impacts remain significant and unavoidable, with the clarification that short-term construction related air emissions of NOx and VOC would not be reduced to below a level of significance with available mitigating measures.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Revised Tentative Map

Fig. 1

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com no
t to scal
e

Fig. 2
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Revised Illustrated Tentative Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
Fig. 3
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Roadway Cross Sections

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Revised Master Drainage Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com

Fig. 4
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
LEGEND
Drainage
Bench Drain
Water Quality Basin
Open Space - Drainage
Water
Quality
Basin
Water
Quality
Basin
Water
Quality
Basin
N
A
T
U
R
A L D
R
A I N
A
G
E
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Trails Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'

Fig. 5
Regional Trail
Pedestrian Path

1. Comment is noted.

Letters of Comments Responses
1 10
Letters of Comments Responses
1 2. The project description information noted in this comment correctly reflected the project design at the time the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. As described under “Corrections and Additions” on page 2 of the Final EIR, minor changes to the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM) have occurred since that time in response to requests made by County staff responsible for ensuring project compliance with County rules, regulations, policies and ordinances.

The updated TTM No. 31194 land use statistics are shown in a table titled “Revised Land Use Abstract” in the Final EIR. The updated TTM No. 31194 does not alter any environmental significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR.

3. CDFG is identified as a Trustee Agency in Section 1.4 of the Final EIR.

4. An additional focused survey for borrowing owl (BUOW) was recommended based on the presence of suitable habitat on portions of the site, California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) activity on portions of the site, and other records for BUOW in this region of southwestern Riverside County. A nesting season Burrowing Owl Survey was conducted on June 24, 26, 30, July 1, 3, 8, and 10, 2005, by L&L Environmental. The survey report is appended to the Final EIR.
11 Letters of Comments Responses
2 3
4 Based on the results of the 2005 focused nesting season BUOW study, including lack of BUOW and BUOW sign (i.e., feathers, pellets, scat, prey etc.), it can be reasonably concluded that no BUOW currently occupy any portion of the site. In addition, there were no observations of BUOW during several previous surveys of the site in 2003 and 2004. Based on the results of this study, BUOW is not currently present nor is BUOW expected to utilize the subject property. However, because of the presence of habitat on the site, the proposed Project will be conditioned to conduct a winter BUOW survey if the site remains undeveloped during the winter survey season (December 2005). Also, the EIR requires a 30 day pre-construction survey as mitigation for potential impacts. If either the winter survey or 30-day pre-construction survey are positive for burrowing owls, then mitigation according to the MSHCP and the California Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (1993) would be required.

5. In accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.2, a copy of the project’s DBESP was provided to the CDFG and USFWS for review by the County of Riverside in July 2005.
12 Letters of Comments Responses
4 5

6. Please refer to response #2.

7. EIR Section 4.11, Hazardous Materials, and Technical Appendix I, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, disclose the known and potential historical and current hazardous materials on the project site.
13 Letters of Comments Responses
6 7

8. The presence of known and potentially contaminated sites is identified in the project’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report which is attached as Appendix I to the EIR.

9. As disclosed in EIR Section 4.11, Hazardous Materials, potentially significant hazardous materials impacts are identified. Mitigation measures 4.11-1 through 4.11-4 are recommended by the EIR to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. 14 Letters of Comments Responses
8 9

10. Environmental investigations, sampling, and/or remediation would be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanup. As requested by this comment, the findings from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report are summarized below in table format.

11. Comment noted. Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if deemed necessary, will be overseen by a regulatory agency.

12. According to information documented in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, the property is not located within 2,000 feet of a contaminated site, and therefore, is not considered within a “Border Zone of a Contaminated Property.”

13. As disclosed in EIR Section 4.11, Hazardous Materials, and 15 Letters of Comments Responses
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 Technical Appendix I, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the site contained a residential house, outbuildings, along with corrals and fencing. The house was removed from the property in December 2003 in accordance with approved County Demolition Permit No.

BDE030201. Mitigation measure 4-11-2 requires the removal of all site improvements in accordance with current local, state and federal disposal regulations. This mitigation measure has been expanded in the Final EIR to include lead-based paints or products, mercury and/ or asbestos containing materials.

14. Mitigation measure 4.11-4 has been modified, as follows:
4-11-5: 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 contaminates assessed prior to 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 Disposal Restrictions, if applicable.

15. Appropriate precautions will be employed to protect human health, the environment and sensitive receptors during construction and/or demolition activities in accordance with governing environmental laws and regulations.

16. The project proposes residential use and no ongoing generation or storage of hazardous materials is expected. It is acknowledged that on-site hazardous wastes must be managed in accordance with all prevailing environmental laws and regulations including the California Hazardous Waste Control Law and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations.

17. The project proposes residential use and no ongoing generation or storage of hazardous materials is expected. Any onsite containers of chemical products and/or construction wastes are required to be stored and disposed of in accordance with all prevailing environmental laws and regulations. A DTSC permit will be 16 Letters of Comments Responses
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
obtained, if required.

18. Comment noted. See response #16.

19. Comment noted. See response #16.

20. Wastewater is not proposed to be discharged to storm drain. The project will extend sewer lines to service the site in accordance with the requirements of EMWD, and a waste discharge permit will not be required.

21. Mitigation measure 4.11-3 addresses this comment. This mitigation measure has been expanded in the Final EIR to specifically mention soil and/or groundwater contamination.

22. Approximately 75% of the site has been used in the past for dry farming. A small number of donkeys and cows were present on the site, associated with a ranch house which was removed from the site in 2003. No domestic herd or large concentration of farm animals was located on the site; therefore, manure impacted soils are not expected to exceed regulated levels. Mitigation measure 4.11-5 has been added to the Final EIR, as follows:
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.

23. Comment is noted.
17 Letters of Comments Responses
23 24. Comments are noted.

25. Reference to the project name and SCAG Clearinghouse Number will be included on all future correspondence to SCAG related to this project.
18 Letters of Comments Responses
24 25

26. Comments are noted. As a commenting agency on the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD will be provided with a copy of the Final EIR, including written responses to submitted comments.
19 Letters of Comments Responses
26 27. Table 4-13 has been revised to disclose the projected construction years of 2006 and 2007. Significant short-term construction related impacts are shown during the grading phase for NOx and PM10, and during the finished work phase for ROG. The text of the Final EIR has been revised accordingly.

28. The Final EIR has been revised to indicate a significant and unavoidable short-term impact associated with NOx emissions during construction of the project. It is agreed that mitigation in the form of low emission tune ups would not reduce the emission level below the significance threshold of 100 pounds per day.

29. The Final EIR has been revised to indicate a significant and unavoidable short-term impact associated with VOC emissions during the application of architectural surface coatings during construction. Mitigation measure 4.13-5 has been revised to require the use of lower volatility paint with 100 grams or less of ROG per liter.

30. The air quality analysis conducted by Giroux & Associates and appended to the Final EIR has been revised to run the URBEMIS 2002 model for opening year 2007. The results are summarized in revised Table 4-13 of the Final EIR. As shown, ROG emissions would exceed the significance threshold. The Final EIR has been revised accordingly.
20 Letters of Comments Responses
27 28
29 30

31. Mitigation measure 4.13-4(B) has been added to the Final EIR to require use of electric or natural gas powered construction equipment, as feasible.

32. Mitigation measure 4.13-4(C) has been added to the Final EIR to require use of electricity from power poles, as feasible.

33. The architectural color palette for roofing materials used by the builder is required to comply with the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines which require varied colors and materials. Color sample boards are required to be submitted to the County for review as part of the application process. Limiting the builder to light colored roofing materials is not required by the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines and will not be required by the County as mitigation or as a condition of project approval.

34. Upgraded windows are required to be installed in homes located adjacent to Wickerd Road to meet interior noise standards. The requirement for duel paned windows in all buildings will not be required by the County as mitigation or as a condition of project approval.

35. Lower lighting levels are required by County policy in accordance with Ordinance No. 655. Additional mitigation to reduce lighting is not required. Automatic timers installed to control the lighting of private common areas and installed by the builder will be maintained by the master homeowners association.

36. The developer is required to comply with the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines which encourage drought tolerant landscape materials in accordance with County Ordinance 348. 21 Letters of Comments Responses
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39

37. The air quality analysis conducted by Giroux & Associates and appended to the Final EIR has been updated and the Final EIR has been revised accordingly. The microscale CO hotspot screening analysis is attached to the updated, October 2005 air quality report appended to the Final EIR. A copy also was mailed separately to the SCAQMD for review in October 2005. As shown, ROG emissions would exceed the significance threshold. The Final EIR has been revised accordingly.

38. The footnote has been revised.

39. The project proposes a maximum of 486 single-family homes. The air quality analysis conducted by Giroux & Associates and appended to the Final EIR has been updated to reflect 486 units, and Section 4.13 of the Final EIR has been revised accordingly.
22 Letters of Comments Responses
Tracy Zinn
From: Charles Blankson [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: DEIR No. 458

8/24/2005
Dear Larry:

The Urbemis 2002 printout shows 2003 and 2004 construction emissions. Please rerun the model to show he correct construction years and submit.

Please send me a copy of the screening procedure/methodology and the data that was used for the CO hot spots analysis.

Thanks.

Charles Blankson, Ph.D.

Air Quality Specialist
CEQA Section
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Phone (909) 396-3304
Fax (909) 396-3324
[email protected]

40. The air quality analysis appended to the Final EIR has been updated to analyze the projected construction years of 2006 and 2007. The Final EIR has been revised accordingly.

41. See response #37.
23 Letters of Comments Responses
40 41

42. The referenced significance criterion is verbatim from the County’s Environmental Assessment (Initial Study) form used to evaluate the potential for significant impact to solid waste services. Analysis in the Final EIR has been expanded to evaluate the potential for the proposed project to contribute towards exceeding daily permitted capacity at County landfills.

43. It is not necessary to exhaustively list every federal, state and local statute and regulation related to solid waste in the significance criterion. Analysis in the Final EIR has been expanded to provide additional detail regarding the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939).
24 Letters of Comments Responses
42 43

44. A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and is included as Appendix E to the Final EIR.

The interchanges of Scott Road/I-215 and Newport Road/I-215, including northbound and southbound ramps, were included in the study area. The project’s Opening Year and Post 2025 Year ADT distribution and AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-C through 4-H in Appendix E to the Final EIR. The traffic study shows that with planned improvements, the interchanges will operate at acceptable levels of service.

45. The County is required to ensure enforcement of identified mitigation measures. To mitigate for regional cumulative impacts, the project is required to contribute to DIF, TUMF and the Scott Road Bridge and Benefit District. These funding mechanisms provide for local and regional improvements including freeway interchange improvements, railroad grade separations, arterial widening projects, and traffic signalization.

46. See response #45. Caltrans and the cities of Temecula and Murrieta are included on the public mailing list for all public notices and hearings regarding this project.
25 Letters of Comments Responses
44 45
46 26
Letters of Comments Responses

47. Comments are noted.
27 Letters of Comments Responses
47 48. Comments are noted.
28 Letters of Comments Responses
48 49. Comments are noted.
29 Letters of Comments Responses
49 50. As a commenting agency on the Draft EIR, the Pechanga Band, through the office of Miranda, Tomaras & Ogas, LLP, will be included on the mailing list for all future public notices and hearings regarding this project. Miranda, Tomaras & Ogas, LLP also will be provided with a copy of the Final EIR, including written responses to submitted comments.

51. The project’s archaeological consultant, L&L Environmental, has consulted with the Luiseño tribe, Pechanga band.
30 Letters of Comments Responses
50 51

52. Comments are noted.

53. Comments are noted. The Final EIR discloses the potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological material during grading and construction. Mitigation measures contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR require archaeological and tribal monitoring of all grading and ground disturbing activities to allow for the potential discovery of subsurface material.

54. In the event that subsurface archaeological resources are discovered, mitigation measures 4.4-5 and 4.4-7 require consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the County of Riverside to ensure that the site is mitigated to the extent necessary.

55. Mitigation measure 4.4-2 requires consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) in the development of the project’s mitigation plan for archaeological resources. Mitigation measure

4.4-2(B) has been added to the Final EIR to require the project proponent to enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) prior to the issuance of grading permits.

56. Mitigation measure 4.4-6 addresses the potential discovery of human remains. Also refer to response #s 53, 54 and 55.
31 Letters of Comments Responses
51 52
53 54
55 56

57. Comments are noted. Final EIR Section 4.4 address cultural and archaeological sites in accordance with CEQA requirements.

58. L&L Environmental conducted a full pedestrian survey over the entirety of the property. As stated in the technical report included as Appendix C to the EIR,
“During the survey, the entire property was walked over with the primary goal of locating any cultural resources visible on the surface.

Ground visibility was medium to high in the flatland areas as there was a lack of much vegetation due to recent harvesting. The ground in these areas has been heavily disturbed by agricultural usage and weed abatement… The property was surveyed in all applicable areas in systematic five-meter transects and any areas of interesting configuration were separately investigated. All rock outcroppings were examined for archaeological resource.”
No archaeological resources were located on the surface of the project area; for that reason, no subsurface excavations were conducted. It is agreed that while a Phase I survey is not always conclusive, as there is a possibility that subsurface resources may exist, it is a good indicator of what may lie below the surface. No additional work is recommended until the construction phase. 32 Letters of Comments Responses
56 57
58 59
60 59. As stated above in response #58, a pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted and no archaeological resources were located on the surface of the site. The Final EIR discloses the potential for discovery of subsurface archaeological material during grading and construction.

60. A Tribal monitor, in conjunction with an archaeological monitor is appropriate and recommended during all construction activities that impact native soils, including brushing and grubbing, mass grading and trenching. Mitigation measure 4.4-4 requires that archaeological and tribal monitoring be conducted on a full-time basis for all grading and ground disturbing activities.

61. Because no archaeological resources were located during the pedestrian survey, additional studies such a Phase II Significance Testing Program are not warranted. Mitigation measures 4.4-5 through 4.4-9 address mitigation for the potential discovery of cultural resources.

62. See response #65 through #70 below regarding modifications to mitigation measures in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures stated in the Final EIR follow the provisions in CEQA and set forth adequate mitigation for potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources if discovered during grading and other ground disturbing activities. No surface resources are located on the property.

63. See response #62.
33 Letters of Comments Responses
61 62
63 64. See response #65 through #70 below regarding modifications to mitigation measures in the Final EIR.

65. Mitigation measure 4.4-1 has been revised as follows:

Prior to any clearing, grubbing and/or earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the developer.land divider for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to 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, consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s), find the potential is high for impact to significant cultural resources, a 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.

66. Mitigation measure 4.4-2(B) has been added to the Final EIR that requires the project proponent to enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) prior to the issuance of grading permits. The agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be uncovered during construction as well as provisions for tribal monitors and compensation of tribal monitors by the developer.

67. Mitigation measure 4.4-3 has been revised to state that the landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all Luiseño cultural sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological 34 Letters of Comments Responses
64 65
66 67
68 artifacts that are found on the project site to the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s)for proper treatment and disposition. In addition, the following condition of approval will be applied to the project:
“A tribal monitor from the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) will be required on-site during all ground disturbing activities to be retained by the land divider/permit holder/developer/land owner. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and the land divider/permit holder/developer/land owner for the monitoring of the project. The monitor shall have the authority to monitor actively all project related grading and ground disturbing and shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activities to allow recovery of Native American resources. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all Luiseño sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) for proper treatment and disposition.”

68. Standard protocol will be followed in the event that possible human bone is identified. Grading and construction activity only in the area of the find shall halt, not all activity on the property. Mitigation measure 4.4-6 has been revised to indicate required compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If any discovered bone is determined to be human and prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission representative who will determine the Most Likely Descendant, and standard protocol will follow in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98.

69. See response #67.

70. As stated in Mitigation measure 4.4-7, if an archaeological site is identified during monitoring, a plan or proposal for significance testing or additional excavation or mitigation work shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the representative(s) of the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) and County of Riverside. CEQA and the County of Riverside guidelines 35 Letters of Comments Responses
68 69
70 71
and standard archaeological protocol will be followed if resources are identified. If a sacred or ceremonial site is identified, special consideration will be given to it and consultation between the Developer, the Project Archaeologist and the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) will occur to determine appropriate treatment.

71. Comment is noted.
36 Letters of Comments Responses

72. Comments are noted. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designations applied to the site by the Riverside County General Plan and the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan. Also, see response #75.

73. Community concerns with transition, traffic and trails are noted. See response #s 74 to 76.

74. A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and is included as Appendix E to the Final EIR.

The traffic study shows that with planned improvements, all roadway segments and interchanges will operate at acceptable levels of service. The proposed project will generate approximately 4,600 trips per day with 1,400 trips assigned to Garbini Road and 3,200 trips assigned to Wickerd Road. The project is required to contribute to Development Impact Fees (DIF), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and the Scott Road Bridge and Benefit 37 Letters of Comments Responses
72 73
74 District. These funding mechanisms provide for local and regional improvements including freeway interchange improvements, railroad grade separations, arterial widening projects, and traffic signalization.

75. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects that the population of Riverside County will nearly double by year 2025. The County is accommodating this population growth in a planned manner in accordance with the County’s General Plan, which is required by State Law. Land use development policies are regulated by the General Plan and associated Area Plans. The General Plan Land Use Element functions as a general guide for future development in the County. The residential development proposed on the site is consistent with the Medium Density Land Use designation applied to the site by the General Plan. Vacant and rural lands adjacent to the site to the north and to the east are planned to be developed in the future with urban uses consisting of medium density residential homes, as well as business parks and retail commercial sites along I-215. Land use designations requiring minimum lot sizes of one acre exist to the south and west, as shown in EIR Figure 4-1. In a sense, the proposed project represents the edge of urban development at its southern and western boundaries.

Residential lot sizes proposed by TTM No. 31194 along the property’s southern and western boundaries range from 6,218 square feet to 34,683 square feet. In addition, a landscaped slope and community theme wall that would be owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association is proposed along the entire length of the southern boundary to provide separation to off-site land uses to the south. Along the westernmost boundary, the future alignment of Evans Road would separate the residential areas of TTM No. 31194 and off-site properties to the east.
38 Letters of Comments Responses
74 75
76 77
78 In addition, TTM No. 31194 has been designed to realign Wickerd Road through the project, rather than between the project and the rural community to the south, to direct project traffic onto the arterial highway system avoiding the rural community areas. No access to dirt roads south of the project will be possible. The development of TTM No. 31194 would not result in substantial or extreme land use incompatibility at any of its property boundaries. Development would be buffered from off-site areas to the south and west by the future development of Evans Road, setbacks and landscaping screening.

TTM No. 31194 would accommodate equestrian use by incorporating equestrian trails through and within the project. These trails will be designed in accordance with Riverside County standards in order to provide safe passage for equestrian riders. The multi-purpose trail planned along Wickerd Road would be designed as both a north/south and east/west trail connection and would link with existing and planned trails in the area. The proposed on-site trails plan is included in the Final EIR.

76. See response #74 and #75.

77. The trail system for the project has been designed to occur within common areas or within expanded parkways along the major roadways.

In order to insure safety, all trails are being designed in accordance with Riverside County trails standards and have been designed and located to minimize roadway crossings.

78. Comments are noted.
39 Letters of Comments Responses

79. L&L Environmental conducted a pedestrian survey over the project site and no surface resources were discovered. Also, no known resources were identified in the archaeological records search.

80. Mitigation measure 4.4-4 requires that archaeological and tribal monitoring be conducted on a full-time basis for all grading and ground disturbing activities. Tribal monitoring will be conducted by the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s). Both the Pechanga Band and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians have indicated interest in this property. There is a disagreement among the bands over historic range. Prior to the issuing of a grading permit, the designated Native American monitor(s) will be determined.

81. Mitigation measures 4.4-5 through 4.4-9 address mitigation for the potential discovery of cultural resources during ground disturbing activities associated with project construction.
40 Letters of Comments Responses
79 80
81 82. As an individual submitting comments on the Draft EIR, Mr. Zeidlik will receive a copy of the Final EIR and will be included on the mailing list for all future public notices and hearings regarding this project.

83. The project trail system has been designed to implement and add to the General Plan trail system. In addition, see response #77 and the Trails Plan exhibit provided in the Final EIR.
41 Letters of Comments Responses
82 83

84. The project trail system has been designed using input from the community and the Riverside County Regional Parks, Transportation and Planning Departments in accordance with the County trail standards. In addition, see responses #77 and #83.

85. The 2-lane 32-foot wide extension of Wickerd Road to Haun Road would provide adequate capacity to accommodate the forecasted project traffic. This is based on the anticipated traffic volumes on Wickerd Road once the project is constructed and generating traffic. The proposed 2-lane roadway would have an approximate capacity of 5,000 vehicles per day. The traffic study indicates that up to 3,900 vehicles per day are expected on Wickerd Road for near term conditions. This level of traffic would result in a volume-tocapacity ratio of 0.78 – which is considered acceptable based on the County Standards. This level of traffic implies stable traffic flows with the ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations more restricted than in LOS “B” conditions. Longer queues and/or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds.

The existing schools are located on Garbani Road, east of Murrieta 42 Letters of Comments Responses
83 84
85 86
87 Road with minimal curves in this section of roadway. Safety issues at access points can arise from excessive speeds, poor sight distance, and congested roadways. The speed limit in school zones is 25 miles per hour. If excessive vehicular speeds are observed, this issue would be addressed through enforcement. The sight distance has been provided at the school’s access points. Driver frustration at congested locations may cause irrational behavior leading to potential accidents. This situation can be avoided by providing adequate capacity as described above.

86. Traffic generation is not projected based on persons per household.

Traffic projections are made based on an average of 10 vehicle trips per day, per single-family residential unit regardless of the number of people residing in the household.

87. The traffic due to the existing school, the proposed project, and other cumulative projects has been analyzed in the traffic study prepared for the project. Based on the improvement measures identified in the study, the study area intersections can operate at acceptable service levels. The safety issues have been addressed in the preceding comment. As part of the project description, the project will have two access points to provide reasonable circulation and distribute traffic to both Murrieta Road and Haun Road.

88. Existing noise levels were measured at three locations. As shown in Table 4-18 of the Final EIR, noise from the school was noted at one of the three monitoring stations. The significance criteria in Final EIR Section 4.14 states that noise impacts would be significant if the project would increase noise levels by 3 dBA CNEL or more, regardless of the ambient condition. Therefore, the inclusion or exclusion of noise from the school site does not affect the significance evaluation or conclusion.

89. Refer to response #75. The County is currently preparing consistency zoning as required by State law to bring the zoning of all parcels in the County into consistency with the land use designations applied by the October 2003 adopted General Plan. State law also allows a project applicant to propose a Zone Change to bring the zoning of their 43 Letters of Comments Responses
87 88
89 90
91 92
property into conformance with the recently adopted General Plan in advance of the County’s efforts. The project applicant has elected to propose the Change of Zone rather than wait for completion of the County’s comprehensive consistency zoning program. The project site is currently zoned A-1-10, R-A-5 and R-A-1 and is proposed to be rezoned to R-1, R-4 and R-5 in conformance with its General Plan designations.

90. The proposed project’s Change of Zone, in and of itself, would not generate environmental impacts beyond those assessed in the certified Final EIR for the October 2003 RCIP General Plan. Nevertheless, this Final EIR for TTM No. 31194 and related actions analyzes the effects of all elements of the proposed project, including the Change of Zone approval, which would be required to be taken by the County in approving the project.

Project applicants cannot request General Plan Foundation Component changes except in accordance with the 5 year certainty program set forth in the 2003 adopted General Plan. The certainty system does not preclude Zone Changes that bring zoning into conformance with General Plan land uses. There are no written standards in the adopted General Plan that require projects that are consistent with the adopted General Plan to wait for the 5 year Certainty cycle to change their zoning, provided the zoning designation is consistent with the Foundation Component designation applied to the site.

91. While existing zoning is certainly one factor that was considered in preparing the new General Plan, there is no requirement in State Law, nor in the goals and the policies of the adopted 2003 RCIP General Plan that require conformance with existing zoning. In fact, the General Plan (page I-15 of the adopted October 2003 RCIP General Plan) states “. . . successful implementation can only occur if the County Zoning Ordinance is updated and consistent with . . . “ the adopted General Plan. The Final EIR for Tract 31194 adequately assesses the project’s relationship and impacts on existing adjacent properties and land uses, both existing and as proposed by the 2003 adopted General Plan. The project has been designed to 44 Letters of Comments Responses
93 94
95 96
buffer adjacent lower density uses and to direct project traffic away from existing rural roads. Also see response #75.

92. The project is not proposing any use for the open space area in the northeastern portion of the property.

93. The project proposes a total of 60.7 acres of open space within the project. Residential uses are not proposed in those areas. Additionally, the development area is proposed on the flattest portions of the site. The topographic hillside feature present in the northeastern portion of the property is proposed to be retained as open space. The only uses allowed in open space areas are natural open space, parks, drainage, water quality basins, landscaping and trails.

94. The alternatives selected by the Lead Agency and analyzed in Section 7.0 of the Final EIR reflect a reasonable range of alternatives to the project.

The alternatives are discussed in an adequate level of detail to foster informed decision making. The No Project Alternative was selected as required by CEQA Section 15126.6(e). The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative was selected to show a development footprint that would result from avoiding impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters. The avoidance of wetlands and waters is appropriate to study in consideration of MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The Reduced Density Alternative was selected in order to present a comparative analysis of the proposed project and an alternative that would provide fewer residential units on the site.

95. Of the 483 residential lots proposed by TTM No. 31194, 327 lots (6% of the total number of lots) are less than 7,200 square feet in size. The average residential lot size proposed by TTM No. 31194 is 9,223 square feet. The Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on January 13, 2004, Section II(L)(2), allows for lot sizes in the Medium Density Residential designation to be as small as 5,000 square feet through a discretionary review process. Lot sizes less than 7,200 square feet are permitted based upon the quality of the design and the provision of additional open space areas, parks or other exceptional public improvements or amenities. The proposed project provides for 0.5 acres of open space/drainage easement, 51.1 45 Letters of Comments Responses
acres of open space/landscape, 2.7 acres of water quality basin lots, and

6.4-acres of neighborhood park space. The County will consider the proposed amenities in its decision making process regarding the project’s proposal to construct 27 lots less than 7,200 square feet in size.

96. The significance thresholds used for air emissions are based on standards published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air quality is a regional issue and the same standards apply across the entire air basin.
46 Letters of Comments Responses

97. Refer to responses #98 through #102.
47 Letters of Comments Responses
97 98. Outdoor advertising devices identifying a business are not proposed by TTM No. 31194.

99. Commercial development is not proposed by TTM No. 31194. 100. See response #75.
48 Letters of Comments Responses
98 99
100
101. Outdoor advertising devices identifying a business are not proposed by TTM No. 31194.
49 Letters of Comments Responses
100
101
50 Letters of Comments Responses
101
TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

1.1.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared for the purpose of analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, which consists of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 31194), Change of Zone (CZ No. 06764) and General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00729).

An Environmental Assessment (EA No. 38942) prepared by the County of Riverside (hereafter referred to as “the County”) determined that there is a potential for significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, and an EIR, as defined by State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15161, is required. The "project" consists of a proposed residential development, its required discretionary approvals, and subsequent actions necessary to implement the proposed project. Specifically, project proposes the following three discretionary actions:
• A Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 31194) to subdivide approximately 204.7 acres into 486 single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, 3 park lots, 7 open space/drainage easement lots, 3 water quality basin lots, and 31 open space/landscape lots.
• A Change of Zone (CZ No. 06764) to change the zoning classifications on the subject property from “Residential Agriculture, One-acre minimum lot size (R-A-1)”, “Residential Agriculture, Five-acre minimum lot size” (R-A-5), “Light Agriculture, Oneacre 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)”.
• A Circulation Element General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00729) to: 1) upgrade and change the alignment of Garbani Road, east of Evans Road, to future Wickerd Road between Haun Road and Evans Road from a Secondary to a through the project site as a Major 118-foot right-of-way (ROW); 2) reduce Garbani Road from an Urban Arterial to a Secondary between Haun Road and Bradley Road; 3) reduce Garbani Road from a Major to a Collector between Bradley Road and its new terminus east of Evans Road; 4) reduce Bradley Road from a Major to a Secondary between Craig Avenue and Garbani Road; and 5) to correct a mapping error to remove an unnamed Secondary between Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

EA No. 38942 also identified the need for a Land Use Element General Plan Amendment to change the property’s land use designation to “2-4 dwelling units per acre.” However, since the time EA No. 38942 was prepared, Riverside County adopted a comprehensive General Plan Update on October 3, 2003. The project site lies within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP) of the General Plan, which designates the project site as “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” and “Rural Residential.” Because the proposed project is consistent with the recently adopted General Plan’s land use designation for the site, a Land Use Element General Plan Amendment is no longer necessary.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-2
State CEQA Guidelines §15161 states that an EIR “…should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(a) requires that an EIR “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects” of a proposed project. “Effects” and “impacts” have the same meaning and are used interchangeably within this EIR.

In the environmental analysis sections of this EIR, the existing site conditions are disclosed followed by an analysis of potential impacts that may be caused by implementation of the proposed project.

Where the impact analysis demonstrates that a potential adverse environmental effect would or may (without undue speculation) occur, mitigation measures are provided to minimize the significant effects. In most cases, implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the adverse environmental impact to below a level of significance. If feasible mitigation measures are not available, the significant effect is identified as one which would result in a significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

1.1.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY
This EIR fulfills the environmental review requirements of the CEQA for TTM No. 31194, CZ No. 06764, GPA No. 00729 and associated implementing actions, and discloses potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This EIR is an informational document intended for use by the County decision makers and members of the general public in evaluating the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(3), an EIR must contain a summary of issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects of the project. Acting as Lead Agency, the County will consider the following issues regarding TTM No. 31194, CZ No. 06764 and GPA No. 00729: a) evaluation of the Project EIR to determine if the physical environmental impacts are adequately disclosed; b) assessment of the adequacy and feasibility of identified mitigation measures and the potential addition, modification to, or deletion of mitigation measures, standard conditions or project design features; c) consideration of alternatives to the project that would reduce or eliminate significant environmental effects of the project; and if necessary, d) consideration of project benefits that override the project’s unavoidable and unmitigable significant effects on the environment.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15040 through §15043, and upon completion of the CEQA review process, the County will have the legal authority to:

1. Approve the proposed project;

2. Require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment;

3. Disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project was approved as proposed; and

4. Approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency (i.e., Riverside County) makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: a) there is no feasible way to lessen the effect or TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-3
avoid the significant effect; and b) identifies expected benefits from the project that will outweigh significant environmental impacts of the project.

1.2 SCOPE AND CONTENT

1.2.1 SCOPE
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft EIR, including a description of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project, was distributed to the California State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other interested parties on June 25, 2003. The objective of distributing the NOP was to identify and determine the full range and scope of environmental issues of concern so that these issues could be fully examined in this EIR. A publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting was held at a Riverside County Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2003. Written comments received by the County during the NOP process and verbal comments received at the EIR Scoping Meeting are addressed in this EIR.

The EA and NOP distribution list and written comments received by the County from their distribution are contained in Appendix A. Issues raised in comments to the NOP and during the EIR Scoping Meeting are listed below in Table 1-1, Issues to be Resolved. The purpose of this table is to present the primary environmental issues of concern. The table is not intended to list every comment raised during the NOP review period. Regardless of whether or not a comment is listed on the table, all applicable comments received on the NOP and at the EIR Scoping Meeting are addressed in this EIR.

Table 1-1: ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
a. Potential land use inconsistency with regional plans, including the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. b. Potential existence of on-site hazardous wastes or materials, including agricultural pesticides.
c. Potential short-term construction related impacts associated with grading. d. Potential impacts to on-site cultural resources, off-site landfill capacity and on and off-site biological resources, including species associated with ephemeral pool habitats. e. The provision of an adequate water supply.
f. Compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land uses. g. Potential impacts to sensitive cultural resources and measures to reduce those impacts.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-4

1.2.2 CONTENT
The format of this document is a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to criteria established by the County. Section 2.0 of this EIR describes the environmental setting, including descriptions of the on-site conditions and surrounding land uses and development. Section 3.0 serves as the EIR’s Project Description. Sections 4.0 and 5.0 provide an analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur with implementation of the proposed project. Land use appropriateness, General Plan land use consistency, and Area Plan consistency are also discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. Other topical areas required by CEQA are presented in Sections 6.0 through

8.0. The project’s required Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is included in the Introduction of this EIR.

Several technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation which were used in preparing this Project EIR are bound separately as technical appendices and are available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, located at 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA. The list of technical appendices include the following:

A. Environmental Assessment No. 38942, Notice of Preparation and Written Comments B1. General Biological Survey Report
B2. Jurisdictional Delineation
B3. Focused Survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher B4. Focused Survey for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
B5. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) (Revised)
B6. Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl
B7. Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
C. Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Reports
D1. Hydrology Study (Revised)
D2. Water Quality Management Plan (Revised)
E. Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplement
F. Air Quality Impact Analysis (Revised)
G. Noise Study
H1. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
H2. Geotechnical Review Update
I. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
J1. Water Report
J2. Sewer Report
J3. Water Supply Assessment
K. Written Correspondence
L. Title Report
This Project EIR also references other non-project specific technical studies, analyses and reports which have been incorporated by reference. Referenced, non-project specific documents are identified in the appropriate section(s) of this document and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and this Project EIR is described. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, documents incorporated by reference are available for public review at the locations noted in the text. These documents and other documents and reference sources used during the preparation of this EIR are identified in Section 8.0, References.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-5
The table below provides a quick reference in locating the CEQA required sections within this document.

CEQA REQUIRED TOPIC LOCATION
Table of Contents ........................................................................................... Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................... Section 1.0 Environmental Setting............................................................................................... Section 2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................... Section 3.0 Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................ Section 4.0 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................... Section 5.0 Areas of Known Controversy.......................................................................................Table 1-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...........................................................Table 1-2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................... Section 6.2 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................... Section 7.0 Growth Inducing Impacts.......................................................................................... Section 6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented ............................... Section 6.4 Project Correspondence............................................................................................. Section 8.0 Organizations, Persons, and Documents Consulted .................................................. Section 8.0

1.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS
The County is the Lead Agency for the proposed project, under whose authority this Project EIR has been prepared. This EIR will be used by the following public agencies in connection with the following decisions:

RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors regarding approval of Change of Zone No. 06764.
b. Recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors regarding approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 31194.
c. Recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors regarding approval of Circulation Element General Plan Amendment No. 00729.
d. Recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors regarding EIR Certification.

Riverside County Board of Supervisors
a. Approve by ordinance Change of Zone No. 06764.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-6
b. Adopt by resolution Tentative Tract Map No. 31194.
c. Adopt by resolution Circulation Element General Plan Amendment No. 00729. d. Certify by resolution EIR and make appropriate CEQA findings.

Subsequent Discretionary Actions
Subsequent discretionary actions may include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Plot plans and/or conditional use permits by the County, approving development of specific uses permitted or conditionally permitted by the approved zoning. b. Grading permits, road improvements, and drainage improvements by the County of Riverside, to allow implementation of the project.
c. Water and sewer system approvals by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to construct the necessary infrastructure to provide domestic service. d. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and §401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding water quality and the prevention of siltation, erosion, or water quality degradation. e. Encroachment permits by the County to allow access within County rights-of-way, for construction of various roadway/circulation and utility improvements. f. Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (§404) and California Department of Fish & Game (§1601/1603) for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters.

This EIR is intended to serve as the required CEQA document for the proposed project and all subsequent discretionary actions required to implement the proposed project. If, after certification of this EIR, a change in the project scope is proposed that could result in a new or expanded environmental impact and that requires discretionary approval, the Lead Agency shall conduct additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

1.4 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
State law requires that all EIRs be reviewed by state trustee agencies and responsible agencies (CEQA Guidelines §15205 and §15096). A Trustee Agency is defined in State CEQA Guidelines §15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project.” For TTM No. 31194, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) are identified as Trustee Agencies. The RWQCB will require a §401 Water Quality Certification and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to ensure that during and after construction, on-site water flows do not result in siltation, other erosional actions, or degradation of surface or subsurface water quality. A Streambed Alteration Agreement (§1601/1603) may be TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-7
required from the CDFG for impacts to jurisdictional state streambeds. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is identified as a Responsible Agency for issuance of a §404 Permit for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

1.5 SUMMARY
The proposed project includes TTM No. 31194, CZ No. 06764, GPA No. 00729 and associated discretionary actions for a 204.7-acre property located north of Wickerd Road and west of Evans Road in the Menifee Valley area of unincorporated Riverside County. The project proposes to provide a maximum of 486 single-family residential dwelling units, a neighborhood park, open space, and associated infrastructure and utility improvements.

A summary of the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the project and recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid significant effects are summarized on the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Table, Table 1-2. No areas of controversy regarding the proposed project are known by the Lead Agency. Issued raised by the public during circulation of this EIR’s Notice of Preparation and during the EIR public scoping meeting include those previously listed in Table 1-1. Alternatives to the proposed project evaluated in Section 7.0 of this document include a No Project Alternative which considers continued agricultural use of the property, a Reduced Project Alternative which considers the development of one-acre lots on the site, and a Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative which considers reducing the development footprint to avoid on-site impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters. A comparison of the significant effects among these alternatives and the proposed project is contained in Table 7-1. In summary, none of the alternatives would reduce the proposed project’s significant and unmitigable impacts (air quality impacts and impacts to freeway mainlines) to below a level of significance.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-8MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

4.1 LAND USE CONSISTENCYThe 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 GLAREAt 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.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-9

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESVegetation 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. 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 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 Reduced to below a level of significance. Not significant. 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.

Mitigation is not required. 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 Riverside County Planning Department Not applicable. Riverside County Planning Department Prior to the issuance of clearing, grubbing, or grading permits. Not applicable. Prior to the issuance of clearing, grubbing or grading permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-10

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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. 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.

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.

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 impacts will be avoided until the juveniles have fledged.

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

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-11

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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.
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.

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 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 Riverside County Planning Department. RCA, ACOE, CDFG Riverside County Environmental Programs Department Prior to the issuance of clearing, grubbing or grading permits. Prior to Final Map approval and issuance of building and occupancy permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-12

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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.

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.

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 distributed 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 Riverside County Planning Department Prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of building permits.

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCESArchaeological 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 archaeologically sensitive sites occurring on the proposed project site exists. The potential for disturbance to undiscovered 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 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, Riverside County Planning Department; Project Archaeologist Prior to the issuance of grading permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-13

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE sites during grading is regarded as a potentially significant impact. consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño
Tribe(s) appropriate Native American Tribe(Pechanga), find the potential is high for impact to significant cultural resources, is required. A pregrading 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 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 shall enter into a preexcavation 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.

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

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-14

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s)
Pechanga Tribe 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, 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.

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.

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.

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
Riverside County Planning Department; Project Archaeologist; NAHC Riverside County Planning Department; Project Archaeologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Archaeologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Archaeologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities. At the completion of grading activities.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-15

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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.

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 paleontologic 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 Paleontologic 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 Archaeologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Prior to issuance of grading permits. Concurrent with grading activities. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Concurrent with grading activities.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-16

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE below an acceptable level.

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 fossil 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 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 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 Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Riverside County Planning Department; Project Paleontologist Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities. Upon commencement of grading activities.

Upon completion of grading activities.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-17

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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.

4.5 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND DRAINAGEThe 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 sig Mitigation is not required. None None

4.6 WATER QUALITYImplementation 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 would reduce direct impacts to water quality, cumulative impacts would remain significant and require mitigation.

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 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 Management 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 riprap at storm wear discharge points to stabilize flow and reduce 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 permit also requires a monitoring, reporting and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Department; Regional Water Quality Control Board Prior to the issuance of grading permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-18

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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 and 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.

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Riverside County Planning Department Riverside County Planning Department Prior to approval of Final Map and final engineering drawings. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SLOPE STABILITYThe 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, (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 (UBC), including Appendix Chapter 33. Grading Riverside County Engineering Division; Riverside County Geologist; Project Geologist Riverside County Engineering Division; Riverside County Geologist; Project Geologist Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Concurrent with grading activities.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-19

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE shall also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Standard Grading Specifications contained in the geotechnical report 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.

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.

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.

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 Riverside County Engineering Division; Riverside County Geologist; Project Geologist Riverside County Engineering Division; Riverside County Geologist; Project Geologist Riverside County Engineering Division; Riverside County Geologist; Project Geologist Riverside County Engineering Division; Riverside County Geologist; Project Geologist Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities and prior to the issuance of building permits.

Concurrent with grading activities. Concurrent with grading activities.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-20

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE present on-site 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 (greater than 12 inches) shall be place 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.

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

4.8 SOILS, SLOPES AND EROSION POTENTIALThe 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.

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.

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 Planning Department Riverside County Planning Department; Riverside County Engineering Division.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to issuance of grading permits. Prior to issuance of grading permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-21

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.

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.

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 overexcavated and compacted.

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

4.9 AGRICULTUREApproximately 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 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.

Riverside County Planning Department
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

4.10 MINERAL RESOURCESThe project would not result in the loss of an Aggregate Resource Area. The property is not located near a State classified or Not significant. Mitigation is not required. None None
TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-22

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE designated area or existing surface mine. 4.11 TOXIC SUBSTANCESDuring 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.

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.

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 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, 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.

4.11-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, soil sampling shall occur to identify levels of methane, pesticides,
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
Prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Concurrent with grading and construction activities. Concurrent with grading and construction activities. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-23

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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.

4.12 CIRCULATION AND TRAFFICA 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. 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.

4.12-1 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 twolane 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 twolane 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 project 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.

Riverside County Transportation Department Riverside County Transportation Department Riverside County Transportation Department Riverside County Transportation Department Riverside County Transportation Department Riverside County Transportation Department Riverside County Transportation Department Prior to issuance of building and occupancy permits Prior to issuance of building and occupancy permits.

Prior to issuance of building and occupancy permits. Prior to issuance of building and occupancy permits. Concurrent with project implementation. Concurrent with project implementation. Concurrent with project implementation.

4.13 AIR QUALITYTemporary construction activity air emissions will occur during project buildout, including dust, equipment exhaust Reduced to below a level of significance: PM-10 (construction dust)

4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
owner/permittee shall submit an accelerated construction dust abatement management program to Riverside County Building and Safety Department; South Coast Air Quality Management Prior to the issuance of grading permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-24

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE and architectural surface treatments fumes.

Direct and cumulatively significant and unmitigable:NOx (construction equip. exhaust) VOC (arch. surface coatings)
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.

4.13-2 The project applicant/contractor shall reduce “spillover” 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.

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. (C) During construction, electricity should be used
from power poles instead of from portable generators as feasible as determined by the construction superintendent.

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 District Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Concurrent with grading and construction activities. Concurrent with grading and construction activities. Prior to commencement of grading and construction activity phases. Concurrent with construction activities.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-25

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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 emissions) of ROG per liter) and high pressure-low volume
(HPLV) paint applicators.

Feasible mitigation for long-term CO emissions is not available on a project-specific basis.

N/A N/A

4.14 NOISEConstruction 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.

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 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 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.

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.

Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Concurrent with grading and building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits.

Concurrent with grading and building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-26

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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 (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.

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.

4.14-11: Prior to issuance of building occupancy permits, the Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Safety Department Riverside County Building and Concurrent with grading and
building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits. Concurrent with grading and building permits. Prior to issuance of occupancy TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-27

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 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.

Safety Department permits. Concurrent with
construction activities.

4.15 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND RECREATIONThe 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 inlieu 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 PROTECTIONImplementation 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.

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.

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 funding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County Planning Department Riverside County Fire Department Riverside County Planning Department Prior to the issuance of building permits or water improvement plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits or water improvement plans. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-28

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

4.17 SHERIFF SERVICESImplementation 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.

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.

Riverside County Planning Department Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.

4.18 SOLID WASTEImplementation 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 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.

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.

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 Riverside County Waste Management Department Riverside County Waste Management Department Riverside County Waste Management Department Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-29

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 SERVICESProject 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 onsite 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 SCHOOLSImplementation 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 LIBRARIESDevelopment 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 the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including library facilities.

Riverside Count Planning Department
Prior to the issuance of building permits.

TTM NO. 31194 1.0 INTRODUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 1-30

IMPACTS

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE AFTER

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE PARTY / MONITORING PARTY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

4.22 HEALTH CARE SERVICESThe 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 RESOURCESImplementation 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 UTILITIESImplementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for utilies. 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 PREPAREDNESSFire Hazards 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.

Reduced to below a level of significance.

TTM NO. 31194 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2-1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

2.1.1 LOCAL SETTING
The project site is located in an unincorporated portion of southwestern Riverside County, California.

The property is northwest of the City of Murrieta, southeast of the Cities of Canyon Lake and Perris, and southeast of the City of Lake Elsinore. The project’s location within the southwestern Riverside County region is shown on Figure 2-1, Regional Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map. The 204.7-acre project site occupies the west half of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. Regional access to the east of the project site is provided via the Scott Road and Newport Road exits from Interstate 215 (I-215).

As shown in Figure 2-3, Aerial Photograph, the project site is bounded on the north, the south, and the west by vacant land and some rural residential homes. An approved tentative tract map referred to as Cimarron Valley Estates (TTM No. 30142) is located immediately to the northwest and is approved for 523 single-family residential lots, as well as a community park and greenbelts. An EIR (SCH No. 2002051147) for adjacent TTM No. 30142 and related Change of Zone Case No. 6670 was certified by the County Board of Supervisors in June 2004. The property to the east is composed of hills with rock outcroppings.

2.1.2 REGIONAL SETTING
Riverside County is located in an urbanizing area referred to as the Inland Empire. Southern California's Inland Empire is a 28,000 square mile region comprised of San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and the eastern tip of Los Angeles County, and is a fast-growing metropolitan area with large amounts of available land for future growth.

In addition to abutting Los Angeles County to the north and San Bernardino County to the northeast, western Riverside County also abuts Orange County on the west and San Diego County on the south.

These adjacent counties have large employment bases and given Riverside’s relatively close proximity to these adjacent counties, many Riverside County residents commute to jobs in adjacent counties. Year 2000 Censes data reported the population of Riverside County as approximately 1.5 million persons. The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) forecast models predict that the population of the County will almost double to approximately 2.8 million persons by year 2025 (County General Plan EIR Table 5.D).

As a result of this population growth, Interstate 15 (I-15) and Interstate 215 (I-215) have become major vehicular travel routes between Riverside and San Diego and Orange Counties. Interstate 15 (I-15) is the primary travel route between Riverside County and San Diego County. The TTM No. 31194 project area is located approximately 0.77-mile west of I-215, and six (6) miles east of I-15.

The project site’s relationship to regional aspects of traffic, air quality, noise, biological resources, public facilities and services, among other topical areas, are identified in Sections 4.0, Environmental Analysis, and 5.0, Cumulative Effects, of this EIR.
2-2
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Regional Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 2-1

MENIFEE R
O
AD
M
U
R
RIETA
R
O
A
D

OTT ROAD
SC
15 215
79 74
TTM No. 31194
Site
PERRIS
CANYON
LAKE
LAKE

ELSINORE

MURRIETA
HEMET

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY

OAD R NOYN
CA

RAILROAD

NEWPORT ROAD
2-3
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Vicinity Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 2-2
TTM No. 31194
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Aerial Photograph

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
2-4
Fig. 2-3
Source: Eagle Aerial, May 2002
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
TTM NO. 31194 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2-5

2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT
Figure 2-3, Aerial Photograph, depicts the proposed project site and surrounding properties. As shown, the project site is bounded on the east by hills and rock outcroppings, on the north and south by vacant land, rural residential homes and agricultural operations including a commercial nursery, and on the west by vacant land, agricultural operations and two public schools, Menifee Valley Middle School and Menifee Elementary School.

Figure 2-4, Surrounding Development, depicts existing and planned development surrounding the project site, including several approved and proposed County Specific Plans and Tract Maps, as described below.
‰ Newport Estates Specific Plan No. 140: The Newport Estates Specific Plan (SP 140) is located north of Holland Road and west of Bradley Road approximately three miles to the north of TTM No. 31194. SP No. 140 is approved for a maximum of 856 residential dwelling units, a commercial area, business park, schools, parks, and open space on 1,977 acres. Nine (9) tract maps have been approved, but no development has yet occurred. ‰ Countryside Specific Plan No. 194: Countryside Specific Plan (SP 194) is located north of Holland Road and West of I-215 approximately five miles northeast of the project site. SP No. 194 is approved for a maximum of 1,154 residential dwelling units. No tract maps have been approved and the uses for SP 194 are not yet constructed. ‰ Cal Neva Specific Plan No. 208: Cal Neva Specific Plan (SP 208) is located north of Holland Road and is bisected east and west by Bradley Road. SP 208 is approximately 2.75 miles north of TTM No. 31194 between SP 140 and SP 194. SP No. 208 is approved for a maximum of 1,670 residential dwelling units. The project is under construction and approximately 928 of the 1,670 dwelling units are currently built. ‰ Audie Murphy Ranch Specific Plan No. 209: Audie Murphy Ranch Specific Plan (SP 209) is located north of Holland Road and west of Murrietta Road approximately 6.75 miles northwest of TTM No. 31194. SP No. 209 is approved for a maximum 2,190 residential dwelling units, two schools, recreational amenities, and open space uses on 1,134 acres. No development has yet occurred within SP 209.
‰ Canyon Cove Specific Plan No. 282: Canyon Cove Specific Plan (SP 282) is located north of Holland Road and west of Murrietta Road approximately six miles northwest of TTM No. 31194 and south of SP 209. SP No. 282 is approved for a maximum of 485 residential dwelling units. No development has yet occurred within SP 282. ‰ TTM 30142: TTM 30142 is located south of Craig Avenue, east of Murrietta Road, and north of Garbani Road immediately northwest of TTM No. 31194. In June 2004, TM 30142 was approved by the County for 523 single family residential homes, roads and recreation uses on a 166.3-acre site. No development has yet occurred within the approved tract map boundary.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Surrounding Development

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
2-6
Fig. 2-4
Source: Eagle Aerial, May 2002
not to scale
215
SP 194
SP 282 SP 208
SP 209
SP 140

PROJECT
SITE
TM 30064
TM 30554
TM 30142
TM 30902
TM 29636
PP 18014
SP 116
SP 158 SP 247
SCHOOL

SCHOOL LEGEND
SP # Specific Plan (SP) Name
116
140
158
194
208
209
247
282
The Farm
Newport Estates
Menifee Village
Countryside
Cal Neva
Audie Murphy Ranch
Menifee East
Canyon Cove
TM #
30064
30554
30142
30902
29636
PP #
18014
Overlays
Undeveloped/Agriculture
Commercial/Business Uses
Rural Residential
Schools
TTM NO. 31194 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2-7
‰ TTM 30064: TTM 30064 is located south of Holland Road and east of Murrietta Road, approximately four miles northwest of TTM No. 31194. TM 30064 was approved by the County in June 2003 for 185 single family residential homes on 67.3 acres. Construction began in 2004.
‰ TTM 30554: TTM 30554 is located south of Holland Road, east of Murrietta Road, and south of TTM 30064 approximately 3.25 miles northwest of TTM No. 31194. TM 30554 is was approved by the County in November 2003 for 87 single family residential homes on

35.4 acres. No development has yet occurred within the approved tract map boundary. ‰ TTM 30902: TTM 30902 is located south of Holland Road and west of Haun Road, approximately three miles northeast of TTM No. 31194. TM 30902 is proposed for 118 single family residential homes. No development has yet occurred within the proposed tract map boundary.
‰ TTM 29636: TTM 29636 is located south of Garbani Road and west of Murrietta Road, approximately 3.5 miles northwest of TTM No. 31194. TTM No. 29636 was approved by the County in October 2003 for 75 single family residential homes on 76.8 acres. No development has yet occurred within the approved tract map boundary. ‰ PP 18014: Plot Plan 18014 is located north of Wickerd Road and west of Interstate 215 approximately 0.5 mile north of TTM No. 31194. PP 18014 was approved by the County in February 2003 for mini-storage warehouse uses on 9.14 acres. No development has yet occurred within the approved plot plan boundary.

2.3 EXISTING PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS
TTM No. 31194 project site contains vacant land, active and inactive agricultural areas, and other disturbances. A ranch house that previously existed on the property was removed in December 2003 in accordance with approved County Demolition Permit No. BDE030201. A general description of the property’s existing physical site conditions is provided below. ‰ Topography
The project site is primarily undeveloped and approximately 75 percent of the site is used for agricultural purposes. Topographically, the central and southeastern portions of the property are relatively flat lying, while the northeastern region of the property is characterized by a steep landform feature. The site ranges in elevation from approximately 1,500 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 1,762 feet above MSL in the southwestern corner of the project site.

Overall topographic relief across the site is approximately 262 feet. ‰ Geology
The site is located in the Northern Peninsular Range on the southern sector of the structural unit known as Perris Block. Perris Block is bounded on the northeast by the San Jacinto Fault Zone, on the southwest by the Elsinore Fault Zone, and on the north by the Cucamonga Fault Zone. The Peninsular Range is characterized by large Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary rocks. The site does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo earthquake Fault Zone meaning no active faults have been mapped within the site. The nearest known active fault is the Temecula TTM NO. 31194 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2-8
Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone which is located 6.6 miles to the south of the project area. The project site consists of three geologic layers, namely soil/colluvium, weathered bedrock, and unweathered bedrock of both basic and granitic composition. Subsurface materials within the site consist of two geologic units consisting of Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) and Cretaceous-Aged Undifferentiated Granitic Bedrock (Kgr). Groundwater is approximately 12 feet below existing grade and the potential for liquefaction is very low.
‰ Hydrology
The project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. The TTM No. 31194 project is located in the San Jacinto River Watershed of the Santa Ana Basin. The project site is divided into two drainage areas. The major area, area “A”, contains an approximate area of 538.0 acres, on-site and off-site, and produces a 100-year storm runoff of 975.7 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow is conveyed to a 100-year storm channel located along Evans Road within off-site Tract Map No. 30142. The minor area, area “B”, contains an approximate area of 16.8 acres and produces a 100- year storm runoff of 41.4 cfs. This flow drains to an existing canyon located to the east of the project site.
‰ Wildlife/Vegetation
The property is highly disturbed and supports active and inactive agricultural land and some disturbed and relatively undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub and northern mixed chaparral vegetation communities. The TTM No. 31194 property is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area and as such is not targeted for preservation. The project site also is not located in additional survey areas, except for the burrowing owl. One blueline stream crosses the site and includes 62,384.3 square feet (1.43 ac) of state streambeds, and of this, 37,667.9 square feet (0.86 ac) are federal jurisdictional drainages and 29,187.7 square feet (0.67 ac) are considered state wetlands. ‰ Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
The results of an archaeological records search indicated that no archaeological sites were previously recorded within the project area boundaries. These results were confirmed by a 2003 field survey which also indicated that no archaeological resources are located within project boundaries. No paleontological resources are known to be located on the project site; however, the paleontological sensitivity of the site’s geologic formations is moderate to high. A total of 25 prehistoric and four historic archaeological sites are located within a one-mile radius of the study area. ‰ Man-Made Features
Approximately 75 percent of the project site is under active agricultural cultivation with dry-farmed grains. One fenced rural residential ranch home was previously located in the western portion of the property and contained a main house with associated outbuildings, along with corrals and fencing containing various farm animals such as donkeys and cows. The ranch house was removed from the property in December 2003 in accordance with approved County Demolition Permit No.

BDE030201. Other site disturbances include two unimproved roads, power lines, off-road vehicle activity and illegal dumping.

TTM NO. 31194 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2-9

2.4 PLANNING CONTEXT

2.4.1 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The project is located in an unincorporated portion of the County. The prevailing planning document for this property is the County’s recently updated (October 7, 2003) General Plan. The updated General Plan, along with the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) are part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). Specifically, the site lies within the Sun City/ Menifee Valley Planning Area of the General Plan.

The Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP) designates the project site for “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” and “Rural Residential.” Consistent with the SCMVAP, TTM No. 31194 proposes to construct residential housing at a gross residential density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The on-site area designated as Rural Residential would be permanently preserved as natural open space. The proposed project would therefore be consistent with the General Plan land use designations on the site. A more detailed discussion of the project’s relationship with the General Plan is provided in Section 4.1 of this EIR.

The existing General Plan Circulation Element shows Garbani Road extending east of Evans Road in an east/west alignment as a Major Roadway (118’ ROW) and shows Wickerd Road extending east of Evans Road also in an east/west alignment as a Secondary Roadway (100’ ROW). As part of this project, the alignments of these two roadways are proposed to be changed. Garbani Road is proposed to be realigned in a northwest/southeast alignment through the middle of the project site as a Major Roadway (118’ ROW) to connect to existing Wickerd Road at the project site’s southeast corner. This roadway alignment change was specifically requested by the County of Riverside Transportation Department during their review of TTM No. 31194. Other roadway classification changes also are proposed as described in Section 3.0 of this EIR.

The project site is currently zoned for “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 (A-1-10).” Proposed CZ No. 06764 seeks to provide consistency with the SCMVAP land use designations by rezoning the project site to “One Family Dwellings (R-1),” “Planned Residential (R-4)” and “Open Area Combined Development (R-5).”

2.4.2 MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. Riverside County approved the MSHCP on June 17, 2003. An Implementation Agreement (IA) between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the County of Riverside was executed and associated 10(a)(1)(B) Permit No. TE-088609 was issued on June 22, 2004. The TTM No. 31194 property is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area.

Properties outside of the Criteria Area not identified for preservation; however, properties outside of the Criteria Area are required to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP’s Protection of Species Associated with Riperian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines, the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species guidelines, and the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. No additional survey needs are identified for the project site, except for a required burrowing owl survey.

TTM NO. 31194 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 2-10

2.4.3 COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) As part of the RCIP process, the County is considering adoption of the CETAP. CETAP identifies locations for major new multimodal transportation facilities to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is conducting various studies to determine the most appropriate location for each of these facilities. Two primary linkages or “corridors” are being studied in the vicinity of the proposed project: the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Alternative and the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Alternatives. The proposed project site is located northwest of the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Alternative and south of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Alternatives. No corridor alternatives are planned to traverse the project site; thus, the proposed project is not expected to be directly affected by any CETAP policies or alternatives.

TTM NO. 31194 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This EIR analyzes potential environmental effects associated with proposed TTM No. 31194, CZ No. 06764, GPA No. 00729 and associated discretionary actions. TTM No. 31194 proposes to accommodate a total 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 located north of Wickerd Road and west of Ascot Way in unincorporated Riverside County. This EIR addresses potential impacts to the physical environment that would or may occur from implementation of the proposed project. Provided in this section is a description of the specific discretionary actions required to implement the proposed project, as well as a statement of the project’s objectives.

3.1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the proposed project is to provide single family housing on the project site consistent with the land use designations assigned to the property by the Riverside County General Plan SCMVAP. The provision of new housing in southwestern Riverside County is critical to accommodate projected population increases. Southern California Association of Governments anticipates that the population of Riverside County will double to almost 2.8 million persons by year 2025. The following is a list of objectives sought by the proposed project. ‰ Provide single-family residential development on the site that is consistent with the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan’s land use designation of “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)”.
‰ Provide for the permanent conservation of open space in the northeast portion of the property where a naturally steep topographic feature occurs.
‰ Anticipate marketing needs and public demand by providing homes that will be marketable within the evolving economic profile of southwestern Riverside County. ‰ Assist in meeting the housing demand in southwestern Riverside County in order to accommodate projected population increases.
‰ Provide neighborhood parks within the community having a minimum of six (6) usable acres for active and passive recreational amenities.
‰ Provide a residential neighborhood that is designed consistent with the Countywide Design Standards & Guidelines to create an attractive, resident-friendly neighborhood.

3.2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31194

3.2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
TTM No. 31194, as depicted on Figure 3-1, Tentative Map, and Figure 3-2, Illustrated Tentative Map, proposes to subdivide the 204.7-acre site into a maximum of 486 single-family residential lots (6,000 square-foot minimum) on 101.3 acres, 3 neighborhood park lots on 6.8 acres, 7 open space/drainage easement lots on 0.5 acres, 3 water quality basins on 2.7 acres, and 31 open space/landscape lots on 49.8 acres.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Tentative Map
3-2
Fig. 3-1

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com no
t to scal
e
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Illustrated Tentative Map - Landscape Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-3
Fig. 3-2
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
DAOR
SNAVE

WICKERD
ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
TTM NO. 31194 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 3-4
Table 3-1: LAND USE ABSTRACT
Land Uses in TTM No. 31194 Acreage
Residential Lots (486 lots) 101.3
Neighborhood Park (3 lots) 6.8
Open Space/Drainage Easement (7 lots) 0.5
Water Quality Basin (3 lots) 2.7
Open Space/Landscape (31 lots) 49.8
Roads 43.6
TOTAL: 204.7
TTM No. 31194 and its technical aspects have been reviewed in detail by the following County of Riverside departments. These departments are responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with County codes and regulations.
• Planning Department • Transportation and Land Management Agency • Transportation Department • Building and Safety Department • Fire Department • Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Health Department • Open Space and Parks District
Review of TTM No. 31194 by the County departments listed above resulted in the production of a comprehensive set of Conditions of Approval. These conditions will be considered by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in conjunction with consideration of the Tentative Tract Map. If TTM No. 31194 is approved, the project will be required to comply with all imposed Conditions of Approval. The Draft Conditions of Approval are herein incorporated by reference and are available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department; 39493 Los Alamos Road; Murrieta, CA 92563.

3.2.2 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
The local public street network serving the project site consists of Wickerd Road and proposed streets interior to TTM No. 31194. Circulation improvements that will occur to Wickerd Road and local streets interior to the project as part of TTM No. 31194 are depicted on Figure 3-3, Circulation Plan. Figure 3-4, Roadway Cross-Sections, depicts the right-of-way widths associated with each of the proposed roadways. Wickerd Road is designated by the Riverside County General Plan Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan as a Secondary Roadway with a 100-foot right-of-way. TTM No. 31194 proposes to construct the on-site segment of Wickerd Road as a Major Roadway with a 118- foot right-of-way. Off-site improvements to Wickerd Road also are proposed, as described below under subsection 3.2.6, Description of Off-Site Improvements.

3.2.3 DRAINAGE PLAN
As part of project development, storm drains will be installed to convey runoff to appropriate outlets (see Figure 3-5, Master Drainage Plan). The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Quality Conservation District is responsible for approving site-specific drainage improvements to ensure proper facility sizing and construction.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Circulation Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-5
Fig. 3-3
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
LEGEND
Major Highway
(118’ ROW Full Improvement)
Wickerd Road
Major Highway
(118’ ROW Partial Improvement)
Wickerd Road
Major Highway
(118’ ROW)
Garbani Road
Modified Collector Road
(80’ ROW) “Y” and “Z” Streets and Portion
of “AA” Street
Local Streets
(56’ ROW)
All Other Interior Streets
Modified Collector Road
(76’ ROW) “W” Street and Portion of “AA” Street
DAOR
SNAVE

WICKERD
ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Roadway Cross Sections

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-6
Fig. 3-4
not to scale
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Master Drainage Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-7
Fig. 3-5
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
LEGEND
Drainage
Bench Drain
BMP Filtration System/
Detention Basin
Grassy Swale (BMP
Filtration System)
Water Quality/
Detention Basin
DAOR
SNAVE

WICKERD
ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
TTM NO. 31194 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 3-8
Three (3) water quality basins are proposed on-site to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 401. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be considered for TTM No. 31194 by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the proposed project and after certification of this EIR. A Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix D2.

3.2.4 WATER AND SEWER PLANS
Domestic water service will be provided to the site by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) as shown in Figure 3-6, Master Water Plan. Water supply is available to serve the proposed project as identified in EMWD’s Urban Water Management Plan, dated December 31, 2000 and a projectspecific Water Supply Assessment for Tentative Tract Map No. 31194, dated August 4, 2004 (see Appendix J3.). The Urban Water Management Plan is herein incorporated by reference and is available for public review at EMWD, 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92572, or online at http://www.emwd.com.

Water lines will be installed on and off-site to connect with existing lines in Haun Road to the east.

The southern portion of TTM No. 31194 will connect to water lines in Haun Road via a 12” line in Wickerd Road to be installed by the project. The northern portion of TTM No. 31194 will be serviced by 12” and 18” water line extensions through adjacent, approved TTM No. 30142 and in Craig Avenue, Bradley Road, and Garbani Road. Off-site water connections to the north are the responsibility of approved TTM No. 30142. CEQA review of TTM No. 30142 was conducted and a Final EIR was certified by the County of Riverside in June 2004 (SCH No. 2002051147). That document is herein incorporated by reference and is available to the public at the Riverside County Planning Department; 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor; Riverside, CA 92502.

Domestic sewer service will be provided to the site by EMWD as shown in Figure 3-7, Master Sewer Plan. Sewer lines will be installed on and off-site to connect to an existing line in Bradley Road.

Off-site connections will be installed to the north through TTM No. 30142 and in Evans Road, Carson Avenue, Murphy Lane, Holland Road, and through private property to a connection point at Bradley Road, approximately 1.25 miles north of Holland Road. Off-site sewer connections to the north are the responsibility of TTM No. 30142; the potential environmental impacts of TTM No. 30142 are disclosed in that project’s certified Final EIR (SCH No. 2002051147) which is herein incorporated by reference.

3.2.5 EARTHWORK AND GRADING
Grading is expected to balance on-site and will not require import or export of materials.

Approximately 165.7 acres will be disturbed on-site by project grading and development and approximately 700,000 cubic yards of cut and fill will be necessary to accommodate development of the site. This quantity may vary as final engineering plans are developed.

3.2.6 DESCRIPTION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
As part of the proposed project, two off-site road improvements will be constructed to provide access to the site. Wickerd Road will be constructed as a paved two-lane road from the southeasterly project boundary to Haun Road with a minimum 30-foot pavement section. Also, Wickerd Road will transition to Garbani Road at the northwestern project boundary and will be extended to the Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Master Water Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-9
Fig. 3-6
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
LEGEND
Proposed Water Mains
(8” Diameter)
Proposed Water Mains
(12” Diameter)
Connection to
Haun Road
(See Figure 3-8)
Connection to
Cimarron Valley
Estates 12” Water
(TM No. 30142)
Connection to
Haun Road through
TTM No. 30142
DAOR
SNAVE

WICKERD
ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Master Sewer Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-10
Fig. 3-7
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
LEGEND
Proposed Sewer
(8” Unless
Otherwise Noted.)
12”
15 ”
Connection to Bradley Road
North of Holland Road.

See Figure XX for Off-Site
Connection.

DAOR
SNAVE

WICKERD
ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
TTM NO. 31194 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 3-11
intersection of Garbani Road/Evans Road as a 56-foot pavement section. The alignments of these two off-site road improvements are consistent with the County General Plan’s SCMVAP. Potential environmental impacts associated with these off-site roadway improvements as well as off-site grading are disclosed in this EIR. See Figure 3-8, Off-Site Grading and Road Improvement Plan.

As depicted in Figure 3-8, Off-site Infrastructure Improvement Plan, and as described above in subsections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, off-site water and sewer improvements also will occur as part of the proposed project. Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed off-site water line in Wickerd Road is analyzed by this EIR. Potential environmental impacts associated with proposed off-site water and sewer lines to the north area are the responsibility of previously approved TTM No. 30142 and were analyzed in that project’s certified Final EIR (SCH No. 2002051147) which is available for public review at the at the Riverside County Planning Department; 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor; Riverside, CA 92502.

3.3 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 06764
CZ No. 06764 proposes to change 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, Tenacre minimum lot size (A-1-10)” to “One Family Dwellings (R-1),” Planned Residential (R-4)” and “Open Area Combined Development (R-5)”. The Change of Zone request is necessary in order to implement and provide consistency with the land use designations provided by the SCMVAP Land Use Map (Figure 3-10, Change of Zone Map).

3.4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00729
The existing County General Plan Circulation Element shows Garbani Road extending east of Evans Road in an east/west alignment as a Major Roadway (118’ ROW) and shows Wickerd Road extending east of Evans Road also in an east/west alignment as a Secondary Roadway (100’ ROW).

As part of TTM No. 31194, the alignments of these two roadways are proposed to be changed.

Garbani Road is proposed to be realigned in a northwest/southeast alignment through the middle of the project site as a Major Roadway (118’ ROW) to connect to existing Wickerd Road at the project site’s southeast corner. An illustration of the proposed alignment change is shown in Figure 3-11, General Plan Amendment Wickerd Road Realignment Map.

Overall, GPA No. 00729 proposes to 1) upgrade and change the alignment of Wickerd Road between Haun Road and Evans Road from a Secondary to a Major; 2) reduce Garbani Road from an Urban Arterial to a Secondary between Haun Road and Bradley Road; 3) reduce Garbani Road from a Major to a Collector between Bradley Road and its new terminus east of Evans Road; 4) reduce Bradley Road from a Major to a Secondary between Craig Avenue and Garbani Road; and 5) to correct a mapping error to remove an unnamed Secondary between Wickerd Road and Evans Road.

These revisions are shown in Figure 3-12, General Plan Amendment Exhibit.

3.5 SUBSEQUENT DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
Subsequent to approval of TTM No. 31194, CZ No. 06764 and GPA No. 00729, other discretionary actions may be necessary to implement the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to plot plans, conditional use permits, grading permits, road improvement permits, drainage improvement permits, water and sewer system approvals, easement and/or roadway encroachment TTM NO. 31194 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 3-12
permits, NPDES permits, and state and federal resource agency permits (including but not limited to ACOE §404 Permit, CDFG §1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Regional Water Quality Control Board §401 Water Quality Certification).

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Off-Site Grading and Roadway Improvement Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-13
Fig. 3-8
Source: Eagle Aerial, May 2002
not to scale

PROJECT
SITE
LEGEND
30’ Paved Roadway from
Project Edge to Haun Road
56’ Paved Roadway from Project
Edge to Intersection of
Garbani Road/Evans Road
Limits of Off-Site Grading
D
A
O
R
YELD
A
R
B
D
AO
R Y
ELD
AR
B
H
A
U
N
R
O
A
D
H
A
U
N R
O
A
D
EVA
N
S
R
O
A
D
E
VA
N
S R
O
A
D
215
D OA
GA R
RBANI
D OA
GA R
RBANI

LIMITS OF OFF-SITE

GRADING
56’
30’
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Off-Site Infrastructure Improvement Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-14
Fig. 3-9
Source: Eagle Aerial, May 2002
not to scale
12”
15” 15” 18”18” 18”
18”
18”
18”
18”

CONNECTION

POINT TO EXISTING

SEWER MAIN

FLOW TOWARD

SEWER TREATMENT
PLANT
12”
18”
12”
18” 18”
12 PROJECT ”
SITE
LEGEND
Existing Water Line
Proposed Off-Site Water Line
Proposed Off-Site Sewer Main
Existing Sewer Main
Proposed Manhole
D
A
O
R
YELD
A
R
B
D
AO
R Y
ELD
AR
B

CRAIG AVE
H
A
U
N
R
O
A
D
H
A
U
N R
O
A
D
215
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Change of Zone Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-15
Fig. 3-10
800' 0' 200' 400' 800'
Current Zoning:

Light Agriculture, 1-acre minimum lot size (A-1-1)
Light Agriculture, 10-acre minimum lot size (A-1-10)
Residential Agriculture, 1-acre minimum lot size (R-A-1) Residential Agriculture, 5-acre minimum lot size (R-A-5) Proposed Change of Zone:

One Family Dwellings (R-1)
Planned Residential (R-4)
Open Area Combined Zone - Residential Development (R-5) R-A-5
R-A-1
A-1-10
A-1-10 A-1-10
A-1-10
A-1-1
A-1-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-4
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-5
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Wickerd Road Realignment Exhibit

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
3-16
Fig. 3-11
Source: Hunsaker & Associates
not to scale
3-17
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
General Plan Amendment Exhibit

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 3-12

GARBANI ROAD
DA
O
R
ATEI R
RUM
DA
O

R SNAVE
DA
O
R
YELDA
RB
DA
O
R NUAH

SCOTT ROAD
TTM No.
31194

WICKERD ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
DA
O
R
ATEI R
RUM
DA
O

R SNAVE

WICKERD ROAD
DA
O
R
YELDA
RB
DA
O
R NUAH

SCOTT ROAD
TTM No.
31194
Source: RCIP
Existing Circulation Element Proposed General Plan Amendment No. 729 Circulation TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 LAND USE CONSISTENCY

4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are numerous policy documents that apply to the proposed project site. A brief description of each policy document is provided below, and an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with these documents is provided below in Subsection 4.1.3.

A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Land use development policies are generally regulated by the County’s General Plan. The General Plan is a policy document that reflects the County’s vision for the future of Riverside County. The vision expresses the prevailing values of the community and how future community-building decisions will be affected by those values. The General Plan is organized into eight separate elements, including Land Use, Circulation, Multipurpose Open Space, Safety, Noise, Housing, Air Quality, and Administration. Each of the various General Plan Elements is instrumental to achieving the County’s long-term development goals. Within each element, a series of policies have been formulated that guide the course of action the County must take to achieve the County’s vision for the future. In addition, the General Plan divides the County into 19 Area Plans. The purpose of these Area Plans is to provide more detailed land use and policy direction regarding local issues such as land use, circulation, open space and other topical areas. The project site is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP) of the General Plan. The following section provides a summary of the SCMVAP and the various General Plan elements. Following these descriptions, Subsection 4.1.3 provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with each General Plan element, in addition to a detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with specific SCMVAP policies.
‰ Land Use Element
The General Plan Land Use Element functions as a land use guide for future development in the County. The Land Use Element designates the general distribution, general location, and extent of land uses, such as housing, business, industry, open space, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and public/quasi-public uses. These designations are reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map, which categorizes individual parcels of land into four basic categories (known as “Foundation Components”): Rural, Community Development, Agriculture, and Open Space. As reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map, the Land Use Element provides for a balanced mixture of land uses, including residential, commercial, office, industrial, agriculture, and open space. The General Plan provides standards for residential density and non-residential intensity, and provides specific policies intended to ensure that residential product types, densities, and intensities respond to a multitude of market segments. The Land Use Element governs how land is to be utilized; therefore many of the issues and policies contained in other plan elements are linked in some degree to this element. ‰ Circulation Element
The purpose of the Circulation Element is to provide for the movement of goods and people, including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, train, air, and automobile traffic flows within and through the TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-2
County. The Circulation Element designates future road improvements and extensions, addresses non-motorized transportation alternatives, and identifies funding options. The various roadway improvements and extensions contemplated by the Circulation Element are reflected on the General Plan Circulation Plan. The various roadway classifications depicted on the Circulation Plan correspond to specific roadway cross-sections, which provide specific standards for right-of-way widths, lane configurations, medians, and landscaping requirements. ‰ Multipurpose Open Space Element
The Multipurpose Open Space Element is intended to protect and preserve natural resources, agriculture and open space areas, manage mineral resources, preserve and enhance cultural resources, and provide recreational opportunities. Together with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the Multipurpose Open Space Element seeks to preserve and protect identified open space areas in order to maintain or improve environmental quality. ‰ Safety Element
In compliance with state law, the primary objective of the Safety Element is to reduce death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social impact from hazards. The goals of the Safety Element are to alleviate the risks associated with identified geologic, seismic, flood, airport safety, electromagnetic fields, and fire hazards.
‰ Noise Element
The Noise Element sets forth goals, objectives, and policies necessary to achieve and maintain an environment which is free from objectionable, excessive, or harmful noise. This Element provides a systematic approach to identifying and appraising noise problems in a community, provides specific policies and standards to ensure that land uses are compatible, and is intended to reduce impacts on sensitive noise receptors.
‰ Housing Element
The Housing Element, as required by state law, identifies and establishes the County’s policies with respect to meeting the needs of existing and future residents of Riverside County. Specific components of the Housing Element include the following: an assessment of housing needs and inventory; an analysis and program for preserving assisted housing developments; a statement of community goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement and development of housing; and a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions that the County is undertaking, or intends to undertake, in implementing the policies set forth in the Housing Element.
‰ Air Quality Element
The Air Quality Element provides background information on the physical and regulatory environment affecting air quality. The purpose of the Air Quality Element is to protect residents of Riverside County from the harmful effects of poor air quality. The Air Quality Element identifies goals, policies, and programs that are meant to balance actions regarding land use, circulation, and other issues with their potential effects on air quality. This Element, in conjunction with local and TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-3
regional air quality planning efforts, addresses ambient air quality standards set forth by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). ‰ Administration Element
Administration of the General Plan policies includes establishing, maintaining, and applying tools and procedures for interpreting the intent of the General Plan. The Administration Element also provides the County with a list of steps in which County staff and the Board of Supervisors can use to determine whether or not a proposed project is consistent with the General Plan’s intent. This Element also provides the applicant of development proposals with a list of steps to follow when applying for a development permit. Additionally, this Element provides County staff with guidance as to how to create a monitoring program that tracks implementation of the General Plan and all approved changes to the General Plan.
‰ Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP)
The proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the SCMVAP, which encompasses unincorporated land bordered by the Cities of Murrieta, Perris, Canyon Lake, and Lake Elsinore.

Most of this planning area has been designated as an Unincorporated Community by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in recognition of a community interest in considering eventual incorporation and in preventing piecemeal annexation to adjacent cities. The SCMVAP is not a stand-alone document, but rather an extension of the County’s General Plan, providing customized direction specifically for the Sun City/Menifee Valley planning area.

According to the SCMVAP Land Use Plan (see Figure 4-1, SCMVAP Land Use Plan), the proposed project site is designated for “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” and “Rural Residential.” Specific analyses of SCMVAP policies pertaining to the proposed project are discussed below in Subsection 4.1.3.

B. MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) which was adopted by the County on June 17, 2003, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. This Plan is one of several large, multi-jurisdictional habitat-planning efforts in Southern California with the overall goal of maintaining biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The MSHCP will allow Riverside County and its cities to better control local land-use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate in the region while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts.

The MSHCP is a criteria-based plan and the County's General Plan Area Plan boundaries were selected to provide the broad organizational framework for the criteria. The Area Plan framework for the criteria-based approach was selected to structure implementation strategies around established planning boundaries. Within each Area Plan, conservation areas are further divided into Area Plan Subunits, for which a similar set of goals and criteria have been established. Each subunit is even further divided into cell groups, to which individual cell quadrants are assigned.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-4
Fig. 4-1
Source: Riverside County GIS
not to scale
LEGEND
Business Park
Commercial Retail
RC - Estate Residential (2 Acre Min. Lot Size)
Low Residential (½ Acre Min. Lot Size)
RC - Low Residential (½ Acre Min. Lot Size)
Light Industrial
Medium Residential (2 - 5 D.U./Acre)
Medium High Residential (5 - 8 D.U./Acre)
Public Facilities
RC - Very Low Residential (1 Acre Min. Lot Size)
Rural Residential (5 Acre Min. Lot Size)
Conservation
Recreation
Cities
Community Center Overlay
Policy Areas
Highways
Major Roads
Parcels
TTM No.
31194
M
U
R
RIE
TA
R
O
A
D

BUNDY CANYON ROAD SCOTT ROAD

GARBANI ROAD
H
A
U
N
R
O
A
D
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-5
An Implementation Agreement (IA) between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the County of Riverside was executed and associated 10(a)(1)(B) Permit No. TE-088609 was issued on June 22, 2004. The TTM No. 31194 property is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area. Properties outside of the Criteria Area not identified for preservation; however, properties outside of the Criteria Area are required to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP’s Protection of Species Associated with Riperian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines, the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species guidelines, and the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. No additional survey needs are identified for the project site, except for a required burrowing owl survey.

C. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a regional agency established pursuant to state and federal law. SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG serves as an areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects. SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. Guidance provided by this review process is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies.

CEQA requires that EIRs discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans and regional plans. Within Riverside County, the applicable SCAG policy documents include the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and the Regional Transportation Plan. An analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with applicable policies from these plans is provided below in Section 4.1.3.

D. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The California Clean Air Act requires that an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) be developed and then updated every three years for air basins with non-attainment status. The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which has non-attainment status for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM10). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board adopted its most recent AQMP on August 1, 2003. The AQMP is a plan for the regional improvement of air quality. As part of adoption of the County’s General Plan in 2003, the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143) analyzed the General Plan growth projections for consistency with the AQMP and concluded that the General Plan is consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Projects consistent with the County General Plan would therefore be consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

4.1.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
A significant land use impact would result if any one or more of the following would occur as a result of the proposed project.
a. Inconsistency/conflict with the environmental goals, objectives, or guidelines of the Riverside County General Plan.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-6
b. Inconsistency/conflict with adopted land use intensities set forth by the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan Land Use Map, and indirect or secondary environmental impacts occur.
c. Inconsistency/conflict with the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program (MSHCP), or other policy document applicable to the proposed project area.
d. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility within the proposed project or at an exterior project boundary.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

An inconsistency with a plan, policy, or guideline is not necessarily a significant environmental impact; the inconsistency would have to relate to an environmental issue to be considered significant under CEQA.

4.1.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The following steps listed in the Administration Element of the General Plan are used to help determine the consistency of development proposals with the various policies stipulated in the Land Use Element section of the General Plan:

1. Determine the Foundation Component in the General Plan Land Use Element and read its description to understand the basic direction for development.

2. Be familiar with the countywide policies that relate to that designation because they apply in all area plans.

3. Determine the land use designation(s) from the area plan (or Land Use Element if not in an area plan).

4. Read the policies of the area plan to understand the applicable local guidance.

5. Determine if background in the Safety Element Technical Background Report (Appendix H of the General Plan), Traffic Report, or the Environmental Impact Report applies to the proposed project. Note: It may be possible to tier off of the General Plan EIR and reduce the scope of project related environmental documentation.

The following analysis is therefore divided into five sections and provides a detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the various General Plan Policies. 1) DETERMINE THE FOUNDATION COMPONENT DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE.

The SCMVAP Land Use Map (see Figure 4-1) designates the project site for “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” and “Rural Residential.” Consistent with the Area Plan, TTM No. 31194 TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-7
proposes to construct 486 homes at a net residential density of 2.4 dwelling units per gross acre (du/ac) in an area designated by the SCMVAP as Medium Density Residential. The on-site area designated as Rural Residential would be preserved as natural open space on TTM No. 31194 (± 39.0 acres) and would not be developed. Because TTM No. 31194 proposes residential densities within the General Plan designated ranges and would accommodate residential uses in a portion of the County that is designated by the General Plan and SCMVAP for such uses, a land use impact would not occur.
2) BE FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTYWIDE POLICIES THAT RELATE TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOUNDATION COMPONENT DESIGNATION BECAUSE THEY APPLY IN ALL AREA PLANS.

The General Plan contains policies that would apply to the proposed project. A general discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan Elements and Policies is provided below.
‰ General Plan Land Use Element

EFFICIENT USE OF LAND
The proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU 2.1 in that it would be developed in accordance with the uses and density depicted on the General Plan and Area Plan Land Use Maps. In addition, an extensive analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment is provided throughout this EIR.

COMMUNITY DESIGN
The proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU 3.1 in that it would implement the land uses depicted on the General Plan Land Use Plan. Furthermore, and in conformance with Policy LU 3.1, the project proposes a pedestrian system that would connect the residential portions of the development with the on-site neighborhood parks.

Approximately 39.0 acres of natural open space would be permanently preserved in the northeastern portion of the project site (proposed TTM lot #503). This open space area would conserve a naturally steep topographic feature, would be contiguous with additional natural open space to the west, and would provide a separation between the residential character proposed for the project site and the more intense development pattern envisioned for the I-215 corridor. The on-site open space area would be permanently preserved by the application of a conservation easement, with allowance for brush clearing along the edge of development to meet County fire suppression standards. The project would therefore be consistent with Policy LU 3.2.

Consideration was given to the surrounding community in the design of the proposed project.

In addition, and in conformance with Policy LU 3.3, the project will construct high-quality housing in compliance with the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines adopted on January 13, 2004.

Density clustering or transfers are not proposed. The project would preserve approximately 39 acres of natural open space in the northeastern portion of the property, while developing residential lots (6,000 s.f. minimum) on much of the remainder of the property which is TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-8
designated by the General Plan as “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac). The proposed project would therefore be consistent with Policy LU 3.4.

PROJECT DESIGN
TTM No. 31194 would comply with established design standards, including compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws, County codes and regulations, and the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Improvements proposed to the area’s circulation system would be consistent with the SCMVAP and ensure safe and convenient access between TTM No. 31194 and existing and future land uses located to the north and east. A pedestrian system and neighborhood park also would be provided on-site to encourage outdoor pedestrian activity. For these reasons, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU 4.1.

Upon implementation of the proposed project, a Master Homeowners’ Association (HOA) would be established. The HOA would ensure that structures and landscaping are maintained to a high standard of design, health, and safety, in conformance with Policy LU 4.2.

INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND SERVICE PROVISION A detailed analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts to infrastructure and services is provided throughout this EIR. In each instance, impacts were analyzed and found to be less than significant, or would be reduced to below a level of significance through incorporation of mitigation measures. Where appropriate, the capacity of infrastructure and services was used in making this determination. Water supply is available to serve the proposed project as identified in EMWD’s Urban Water Management Plan, dated December 31, 2000, and Water Supply Assessment for Tentative Tract Map No. 31194, dated August 4, 2004). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies LU 5.1 through LU

5.3. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
TTM No. 31194 would be consistent with the property’s General Plan land use designations of Medium Density Residential and Rural Residential. As discussed in greater detail in EIR Section 4.2, the project’s proposed design considers the characteristics and unique features of the project site and surrounding community. As stated in Section 4.2, impacts from light and glare would not be significant. Additionally, Sections 4.13, Air Quality, and 4.14, Noise, conclude that localized air quality and noise impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Cumulative air quality impacts would be significant, but because the project is consistent with the land use designation of the SCMVAP, the project would not result in cumulative impacts beyond those previously disclosed by the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would therefore be consistent with Policies LU 6.1 through LU 6.7.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Economic development policies discourage development proposals that place a financial burden on the County, and encourage the maintenance of a balance between jobs and housing within the County. The County’s jobs/housing balance is being addressed through the land use designations of the approved General Plan. The project site is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-9
General Plan Policies LU 7.1 through LU 7.12. Additionally, the project will be consistent with policies LU 9.1 and LU 9.2 by contributing, through the payment of impact fees, to the funding of infrastructure and public facilities.

OPEN SPACE, HABITAT, AND NATURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION
The project proposes to designate approximately 39.0 acres as natural open space in the northeastern portion of the property. This open space area would allow for the conservation of natural slopes and would preserve native biological resources. A natural drainage course also would be conserved through the center of the proposed project. These open space areas would be provided without the need for development clustering or density transfers. In addition, a pedestrian system and a neighborhood park site would be provided to meet the project’s active recreational needs. In addition, the project would comply with the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the General Plan as well as applicable Federal and State regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies LU 8.1 through LU 8.5.

AIR QUALITY
An analysis of project impacts on local and regional air quality is provided in Section 4.13, Air Quality. As indicated in Section 4.13, TTM No. 31194 proposes to implement several measures intended to reduce the project’s localized impacts on air quality. Implementation of these measures would reduce localized impacts, and would ensure project compliance with Policies LU 10.1 through LU 10.4. Cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitigable; however, the project’s individual air quality impact contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not exceed the cumulative impact level previously disclosed by the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143). Because the project is consistent with the General Plan SCMVAP, the project would not result in impacts beyond those previously disclosed by the General Plan EIR.

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND SLOPE
Areas of the site proposed for development generally do not include slopes in excess of 15% gradient. Much of the development area is flat and has been used for non-irrigated crop production. EIR Section 4.9, Soils, Slopes and Erosion, provides a detailed analysis of the project’s anticipated impacts on natural landforms. As concluded in Section 4.9, impacts to natural slopes would not be significant, and the project would comply with Policy LU 11.1.

CIRCULATION
Within TTM No. 31194, streets and streetscapes have been designed to allow for adequate and accessible vehicular access, while providing pedestrian safety through incorporation of curvilinear streets, landscaping, and other traffic calming devices. As indicated in EIR Section 4.12, TTM No. 31194 would construct the on-site segment of Wickerd Road in accordance with the Major Roadway designation of the SCMVAP. The project also would be required to comply with the County’s Traffic Signal Fee Program, Transportation Demand Ordinance, and other County conditions of approval regarding transportation. For these reasons, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies LU 12.1 through 12.7.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-10

SCENIC CORRIDORS
As indicated on the Scenic Highways map of the SCMVAP, the project site is located approximately 0.77-mile west of the nearest designated or eligible scenic highway (Interstate 215). The project site is not directly visible from I-215; therefore, would not result in conflicts with Policies LU 13.1 through 13.8. The natural hillside feature located in the northeastern portion of the site would be permanently preserved as open space and would be visible to the traveling public along nearby public roadways.

AIRPORTS
As indicated on the Policy Areas Map of the SCMVAP, the proposed project site is not located within the influence area of any airport.
‰ General Plan Circulation Element

PLANNED CIRCULATION SYSTEMS
Planned circulation system policies generally provide guidance to County staff with respect to transportation system design. As part of the proposed project, Wickerd Road would be constructed through the project site in a manner that is consistent with the SCMVAP Circulation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies C 1.1 through C 1.7.

LEVEL OF SERVICE
The project’s technical traffic report is included as Appendix E to this EIR, and an analysis of potential transportation impacts included as EIR Section 4.12. The analysis concludes that implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with planned improvements, would not degrade the level of service of any existing or proposed intersection below acceptable levels. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan, and is thereby consistent with the traffic volumes envisioned by the General Plan Circulation Plan and General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies C 2.1 through C 2.7.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
The proposed project’s circulation system would be safe and efficient and consistent with County Road Improvement Standards and Specifications. Intersection and roadway improvements proposed by the project would be consistent with General Plan Table C-2, Highway Lane Requirements. All required roadway improvements that are directly attributable to the proposed project would be constructed as part of TTM No. 31194. These include the on-site segment of Wickerd Road, all in-tract roadways, and the off-site extension of Wickerd Road as a 30-foot pavement section easterly to Haun Road and as a 56-foot pavement section westerly to the Garbani Road/Evans Road intersection. The project would also be required to contribute, through the payment of impact fees, toward the funding of other off-site transportation improvements.

All street improvements proposed by the project would meet travel demands and safety requirements, and are designed to minimize the need for excessive earthwork. Mitigation measures to reduce potential noise impacts are provided in Section 4.14, Noise. For the TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-11
reasons stated above and in EIR Sections 4.12 and 4.15, TTM No. 31194 would be consistent with Policies C 3.1 through 3.33.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
A pedestrian circulation system would be provided in TTM No. 31194, including an off-road trail connecting to the on-site neighborhood park. Where required, the pedestrian paths and sidewalks would conform to ADA regulations. The project applicant has coordinated with the County Transportation Department as part of the development review process and TTM No. 31194 is found to be consistent with Policies C 4.1 through C 4.10.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LANDSCAPING
Streetscape landscaping would occur in accordance with Riverside County requirements, ensuring consistency with Policies C 5.1 through C 5.3.

SYSTEM ACCESS
The proposed project would be consistent with Policies C 6.1 through C 6.7. As depicted on Figure 3-1, Tentative Map, all residential homesites and other parcels proposed by TTM No. 31194 would have recorded public and all-weather access. All access points would be located at sufficient distances from intersections, pursuant to County policy. No residential lot would be directly accessed via Wickerd Road or General Plan designated highways.

PROPERTY OWNER COORDINATION
Policies C 7.1 through C 7.9 do not apply to the proposed project.

SYSTEM FINANCING
Aside from roadway improvements proposed by the project, the project applicant would participate in County programs intended to insure financing for regional roadway improvements (e.g., TUMF, RBBD and Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies 8.1 through 8.8.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The proposed project site is not located near any existing or proposed public transit routes; therefore, Policies C 9.1 through C 13.8 do not apply to the proposed project.

AVIATION SYSTEMS
The proposed project site is not located within any Airport Influence Area; therefore Policies C 14.1 through C 14.3 do not apply to the proposed project.

NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
As part of the proposed project’s design, a pedestrian system would be included, providing access between the residential portions of the project site, the on-site neighborhood park, and regional trail connections near the project site to the north (see Figure 4-26, SCMVAP Trails and Bikeway System). The pedestrian system is designed to meet the needs of future project residents and would be consistent with Policies C 15.1 through C 15.5.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-12

MULTI-PURPOSE RECREATIONAL TRAILS
The General Plan does not identify any multi-purpose community or regional trails on or adjacent to the project site; thus, many trail polices are not applicable to the proposed project.

In compliance with Policies C 16.1 through C 16.7, a pedestrian circulation system is proposed as part of TTM No. 31194 that provides pedestrian access through the community and to the proposed neighborhood park site. A segment of the pedestrian system would be separated from motorized traffic. Sidewalks along area roadways will lead residents to a future regional trail north of the project site and to a future community trail planned south of the project site.

CLASS I BIKEWAY/REGIONAL TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS
The General Plan does not designate any Class I bikeways or regional trails on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, many of the bikeway policies do not apply to the proposed project.

In compliance with Policies C 17.1 through C 18.3, painted bicycle lanes will be provided on Wickerd Road. As is customary in residential neighborhoods, bicyclists will share the roadway with vehicles on local residential streets.

ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND FUNDING OF MULTIPURPOSE TRAILS The General Plan does not identify any multi-purpose trails on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, Policies C 19.1 and C 19.2 do not apply to the proposed project.

SCENIC CORRIDORS
The nearest designated or eligible scenic highway is Interstate 215, located about 0.77-mile west of the proposed project site. The project site is not directly visible from I-215; therefore, Policy C 20.1 does not apply to the proposed project.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Throughout this EIR, potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of project-related roadway improvements are analyzed. In most cases, these impacts are determined to be less than significant. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are provided to reduce those impacts to below a level of significance in compliance with Policies C 21.1 through C 21.9.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND; GOODS MOVEMENT/ DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTES; MAJOR UTILITY CORRIDORS
Policies C 22.1 through C 25.2 relate to regional movement of goods, truck routes and utilities and are not applicable to the proposed project. ‰ Multipurpose Open Space Element

WATER SUPPLY
Policies OS 1.1 through OS 1.3 are not applicable to the proposed project. A discussion of water supply is contained in EIR Section 4.19, Water and Wastewater Services.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-13

WATER CONSERVATION
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has stated that recycled water is the preferred source of supply for all non-potable water demands. TTM No. 31194 has an estimated demand of 57 acre-feet (AF) per year for irrigating landscaping. According to EMWD guidelines, if recycled water is available to the site the project would be conditioned to construct an on-site recycled water system physically separated from the potable water system. EMWD will make a final determination on requirements for recycled water use and facilities during the final design stage of the project. (see EIR Appendix J3.) The project will incorporate planting and irrigation techniques to reduce water consumption. In addition, the installation water conserving appliances will be considered during home construction in accordance with Policies OS 2.1 through OS 2.5.

WATERSHED QUALITY
The proposed project is consistent with Policies OS 3.1 through OS 3.3. EIR Section 4.5, Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage, and Section 4.6, Water Quality, conclude that runoff would be properly handled by the project’s proposed drainage system, which includes storm drains and detention basins that allow for percolation and infiltration of runoff prior to discharge from the site. As stated in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, project runoff would not create a significant impact and would not adversely affect downstream water quality. A Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix D2.

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
The proposed project would preserve an on-site natural drainage course located roughly in the center of the property. This drainage course is planned to be incorporated into the project’s drainage system consistent with Policies OS 4.1 through OS 4.7. In addition, approximately 57.1 acres would be preserved as natural open space and common landscape areas, allowing natural percolation of water.

FLOODPLAIN AND RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT
As indicated by the SCMVAP Flood Hazards Map (SCMVAP Figure 9), there are no floodplains or floodways within the boundaries of the project site, and the project site is not subject to dam inundation hazards. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the on-site natural drainage area would be primarily preserved as open space and incorporated as a natural feature in the project’s master drainage plan. For these reasons, TTM No. 31194 would be consistent with Policies OS 5.1 through OS 5.7.

WETLANDS
As described in greater detail in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the proposed project site contains a natural drainage that would be partially preserved by TTM No. 31194. Permits for disturbance to this area would be required from state and federal resource agencies including the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Compliance with required federal and state permit conditions would ensure consistency with Policies OS 6.1 through 6.3.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-14

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The project would not conflict with Policies OS 7.1 through OS 7.5. Potential impacts to agricultural resources are thoroughly addressed in Section 4.9, Agricultural Resources. As indicated in Section 4.9, Notices of Non Renewal for the property’s Williamson Act Contracts were filed in 1990.

FOREST RESOURCES
Policies OS 8.1 and OS 8.2 are not applicable to the proposed project because there are no forestland resources within the project site or project vicinity.

VEGETATION
Over 75% of the proposed project site has been disturbed by agricultural activities. As a consequence, areas of natural vegetation on the project site are limited to the northeastern portion of the site, the on-site blueline stream area, and a few small scattered patches of land area that were not farmed. TTM No. 31194 proposes to conserve the northeastern portion of the project site as natural open space, comprising more than 20 acres of Riversidean sage scrub. Also, portions of the natural drainage area also would be preserved. Because the project would conserve a majority of the on-site natural habitats, TTM No. 31194 is found to be consistent with Policies OS 9.1 through OS 9.5.

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Policies OS 10.1 through OS 13.1 are directed at developing and using renewable sources of energy and are not applicable to the proposed project.

MINERAL RESOURCES
As concluded in EIR Section 4.10, the project site is not located in a valuable mineral resource area and Policies OS 14.1 through OS 14.6 are not applicable.

ENERGY RESOURCES
Energy Resources are addressed in EIR Section 4.23, which concludes that adequate energy resources exist to serve the proposed project. The project would be required to comply with Title 24 of the State Building Code and is consistent with Policies OS 15.1 through OS 16.10.

MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS As discussed below in Section 4.1.3-B, the proposed project is not located within or adjacent to the MSHCP Criteria Area. In compliance with Policies OS 17.1 through OS 18.2, biological reports have been prepared for the project site and are attached to this EIR as Appendices B1-B5. EIR Section 4.3 discusses the onsite biological resources and presents mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to a level below significant.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
EIR Section 4.4 addresses potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from project implementation. Although no resources were observed on the site, the potential for resource discovery exists during project grading and mitigation measures are TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-15
recommended requiring monitoring during ground disturbance. Implementation of these measures would ensure compliance with Policies OS 19.1 through 19.10.

OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND RECREATION
The proposed project site is not designated by the General Plan for “Open Space – Conservation” land use. As discussed in greater detail in EIR Section 4.15, TTM No. 31194 would conserve 39.0 acres as natural open space in the northeastern portion of the property containing Riversidian sage scrub and will also conserve a portion of an existing blueline stream in the center of the property. In addition to the open space and blueline stream preservation, recreation facilities would be provided by on-site parks and by an on-site pedestrian circulation system. As discussed in EIR Section 4.15, TTM No. 31194 would provide adequate on-site facilities and pay in-lieu park fees to meet the local parkland and open space requirements of Riverside County Ordinance 460, Section 10.35, and State Quimby Act requirements. For these reasons, the project would be consistent with Policies OS 20.1 through OS 20.6.

SCENIC RESOURCES
The northeast portion of the project site contains a natural landform feature that would be preserved as natural open space. This landform would be permanently preserved and would provide scenic value in accordance Policy OS 21.1.

SCENIC CORRIDORS
As indicated by the SCMVAP Scenic Highways Map (SCMVAP Figure 8), the project site is located over one (1) mile from, and is not visible from Interstate 215 (I-215), a designated scenic corridor. Therefore, Policies OS 22.1 through OS 22.5 do not apply. ‰ Safety Element

GENERAL ISSUES AND POLICIES
The proposed project would comply with all applicable building codes, County Ordinances, and State and Federal laws. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies S 1.1 through S 1.3.

FAULT RUPTURE; SEISMICALLY-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION, LANDSLIDES, AND ROCK FALLS; LANDSLIDES, ROCKFALLS, AND DEBRIS FLOWS; SUBSIDENCE AND EXPANSIVE & COLLAPSIBLE SOILS Potential impacts associated with geotechnical hazards are addressed in EIR Section 4.7, which is based on site-specific geotechnical studies. As indicated in Section 4.7, development of TTM No. 31194 would not expose persons to significant fault rupture hazards or seismically induced liquefaction, landsliding, or settlement. No landslides or areas of potential rockfall or debris flow are identified. The potential exists for erosion and manufactured slope instability, but these conditions can be minimized by application of measures recommended by the geotechnical studies. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all applicable provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Implementation of recommendations provided in Section 4.7 and in the project’s geotechnical reports would ensure consistency with Policies S 2.1 through S 3.10.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-16

WIND EROSION HAZARDS
The proposed project would be consistent with Policies S 3.11 through S 3.14. The site is identified on General Plan Figure S-8 (Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map) as having only a moderate susceptibility to wind erosion hazards.

FLOOD AND INUNDATION HAZARDS
TTM No. 31194 would not conflict with Policies S 4.1 through S 4.22. According to General Plan Figure S-9 (100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Zones), the proposed project site is not subject to flood or dam inundation hazards. Potential impacts associated with flooding are addressed in Section 4.5, Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage.

FIRE HAZARDS
Fire hazard potential on the project site is thoroughly addressed in Section 4.16, Fire Protection. As indicated in Section 4.16, the proposed project would comply with all applicable standards for fire safety, as defined in the County Building and Fire Codes.

Implementation of the proposed circulation plan would ensure that secondary public access is provided to the project site. Fuel modification requirements specified in Section 4.16 would require approval from the County Fire Chief prior to project implementation. Maintenance of fuel modification areas would be performed by the Master HOA and individual property owners. Implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 4.16 would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with Policies S 5.1 through S 5.10.

HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MATERIALS
Potential impacts associated with hazardous wastes and materials are addressed in EIR Section 4.11, which concludes that potential impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance, consistent with Policy S 6.1.

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
Disaster Preparedness is addressed in EIR Section 4.25. As indicated, TTM No. 31194 would not conflict with any disaster preparedness plans, nor would the project subject individuals to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, erosion, seismic activity, blowsand, or flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies S 7.1 through S 7.23.
‰ Noise Element
Potential impacts associated with noise are addressed in EIR Section 4.14 and in a projectspecific noise report included as Appendix G to this EIR. Section 4.14 concludes that impacts associated with noise are anticipated to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce on-site vehicular noise levels and to reduce interior residential noise levels to below 45 CNEL. The proposed project site is not located near any railroad corridors or mass transit routes. Implementation of the mitigation measures and recommendations provided in Section 4.14 and in the noise impact analysis in Appendix G would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with Policies N 1.1 through N

14.3. TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-17
‰ Housing Element
Table H-1 of the Housing Element provides the five-year action plan summary for housing element goals and policies. Additionally, Table H-34 of the Housing Element provides the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the unincorporated portions of Riverside County. The five-year action plan, in conjunction with the RHNA numbers provided in Table H-34, provide guidance to County staff and decision-makers as to the amount of land required to meet the current and future housing needs in unincorporated Riverside County.

The action plan and RHNA numbers were used by County staff in the preparation of the General Plan Land Use Plan and the individual Area Plan Land Use Plans. Consistency with the General Plan and Area Plan Land Use Plans therefore provides a criterion for measuring the consistency of an individual development proposal with the Housing Element.

As previously indicated in the analysis of the General Plan Land Use Element policies, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. The overall gross project density would also be consistent with the “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” land use designation assigned to the site by the SCMVAP Land Use Plan.

In addition, General Plan Table H-41, Summary of Residential Development Potential by Income Category, provides an estimate of the number of housing units by income category.

The proposed project would contribute to meeting the housing needs of moderate to abovemoderate income households.

Because the proposed project would implement the land uses contemplated by the SCMVAP, and because the SCMVAP implements the Housing Element, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Housing Element.
‰ Air Quality Element

MULTIPLE-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION
Multiple-jurisdictional Cooperation policies (Policies AQ 1.1 through 1.11) do not apply to the proposed project because an individual development proposal would have no affect on the ability of the County to cooperate with relevant jurisdictions.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS; MOBILE POLLUTION SOURCES; STATIONARY POLLUTION SOURCES Air quality impacts are addressed in EIR Section 4.13, Air Quality. Section 4.13 is based on an air quality impact report which is provided as Appendix F to this EIR. As indicated in Section 4.13 and in the air quality technical report, the project applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures intended to reduce direct air quality impacts to the greatest feasible extent. Implementation of the mitigation measures and recommendations presented in Section 4.13 and in the air quality technical study would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with Policies AQ 2.1 through AQ 4.10. Not unlike other development projects in southwestern Riverside County, cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitigable on a project-specific basis. As part of adoption of the County’s General Plan in 2003, the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143) analyzed the General Plan growth projections for consistency with the AQMP and concluded that the General Plan is consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Projects consistent with the County General Plan TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-18
would therefore be consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Although cumulative air quality impacts associated with project implementation would be significant, the mitigation measures in Section 4.13 would reduce those impacts to the greatest extent possible, in conformance with SCAQMD, EPA, and California Air Resources Board requirements. Implementation of the project would not increase the frequency or severity of air quality violations projected by the SCAQMD’s AQMP nor would it exceed development assumptions of the AQMP.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION
Energy efficiency and conservation is evaluated in EIR Section 4.23, Energy Resources. As described in Section 4.23, standard conditions of approval would be placed on the project requiring compliance with Titles 20 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The project would also be required to adhere to State codes regarding energy conservation.

Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policies AQ 5.1 through AQ 5.4.

JOBS AND HOUSING
Maintenance of a balance between jobs and housing within the County has the secondary effect of reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and associated vehicular air emissions. The County’s jobs/housing balance is being addressed through the land use designates shown on the recently approved General Plan. The project site is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policies AQ 6.1 through AQ 9.2.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT; TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT; TRANSPORTATION

FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
Policies AQ 10.1 through AQ 14.4 relate to the development of trip reduction plans, temporary special event traffic management, signal synchronization, County-owned transportation fleet management, and improved mobility plans. These policies are not directly applicable to the proposed project. EIR Section 4.12 discloses the project generated contribution to local and regional traffic volumes and recommends mitigation measures to ensure acceptable levels of service on area street segments and intersections.

PARTICULATE MATTER
As indicated in EIR Section 4.13, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant short-term impacts associated with project grading. In order to reduce these shortterm construction impacts, the project applicant would be required implement an accelerated construction dust abatement management program. 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 Rules 403 and 1186 requirements.

Additionally, the project applicant/contractor would be required to reduce dust and dirt spillover effects. Implementation of the mitigation measures and recommendations provided in Section 4.13 and in the air quality technical study (Appendix F) would ensure consistency with Policies AQ 15.1 through AQ 17.11.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-19
‰ Administration Element
The Administration Element contains information regarding administration of the General Plan. No policy directives are included in this Element. 3) DETERMINE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION(S) FROM THE AREA PLAN (OR LAND USE ELEMENT IF NOT IN AN AREA PLAN).

The proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the SCMVAP. According to the SCMVAP Land Use Plan (see Figure 4-1), the proposed project site is designated for “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” and “Rural Residential (5 acre minimum)”. The area of the project site designated as Medium Density Residential is proposed is developed with 486 single family homes, 2 park site lots, 3 water quality basins, as well as common landscape areas and infrastructure including roads and utilities. The minimum size of the single-family lots would be 6,000 square feet, which are designed in conformance with the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines. The onsite area designated as Rural Residential would be preserved as 39.0 acres of natural open space and would not be developed. Because the proposed project would implement the land uses envisioned by the SCMVAP for the proposed project site, the proposed project would be consistent with the SCMVAP Land Use Plan designations.
4) READ THE POLICIES OF THE AREA PLAN TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICABLE LOCAL GUIDANCE.

A thorough review of the policies contained in the SCMVAP was conducted. TTM No. 31194 was found to be consistent will all relevant Area Plan policies. The property is not located within a specific Policy Area and is not proposing the use of any density bonus provisions. The property is not located near a designated scenic corridor, is not located in the MSHCP Criteria Area, is not identified to contain a potential CETAP transportation route, and is not identified as subject to flooding or dam inundation.

Adequate and available public facilities and services are available, and the project would comply with all public facilities and services policies. Consistent with the Area Plan’s Circulation plan, the project would construct a segment of Wickerd Road as a General Plan designated roadway. 5) DETERMINE IF BACKGROUND IN THE SAFETY ELEMENT TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT (APPENDIX H), TRAFFIC REPORT, OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
‰ Safety Element Background Technical Report
A discussion of the proposed project’s relationship to various seismic, geologic, wind-induced, flood, and fire hazards disclosed in Appendix H of the General Plan is provided above in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the Safety Element. Additionally, the relationship of Appendix H of the General Plan is appropriately referenced, as applicable, throughout this EIR. ‰ Traffic Report
The traffic report used to determine environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Circulation Element assumed that the project site would be developed with residential uses with TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-20
densities ranging from 2 du/ac- 4 du/ac. Because the proposed project would be developed with residential uses at a gross density of 2.4 du/ac which is within the density range assumed in the General Plan traffic model, the impact analysis and associated mitigation measures can be applied to the proposed project. Accordingly, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.16.1A of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would be required to pay a fair share contribution for required intersection and/or roadway improvements. The project-specific traffic impact analysis (included as Appendix E to this EIR), identifies the project’s “fair-share” contribution, which is based on the percentage of project-related traffic to the total future traffic on affected roadways. ‰ General Plan EIR
As discussed above, the proposed project would be developed within the gross residential density range that was assumed in the various impact analyses presented in the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143). Accordingly, the impact analyses, mitigation measures, and findings would be applicable to the proposed project. Site-specific analysis of each environmental issue area is contained throughout this Project EIR for TTM No. 31194.

B. MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSHCP) The proposed project site is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area and as such is not designated for conservation by the MSHCP. Biological reports have been prepared for the project site and are attached to this EIR as Appendices B1-B57. EIR Section 4.3 discusses the onsite biological resources and presents mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to a level below significant.

C. SCAG REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN POLICIES Because TTM No. 31194 proposes less than 500 residential dwelling units, it does not meet the State CEQA Guidelines §15206 definition of a project having statewide, regional or areawide significance.

Typically, projects not meeting this definition are not subject to consistency evaluation with regional plans such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. SCAG, however, submitted a comment letter on the project’s Notice of Preparation, requesting that such an analysis be included. In response to SCAG’s comment, analysis of project consistency with applicable policies is provided below. ‰ Growth Management Policies
Policy 3.01: The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review.

Project Consistency: As indicated by this policy, SCAG forecasts for growth within unincorporated Riverside County are intended to reflect local plans and policies, such as the County’s General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the SCMVAP Land Use Plan, which, in part, forms the basis for SCAG regional growth forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with population, housing, and jobs forecasts as adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-21
Policy 3.03: The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region’s growth policies.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal does not have the ability to affect the implementation of regional growth policies. However, the proposed project does not propose to extend any new public facilities or utility systems into the project vicinity, with the exception of a 0.5-mile water line extension in Wickerd Road from the eastern project boundary to Haun Road. Transportation improvements required by the project would be constructed or partially financed by the project applicant through required monetary TUMF contributions. The transportation improvements would be consistent with General Plan designations for the SCMVAP, including the construction of a segment of Wickerd Road.

Policy 3.05: Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities.

Project Consistency: The proposed project is consistent with the SCMVAP Land Use Plan, which establishes the long-range development pattern for the project area. The project would not extend infrastructure beyond areas targeted for development by the County’s General Plan.

Policy 3.09: Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal does not have the ability to affect local jurisdictions’ efforts for the funding of new infrastructure and services. As required by County Ordinance, the project applicant would be required to participate in development impact fee programs for schools, fire and sheriff protection services, libraries, etc.

Policy 3.10: Support local jurisdictions’ actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal does not have the ability to ensure expedited permit processing by the County.

Policy 3.12: Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions’ programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.

Project Consistency: The proposed project site is not located along any existing mass transit routes, such as the Riverside County Transportation Commission bus routes. Therefore, this policy does not apply to the proposed project.

Policy 3.14: Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-22
Project Consistency: The proposed project site is not located near regional commuter rails, transit systems, or activity centers. Therefore, this policy does not apply to the proposed project.

Policy 3.17: Support and encourage settlement patterns which contain a range of urban densities.

Project Consistency: The proposed project is consistent with the SCMVAP Land Use Plan, which is the County’s long range development plan for the area. The SCMVAP designates a wide range of uses, but only designates residential use for the TTM No. 31194 project site.

Policy 3.18: Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact.

Project Consistency: An analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from project implementation is provided throughout this chapter and the remaining chapters of this EIR.

Policy 3.19: SCAG shall support policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state, and federal plans.

Project Consistency: The property is not designated for open space by any state or federal plans. TTM No. 31194 designates the northeastern portion of the property for the permanent preservation of open space containing Riversidean sage scrub and a natural hillside.

Policy 3.20: Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals.

Project Consistency: Please refer to Section 4.3, Biological Resources, for a discussion of potential impacts to biological resources that could result from project implementation.

Mitigation measures are provided to reduce those impacts to below a level of significance.

Additionally, Section 4.9, Agricultural Resources, discusses potential impacts of the proposed project on agricultural lands. There are no groundwater recharge areas located on the project site, as discussed in EIR Sections 4.5 and 4.6.

Policy 3.21: Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.

Project Consistency: Section 4.4, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, provides an analysis of potential impacts to archaeological and cultural resources. As concluded in that section, all potential impacts to such resources would be mitigated to below a level of significance.

Policy 3.22: Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-23
Project Consistency: The portions of the site that are proposed for development are not subject to steep slopes or flood hazards. Seismic hazards are addressed in EIR Section 4.7 and Section 4.16 provides an analysis of potential fire hazards. Sections 4.7 and 4.16 both conclude that impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with incorporation of mitigation measures.

Policy 3.23: Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans.

Project Consistency: Each of the above issue areas are thoroughly addressed in the appropriate sections of this EIR. In each case, impacts are either deemed to be less than significant or mitigation measures are presented to reduce impacts to below a level of significance.

Policy 3.24: Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

Project Consistency: The provision of housing for all economic segments of the County’s population are addressed in the Housing Element of the County’s General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the residential designation assigned to the property by the County’s SCMVAP.

Policy 3.27: Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal would have no impact on the ability of the County to develop sustainable communities. An analysis of the project’s potential impacts on public education, health care, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection is provided throughout this EIR under the appropriate section heading. In each case, it is determined that impacts would either be less than significant or would be reduced below a level of significance through incorporation of mitigation measures. ‰ Regional Transportation Plan Policies
Policy 4.02: Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level.

Project Consistency: Environmental impacts associated with construction of the project’s transportation improvements are disclosed in this EIR.

Policy 4.04: Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-24
Project Consistency: Implementation of Transportation Control Measures, which typically involve the expansion of public transit and other measures designed to reduce per capita traffic volumes, is best accomplished at a regional scale. An individual development proposal does not have the authority to implement regional measures aimed at reducing traffic throughout the County. However, as part of the proposed project, pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be provided within TTM No. 31194.

Policy 4.16: Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over expanding capacity.

Project Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.12, Circulation and Traffic, the project applicant would construct several transportation improvements, including the on-site segment of Wickerd Road consistent with its Secondary Roadway designation in the SCMVAP.

Additionally, participation in the County’s Traffic Signal Fee program and the payment of appropriate fees (including TUMF and RBBD fees) is required. ‰ Air Quality Chapter Core Actions
Policy 5.07: Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-milestraveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal would not have any impact on the ability of the County to determine specific programs and actions designed to reduce regional traffic volumes. Traffic impacts are thoroughly assessed in Section 4.12, Circulation and Traffic.

Policy 5.11: Through the environmental document process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts.

Project Consistency: Land use issues are discussed throughout this section of the EIR.

Potential project-related impacts to air quality are addressed in EIR Section 4.13 and transportation issues are addressed in EIR Section 4.12. ‰ Open Space Chapter Ancillary Goals
Policy 9.01: Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region.

Project Consistency: TTM No. 31194 will include a neighborhood park site in the center of the neighborhood and will preserve approximately 39.0 acres of natural open space in the northeastern portion of the property. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.15, County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35, and the State Quimby Act require new development proposals to provide 3.0 acres of neighborhood parkland, 25.0 acres of open space, and 1.0 acre of regional parkland for every 1,000 residents generated by a project. The proposed project includes a maximum total of 486 residential dwelling units, which would generate a TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-25
future population of approximately 1,462 persons. Neighborhood parkland and open space requirements would be met on site and through the payment of in-lieu park fees. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Regional parkland requirements would be met on a County-wide scale.

Policy 9.02: Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation.

Project Consistency: Approximately 39.0 acres of the project site would be designated as open space at the northeastern boundary of the project site. This open space area contains native vegetation and steep hillsides and is not appropriate for use as outdoor recreation space. Trails will be provided along the edges of the drainage area in the center of the project site, connecting to the on-site neighborhood park.

Policy 9.03: Promote self-sustaining regional recreational resources and facilities.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal does not have the ability to promote self-sustaining regional recreational resources and facilities. As part of the proposed project, approximately 39.0 acres of natural open space would be preserved in the northeast portion of the project site. Because no facilities are proposed in the open space area, very little maintenance would be required.

Policy 9.05: Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment.

Project Consistency: The project does not propose to develop any areas that contain hillsides, canyons, or flood potential. As indicated in correspondence received from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the Riverside County Fire Department (see Appendix K), the proposed project site is located in an area with available access for emergency equipment.

Policy 9.07: Maintain adequate viable resource production land, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations.

Project Consistency: The proposed project site does not contain mineral resources, as discussed in EIR Section 4.10. The proposed project site does contain areas designated as Locally Important Farmland, but Notices of Non-Renewal of the property’s agricultural preserve contracts have been recorded and the Notice of Diminishment has been filed.

Section 4.9, Agricultural Resources, addresses potential impacts to agricultural resources and provides a mitigation measure to protect adjacent agricultural properties from potentially incompatible adjacent uses on the site.

Policy 9.08: Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered species, including wetlands.

Project Consistency: Potential impacts to biological resources, including sensitive vegetation communities, wildlife and plant species, and jurisdictional wetlands and waters are analyzed in EIR Section 4.3. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce all impacts to TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-26
biological resources to below a level of significance. Approximately 39.0 acres of the project site would be designated as open space in the northeastern portion of the project site. This open space area contains native vegetation and will be permanently preserved by a conservation easement.
‰ Water Quality Chapter Recommendations and Policy Options Policy 11.07: Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges.

Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed.

Project Consistency: An individual development proposal does not have the authority to affect administrative impediments. TTM No. 31194 has an estimated demand of 57 acre-feet (AF) per year for irrigating landscaping. According to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) guidelines, if recycled water is available to the site, the project would be conditioned to construct an on-site recycled water system physically separated from the potable water system. EMWD will make a final determination on requirements for recycled water use and facilities during the final design stage of the project. (see EIR Appendix J3).

D. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board adopted its most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on August 1, 2003. As part of adoption of the County’s General Plan in 2003, the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143) analyzed the General Plan growth projections for consistency with the AQMP and concluded that the General Plan is consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Projects consistent with the County General Plan would therefore be consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP. TTM No. 31194 is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan SCMVAP, and thus is consistent with regional air quality planning objectives contained in the AQMP. Implementation of the project would not increase the frequency or severity of air quality violations projected by the SCAQMD’s AQMP nor would it exceed development assumptions of the AQMP.

4.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts to land use would not be significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

4.1.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-27

4.2 AESTHETICS, VISUAL QUALITY AND LIGHT & GLARE

4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The TTM No. 31194 project site encompasses approximately 204.7 acres in the Menifee Valley Area of unincorporated Riverside County. The proposed project site is located adjacent to Wickerd Road to the south, and adjacent to Daniel Street to the north. The existing landform of the site is characterized by former and existing agricultural uses on flat land comprising approximately 75 percent of the site. The remainder of the property contains undeveloped lands and steep hillsides along the northeastern boundaries of the site. Elevations on the site range from approximately 1,360 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the southwestern corner of the property to approximately 1,473 feet above MSL at the far northeast corner of the project site.

Mt. Palomar Observatory, located south of the city of Temecula in San Diego County, has noted that the continued urbanization of southwestern Riverside County contributes to reducing the usefulness of the Observatory due to the emission of lighting form street lights, automobiles, residences and businesses. This type of lighting condition is known as “skyglow.” The TTM No. 31194 project site lies within the 30-mile radius of the Mt. Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area, which was created to control the effects of skyglow.

The SCMVAP has designated several roadways as “scenic road corridors.” Development along these scenic road corridors is subject to specific policies governing the protection of viewsheds along these scenic roadways. As depicted in Figure 4-2, SCMVAP Scenic Corridors Map, the proposed project site is located approximately ¾-mile west of County Eligible Interstate 215 (I-215). Due to intervening topography, the site is only partially visible from I-215.

The site is visible from public roadways to the north (Daniel Street), from the south (Wickerd Road), from the east (Ascot Way), and from the west (Evans Road). To illustrate the existing visual conditions of the project site, a Photo Key Map, as depicted on Figure 4-3, and eight vantage point photographs of the site are included and described herein. These photos provide a visual inventory of the site's visual characteristics as seen from surrounding public viewing areas. ‰ Vantage Point 1 (Figure 4-4). Vantage Point 1 is the view from the northwestern project boundary at existing Daniel Street looking southeast. From this location, a small hill is visible in the left portion of the photograph, and visually prominent landforms are visible in the distance towards the right of the photo. A residence and utility poles are also visible along the unpaved road at the extreme left of the photograph. Several small groups of trees and agricultural land are visible in much of the photograph. Agricultural land dominates the visual character of the project site, covering approximately 75 percent of the property. ‰ Vantage Point 2 (Figure 4-4). Vantage Point 2 is the view of the site from the northeastern boundary intersection of Daniel Street and Ascot Way looking southwest. This portion of the site is characterized by a natural hillside vegetated with Riversidean sage scrub. A utility pole is visible in the center of the photograph along with the unpaved Daniel Street and Ascot Way. Occasional small rock outcroppings are also visible on the hillside.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
SCMVAP Scenic Corridors Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-28
Fig. 4-2
Source: Riverside County GIS
not to scale
LEGEND
Cities
Major Roads & Highways
Area Plan Boundaries
County Eligible
State Designated
State Eligible
TTM No. 31194
Approximately
3/4 of a mile to
Centerline
of Freeway

KEY MAP
Project
Site
215
215
3 1
2 4 5
6 7
8 Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Photo Key Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
4-29
Fig. 4-3
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Vantage Points 1 & 2

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
4-30
Fig. 4-4
Vantage Point 1
Vantage Point 2
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-31
‰ Vantage Point 3 (Figure 4-5). Vantage Point 3 is the view of the site from the southeastern boundary at the intersection of Wickerd Road and Ascot Way looking northwest. Several utility poles are visible in the left of the photograph. Agricultural uses are visible throughout the photograph. The hillside feature located in the northwest portion of the property is visible in the background towards the right of the photograph.
‰ Vantage Point 4 (Figure 4-5). Vantage Point 4 is a view looking north from within the southern project boundary, just north of existing, unimproved Wickerd Road. Throughout the foreground of this photo, agricultural use is visible. Several small groupings of trees are visible towards the left of the photo. In the background towards the right of the photo are onsite rolling hills, while several off-site hills are visible on the horizon to the left of the photo.

Due to the prominence of the rolling hills visible from this location, they would qualify as a scenic resource.
‰ Vantage Point 5 (Figure 4-5). Vantage Point 5 is the view looking northeast from the southern boundary of the project site at the existing, unimproved Wickerd Road. An unpaved one-lane road leading to a small hill and house is visible at the extreme left of the photograph. Agricultural uses are visible throughout foreground of this photograph.

Unpaved Wickerd Road and several utility poles aligned along the road are visible to the right of the photograph. Several on-site rolling hills dominate the background of this photo.

Due to the prominence of the hills visible from this location, they would qualify as a scenic resource.
‰ Vantage Point 6 (Figure 4-6). Vantage Point 6 is the view looking northeast from the intersection of Wickerd Road and Evans Road at the southwestern project boundary. A farm site with fencing and a small grouping of trees are visible in the photograph. This house was removed from the property in December 2003 in accordance with an approved County demolition permit. Towards the right of the photograph, dryland farming is visible. In the background toward the center of the photograph, several rolling hills are visible. Several existing residences are visible off-site atop these hills. ‰ Vantage Point 7 (Figure 4-6). Vantage Point 7 is the view looking southeast from the northwestern project boundary at Evans Road. An existing farm residence and landscaping dominate views from this location. As noted above, this house was removed from the property in December 2003. There are no scenic resources visible from this location. ‰ Vantage Point 8 (Figure 4-6). Vantage Point 8 is the view looking south from within the northern project boundary along Daniel Street. Several trees and agricultural uses are visible throughout the photograph. In the foreground and on the horizon, several large hills are visible. Due to the prominence of these hills on the horizon when viewed from this location, the rolling hills qualify as a scenic resource.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Vantage Points 3 - 5

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
4-32
Fig. 4-5
Vantage Point 3
Vantage Point 4
Vantage Point 5
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Vantage Points 6 - 8

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
4-33
Fig. 4-6
Vantage Point 8
Vantage Point 6
Vantage Point 7
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-34

4.2.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Visual aesthetics and light/glare impacts would be considered significant if the project would:
a. Have a substantial effect upon a scenic highway corridor within which it is located. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and unique or landmark features; obstruct any prominent scenic vista or view open to the public; or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view.
c. Interfere with the night time use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory, as protected through County Ordinance No. 655.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.2.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
At buildout of TTM No. 31194, views of the site from surrounding areas would change from predominately agricultural and undeveloped land to single-family residential and open space uses as called for by the General Plan SCMVAP approved on October 7, 2003. The General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143) acknowledged that buildout of the General Plan would result in an increase in urban uses and that the conversion of open space to urban uses would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to visual character on a Countywide scale. Implementation of TTM No. 31194 would not result in visual character impacts beyond those previously disclosed by the General Plan EIR.

The proposed project site is subject to the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines adopted by the County on January 13, 2004. The guidelines were developed to minimize visually offensive impacts and to promote the creation of visually appealing developments. These development guidelines include 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. Specifically, the proposed project would:
• Adhere to the general design standards by incorporating a variety of elements into the project design that would promote a varied and interesting streetscape; • Comply with the standards for residential lot design, including minimum lot sizes, lot dimensions, and building and lot layouts;
• Incorporate the standards for street design in order to facilitate the desired general residential design concepts.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-35
• Provide neighborhood entry statements at appropriate locations in order to create a distinctive visual character for the project;
• Construct medians within appropriate project roadways that will include landscaping and other decorative elements that serve to enhance streetscape; and • Adhere to the standards for reverse frontage treatments in order to soften the visual effect of the community, as viewed from public roadways.

A detailed discussion of visual effects associated with proposed TTM No. 31194, from the eight vantage points described in Section 4.2.1, is presented below. ‰ Vantage Point 1. Vantage Point 1 is the view from the northwestern project boundary at existing Daniel Street looking southeast. Under existing conditions, there are no scenic resources visible from this location. From this vantage point, areas proposed for open space would be visible, as would the proposed streetscape of Wickerd Road and the rear elevations of proposed homes designed in accordance with Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Community perimeter walls along the perimeter of residential lots would be composed of brick, slump stone, or textured concrete with ivy or other vegetative material.

Because project implementation would not obstruct views of a scenic resource from this location, impacts to visual quality would not be significant from this location. ‰ Vantage Point 2. Vantage Point 2 is the view from the northeastern project boundary at existing Daniel Street looking southeast. Under existing conditions there are no scenic resources visible from this location. Upon project implementation, views from this vantage point would consist exclusively of natural open space and would not change. Because project implementation would not alter or obstruct views of scenic resources from this location, impacts to visual quality would not be significant. ‰ Vantage Point 3. Vantage Point 3 is the view of the site from the southeastern boundary at the intersection of Wickerd Road and Ascot Way. Under existing conditions, there are no scenic resources visible from this location. Upon project implementation, half-section improvements to Wickerd Road would be visible along with a tract entry identification sign on a decorative wall or monument with landscaping. Additionally, a community theme wall/noise attenuation wall would be visible, and would consist of brick, slump stone, or treated concrete. Because project implementation would not obstruct views of a scenic resource from this location, impacts to visual quality would not be significant. ‰ Vantage Point 4. Vantage Point 4 is the view looking north from within the southern project boundary along Wickerd Road. After development, views from this location would consist of a landscaped slope, community theme wall, and the rear elevations of residential homes.

Under existing conditions, the rolling hills located in the northeastern portions of the proposed project site are visible and qualify as a scenic resource. These hills would continue to be visible upon project implementation because they are located at elevations in excess of 100 feet above the proposed development pads. Because project implementation would not substantially obstruct views of a scenic vista or resource, impacts to visual resources would be less than significant from this vantage point.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-36
‰ Vantage Point 5. Vantage Point 5 is the view looking northeast from the southern portion of the property on unimproved Wickerd Road. From this vantage point, a community theme walls would be visible behind which would appear the rear elevations of proposed homes.

Under existing conditions, the rolling hills located in the northeastern portions of the proposed project site are visible and qualify as a scenic resource. These hills would continue to be visible upon project implementation because they are located elevations in excess of 100 feet above the proposed development pads. Because project implementation would not substantially obstruct views of a scenic vista or resource, impacts to visual resources would be less than significant from this vantage point.
‰ Vantage Point 6. Vantage Point 6 is the view looking northeast from the existing intersection of Wickerd Road and Evans Road. From this vantage point, a community theme wall and reverse frontage treatments consistent with Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines would be visible. Under existing conditions, there are no scenic resources visible from this location. Because project implementation would not obstruct views of a scenic resource from this location, impacts to visual quality would not occur from this vantage point. ‰ Vantage Point 7. Vantage Point 7 is the view looking southeast from the northwestern project boundary at Evans Road. From this location, a community theme wall and reverse frontage treatments designed in accordance with Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines would be visible. Under existing conditions, there are no scenic resources visible from this vantage point. Because project implementation would not obstruct views of a scenic resource from this location, impacts to visual quality would not occur. ‰ Vantage Point 8. Vantage Point 8 is the view looking south from the northern project boundary along existing Daniel Street. From this vantage point, a view fence between the proposed residences and open space would be visible. Also visible would be streetscape improvements associated with an internal project roadway, which would include sidewalks and landscaped areas. Several residential dwelling units would also be visible. Under existing conditions, several large hills that qualify as a scenic resource are visible on the horizon. The construction of dwelling units measuring approximately 30-feet in height would not obstruct views of this scenic resource. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts to visual resources at this vantage point.

From the vantage points described above, which are representative of views from public viewing areas on major roadways around and within the project site, it is demonstrated that a majority of the development areas would be located on the flattest portions of the site. The site’s most prominent visual characteristics, consisting of a natural hillside occurring in the northeast portion of the project site and a drainage occurring in the center of the site, would be preserved as natural open space.

Visual impacts from public viewing points associated with proposed development of TTM No. 31194 are not considered to be significant. Changes to community character would occur, but such changes are consistent with the County General Plan SCMVAP, the visual impact of which was previously disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143).

The proposed project site is located within the Mt. Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District.

This District was established to control the effects of skyglow that could interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory. Lighting from the proposed project could adversely affect the Palomar Observatory, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-37
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the introduction of new sources of lighting, including lights for residences, parks, and streetscapes. The introduction of new lighting sources is regarded as a potentially significant impact.

4.2.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2-1 The project shall comply with the applicable 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.

4.2.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With required adherence to the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines and TTM No. 31194 Conditions of Approval, and with implementation of mitigation measure 4.2-1, impacts to aesthetics, visual quality and light/glare would be reduced to less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-38

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this section is based on five seven reports prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc. (L&L). The first report assesses the site’s general biological resources and is entitled, “General Biological Survey Report for the Menifee Tract 31194 Riverside County, California,” dated November 30, 2004. That report’s accompanying analysis of project impacts is dated April 15, 2005.

The second report analyzes potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S., and is entitled, “Jurisdictional Delineation for the Menifee Assemblage, Menifee, Riverside County, California” (August 2003). That report’s accompanying analysis of project impacts is dated April 15, 2005. The third report is a Focused Survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher dated July 2004, and the fourth report is a Focused Survey for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly dated July 2004. In compliance with the MSHCP, a fifth report was prepared assessing the project’s Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), dated March 17, 2005. The sixth report presents the results of a nesting season Burrowing Owl Survey conducted in June and July 2005.

The seventh report is a focused habitat assessment for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern flycatcher and yellow billed cuckoo. For reference purposes, these reports are included as Appendices B1 – B57 of this EIR.

The biological technical reports prepared by L&L are based on the results of an extensive literature review and field studies conducted in August 2003 through July 2004. The primary focus of the field investigations was to determine the presence of any sensitive biological resources on the project site, to conduct focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and quino checkerspot butterfly, and to determine the extent of jurisdictional Waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including Wetlands and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code.

4.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The TTM No. 31194 property consists of approximately 204.7 acres. A shallow drainage and United States Geological Survey (USGS) blueline stream area exists on the site trending from the northwest corner to roughly the southwest portion of the site. Much of this area has been severely impacted by agricultural activities. The remainder of the site contains active agricultural fields (dry farmed crops) and a mix of disturbed to relatively undisturbed sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities.

The site is fairly flat with gently to steeply sloping hills and ridgelines present at the northeastern portion of the property.

Two roads are present on the proposed project site. One is located along the northern and eastern portion of the project site where agricultural areas meet less disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) areas. Unimproved Krubsack Road trends north to south through agricultural fields at roughly the west-central portion of the project site and connects with Wickerd Road to the south and Daniel Street to the north. At the western portion of the site along Evans Road, is the former site of an agricultural ranch house that was removed from the property in December 2003. At the time of the 2003 biological field surveys, the entire perimeter of the ranch house was fenced up to the agricultural areas of the site further east, and contained numerous Peruvian pepper trees.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-39
A. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The project site is mostly disturbed and is characterized by actively cultivated dry-farmed agricultural activities. The site does not support a diverse group of native low-growing annuals and other herbs because of these disturbances. Less disturbed areas are roughly in the northeastern portion of the site and support a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) and northern mixed chaparral vegetation communities. Figure 4-7, Existing Vegetation Communities, depicts the location of the vegetation communities located on-site. The extent of each are listed below in Table 4-1, Existing Vegetation Communities Summary. A description of the individual characteristics of the on-site plant communities is provided below.

Table 4-1: EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SUMMARY

EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACRES
Agricultural/Disturbed/Ruderal 163.9
Northern Mixed Chaparral 2.6
Riversidean Sage Scrub 32.8
Riversidean Sage Scrub/Ruderal 2.4
Southern Arroyo Willow/Mulefat Scrub 3.0
Total 204.7
Source: L&L Environmental, September 2003.

As shown on Figure 4-7, approximately 2.0 acres of off-site disturbance will occur to accommodate off-site grading and off-site road improvements. These 2.0 acres contain 1.97 acres of agricultural/ disturbed/ruderal habitat, 0.01-acre is vegetated by RSS and 0.02-acre is vegetated by southern arroyo willow/mulefat scrub.
‰ Riversidean Sage Scrub. Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) is a xeric form of coastal sage scrub containing mostly drought-deciduous shrubs with small leaves. Relatively undisturbed RSS is present on the northeastern portion of the site on south, west, and east-facing slopes containing numerous rocky outcrops. Native shrubs, native and non-native annuals and other conspicuous plants commonly observed in these areas are listed in the biological resources report appended as Appendix B1 to this EIR.
‰ Northern Mixed Chaparral. Northern mixed chaparral (NMC) typically contains a diverse group of evergreen plants mostly inhabited by shrubs with broad, hard leaves. Common associates of this vegetation community include chemise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), black sage, and other perennials. A poorly developed understory is usually present in association with NMC areas, and is characteristic of areas observed on the subject site and in adjacent areas. Chamise-dominant NMC areas are uncommon on the subject property, probably due to extensive agricultural operations throughout much of the lowland areas of the site. Only small patches (or islands) of remnant NMC were observed, excluding the east-central property boundary where some relatively dense stands remain and mix with RSS. Dense stands containing 50-75% chamise closed-canopy cover can be found on several north and east-facing slopes off-site near Garbani Road (just north of the northeastern corner of the site) and Wickerd Road (south-central portion of the site and adjacent areas to the south).

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Existing Vegetation Communities

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-40
Fig. 4-7
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
Limits of Off-Site Grading
Limits of Off-Site Grading Limits of Off-Site Grading
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-41
‰ Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian, Mulefat Scrub, and Disturbed Wetland. Southern arroyo willow riparian and mulefat scrub are dependent on periodic flooding and are characterized by the presence of mostly winter deciduous trees, including arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii). The northwestern portion of the site contains a degraded blue-line stream area sparsely inhabited by arroyo willow, mulefat, or a combination of both species. A single Fremont’s cottonwood and scattered tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) were also observed. The understory is dominated by mostly weedy annuals listed in Appendix B1 to this EIR. A persistent water flow was not observed within any of the on-site drainages during filed investigations. ‰ Agriculture. Approximately 75% of the proposed project site has been converted for agricultural use and contains mostly dry-farmed wheat crops. Some invasive plants were observed within these fields. Wheat harvesting operations were observed during field investigations.
‰ Disturbed/Ruderal Habitat. The disturbed habitat includes areas that contain mostly nonnative plant species including ornamentals and ruderal exotics. Mostly non-native, weedy species have invaded portions of the hillside areas not used for agriculture, but previously disturbed. The most common invasive plants observed are listed in Appendix B1 to this EIR.

B. SENSITIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
The TTM No. 31194 project site supports several habitat types considered rare and worthy of consideration by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNNDB). These communities are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNNDB. Additional communities are considered sensitive because they support several sensitive plant and wildlife species. Sensitive plant communities within the proposed project site include 32.8 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 2.6 acres of northern mixed chaparral, and 3.0 acres of southern arroyo willow/mulefat scrub. Sensitive plant communities in the off-site disturbance area include 0.01-acre is vegetated by RSS and 0.02-acre vegetated by southern arroyo willow/mulefat scrub.

C. SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
Due to the high level of disturbed habitat associated with actively cultivated dry-farmed agricultural activities, plant diversity on the subject property is relatively poor, although some less disturbed areas are present in the northeastern portion of the site. A total of ninety-six plant species were detected during the botanical evaluation of the site in 2003. No state or federally listed sensitive plant species were observed during the site visit. A list of all plant species observed during the biological assessment is presented in the biological resources report contained in Appendix B1 to this EIR.

Sensitive plants include those plants that are listed, or candidates for listing, by USFWS, CDFG, and/or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (particularly list 1A, 1B, and 2). Many of the sensitive plant species addressed are also species considered adequately conserved under the MSHCP. Several sensitive plant species were reported in the Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) from the vicinity of the proposed project site and were also determined to be potentially present through a literature review and field survey conducted by L&L Environmental. No state or federallylisted sensitive plant species were observed during the 2003 field study. A complete listing of TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-42
sensitive plant species having the potential to occur on the site is included in the biological resources report attached as Appendix B1 to this EIR.

Because the TTM No. 31194 project site is not located in the MSHCP Criteria Area and because the site is not identified in an area requiring botanical surveys by either the MSHCP’s Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species guidelines or the MSHCP’s Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, focused botanical surveys are not required.

D. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES
A total of twenty-eight (28) vertebrate animal species were observed and identified during the 2003 biological survey of the subject property, including twenty-four birds, two mammals, and two reptiles. All animals were observed and identified during the general biological survey, either by direct observation or by vocalization (birds), and are presented in the biological resource assessment contained in Appendix B1. Although much of the subject property is highly disturbed due to past and ongoing agricultural activities and other related disturbances, the northeastern portion of the site contains relatively undisturbed RSS that may potentially support habitat for some sensitive wildlife species.

Habitat to support qunio checkerspot butterfly (QCB), including larval host and nectaring plant species, are present on the site. A focused survey for the species was conducted in 2004, with negative results for QCB adults, larvae and pupae. The focused survey results are included as Appendix B3 to this EIR. Habitat to support the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) also is present on the site. Focused surveys for CAGN were conducted in 2004 and the field survey results indicate the presence of two breeding pairs of CAGN on the property, with a third breeding pair being located just off-site and to the north.
‰ Invertebrates
No special status invertebrate species were observed on-site during the 2003 and 2004 field surveys.

Focused surveys were conducted for the QCB in 2004, with negative results as documented in Appendix B4 to this EIR.
ƒ Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). The QCB is a federally endangered geographic race (subspecies) of Euphydryas editha. Existing QCB populations are known from the Warm Springs Creek corridor south of Scott Road, in other areas of southwestern Riverside County near Temecula east to the Anza-Aguanga areas, and at several locations in southern San Diego County near Otay Mountain. Currently, the most northern extant population of QCB is known from the Bautista Canyon area southeast of Hemet, approximately 25 miles east of the subject property.

The TTM No. 31194 project site is not located in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitat area for the species. In addition, the QCB is identified as an adequately conserved species within the Criteria Area of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The TTM No. 31194 is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area.

Several patches of Plantago erecta plants, QCB’s primary larval host plant, were observed on the roughly southeastern portion of the subject property within relatively undisturbed RSS on clay and/or soils rich in biotic materials. Focused surveys were conducted for QCB in 2004 TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-43
and the results were negative for QCB adults, larvae and pupae as documented in Appendix B4 to this EIR.
‰ Amphibians and Reptiles
During the general biological survey conducted in 2003, two reptile species were observed on the project site and during the 2004 focused QCB and CAGN surveys, six (6) species were observed including three special status species, coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi), and western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigras). Five (5) other special status species, San Diego banded gecko, San Diego horned lizard, coastal rosy boa, San Bernardino and San Diego ringneck snake, and red diamond rattlesnake, have a moderate or high potential of occurring on-site, however none are listed as threatened or endangered. ‰ Birds
Twenty-four (24) bird species were observed during the 2003 general biological survey and fiftyseven (57) bird species were observed during 2004 QCB and CAGN focused surveys. A focused survey for the CAGN was conducted in 2004, with a finding that two CAGN pairs are located on the site and a third pair is located just off-site to the north (see Appendix B3). In 2005, a focused habitat assessment for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern flycatcher and yellow billed cuckoo was conducted with negative results (see Appendix B7). Within the project boundaries, sensitive or special status species that were either observed or have the potential to occur are described below. ƒ California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). The California horned lark (CHL) was observed onsite in association with several unimproved roads located on portions of the subject property during the 2003 biological field survey. Despite its current status, CHL can be locally common in agricultural fields and other open areas throughout western Riverside County. The probability of on-site nesting is absent.
ƒ Raptors. Three (3) special status species – white-tailed kite, sharp-shinned hawk, and Cooper’s hawk were identified in the 2003 general biological survey as having a moderate to high potential of foraging on the site. During 2004 focused surveys for QCB and CAGN, Cooper’s hawk and northern harrier were observed. Extensive open foraging habitat still exists adjacent to the proposed project. The probability of on-site raptor nesting is absent. ƒ Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) was determined to have a moderate potential for nesting, perching and foraging on the project site. Potential burrowing owl nesting sites may be present in association with California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) activity observed scattered throughout the disturbed lowland areas of the property. No nest sites or other sign (feathers, pellets, etc.) indicating presence of this species were observed during field surveys performed on June 24, 26, 30, July 1, 3, 8, and 10, 2005 by L&L Environmental. A focused survey for this species is required by the MSHCP 30 days prior to project grading. ƒ Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). The CAGN is a federally threatened, small songbird inhabiting scrubland communities in southwestern California to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. In Riverside County, this species is often associated with a relatively low-growing RSS vegetation community.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-44
Suitable habitat for CAGN is present on portions of the site where relatively undisturbed RSS occurs at the northern and northeastern portions of the property. A focused survey for CAGN was conducted in 2004. Two breeding pairs of CAGN were identified on the property and a third breeding pair was identified off-site and to the north. ƒ Least bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). The degraded blue-line stream area at the northwest and west-central portion of the proposed project site supports mostly ruderal vegetation with scattered arroyo willow, mulefat, and one Fremont’s cottonwood. These riparian areas do not support a dense thicket of riparian vegetation in its understory, and a persistent water flow was not observed.

Due to the absence of a low, dense shrub layer (or thicket), and the degraded nature of this drainage on site, typical habitat that supports the least bell’s vireo (LBV) is not present. Due to the absence of a persistent water flow or other water sources in the general vicinity of this riparian area, typical habitat to support the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) is not present. In addition, no least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatchers are documented in the CNDDB within at least five miles of the project site. ‰ Mammals
Two (2) relatively common mammal species, Audobon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) were observed during field surveys in 2003 and 2004. One (1) additional species, black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) was observed in 2004.

Although not observed during on-site field surveys, Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) has a moderate potential for occurrence on the site. SKR habitat may be present around the RSS and NMC vegetation communities on the site peripheries where dense vegetation mixes with more open grassland and sage scrub areas inhabited by flat top buckwheat, brome grasses, and other lowgrowing shrubs and annuals. SKR have been documented within 1-1.5 miles of the project site.

E. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS
Analysis of USGS maps for the project area performed by L&L Environmental identified the presence of jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.” on the project site. Analysis of the USGS maps for the project area determined that a shallow drainage and mapped blueline stream cross the site trending from the northwest corner to roughly the southwest portion of the site (see Figure 4-8, Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands). The portions of the drainages, which do not impound water, are considered jurisdictional “Waters of the U. S.” Jurisdictional areas on the project site include 62,384.3 square feet (1.43 ac) of state streambeds, and of this, 37,667.9 square feet (0.86 ac) are federal jurisdictional drainages and 29,187.7 square feet (0.67 ac) are considered state wetlands. The drainage appears to be the result of farming activities. Much of this area has been severely impacted by agricultural activities, but several wetland indicator plant species were found in association with this drainage on the site and areas immediately adjacent to the site. Much of the length of the blueline stream no longer exists due to land use changes. The area where the blueline stream leaves the property has been altered over the years. Field surveys conducted by L&L Environmental determined that the blueline stream had originally moved south through the property, and evidence of this stream was present on neighboring properties. However, there is no evidence of a direct connect with any nearby property. Thus, all water leaves the subject property as sheet flow.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-45
F. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
The project site is currently a combination of mostly agricultural land with native coastal scrub habitat in the northeast portion of the site. Native habitat occurs on a topographically moderate to steep hillside. There is a small drainage with minimal cover that travels form the northwest corner to the center of the project site and stops. Although some local wildlife are likely to move across the property (e.g., birds, coyotes, etc.), the proposed project site is not connected to or part of a distinct wildlife movement corridor.

G. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) Riverside County approved the MSHCP on June 17, 2003. An Implementation Agreement (IA) between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the County of Riverside was executed and associated 10(a)(1)(B) Permit No. TE088609 was issued on June 22, 2004. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. This Plan is one of several large, multi-jurisdictional habitat-planning efforts in Southern California with the overall goal of maintaining biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The MSHCP will allow Riverside County and its cities to better control local land-use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate in the region while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts.

The MSHCP is a criteria-based plan and the County's General Plan Area Plan boundaries were selected to provide the broad organizational framework for the criteria. The Area Plan framework for the criteria-based approach was selected to structure implementation strategies around established planning boundaries. Within each Area Plan, conservation areas are further divided into Area Plan Subunits, for which a similar set of goals and criteria have been established. Each subunit is even further divided into cell groups, to which individual cell quadrants are assigned.

The TTM No. 31194 property is not located within the MSHCP Criteria Area. Properties outside of the Criteria are not identified for preservation; however, properties outside of the Criteria Area are required to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP’s Protection of Species Associated with Riperian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines, the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species guidelines, and the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.

H. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION: STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES TTM No. 31194 is regulated by state and federal environmental agencies having authority over the protection of listed species, habitats, and impacts to drainage areas on the project site. State and federally listed species are protected under their respective Endangered Species Act and the California Native Plant Protection Act. Impacts to listed species require permits/agreements from the USFWS and the CDFG. As part of the MSHCP, an Implementation Agreement (IA) between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the County was executed and associated Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit No. TE-088609 was issued on June 22, 2004. The Permit grants Take Authorization for certain species identified in Attachment 2 of the Permit as “Covered Species Adequately Conserved.” For properties outside of the MSCHP Criteria Area and not located on public/quasi public lands, impacts to “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” is authorized by Permit No. TE-088609 and no mitigation is required.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Jurisdictional Waters & Wetlands

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-46
Fig. 4-8
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-47
‰ Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range …” Threatened species are defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under provisions of Section 9(a) (1) (B) of the FESA it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined as “… harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” In compliance with Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit No. TE-088609 which was issued on June 22, 2004, incidental “take” authorization is granted for “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” listed in Attachment 2 of the Permit on properties outside of the MHSCP Criteria Area. For other federally protected species and in the case where a property owner seeks permission from a federal agency for an action which could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS for FESA Section 7 and Section 10(a) permits.
‰ Clean Water Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates "discharge of dredged or fill material" into “waters of the United States,” which includes tidal waters, interstate waters, and "all other waters, interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds. . . .” (933 C.F.R. 328.3(a)), pursuant to provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board issues Section 401 Water Quality Certification for federal wetland permitting.
‰ California Endangered Species Act. California's Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines endangered species, threatened species, and candidate species as “… a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant” that is “in serious danger of becoming extinct,” “is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future,” or that is “under review for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species,” respectively. Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in the state. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of rare, threatened, or endangered vascular plant species of California (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). The list serves as the candidate list for listing as threatened and endangered by CDFG.

In accordance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game (CFG) Code (Streambed Alteration), CDFG regulates activities which "will substantially divert, obstruct, or substantially change the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit." Additionally, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the CDFG Code, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively. Under the approved Western Riverside County MSHCP, and in accordance with CFG Code Section TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-48
2830(d), incidental “take” is authorized for “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” located outside of the MSHCP Criteria Area.
‰ Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 is an international treaty that makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell purchase or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nets, eggs or products, except as allowed my implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The MBTA requires that project-related disturbance of active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (February 1 to August 31, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitat upon which the birds depend could be considered “take” and constitute a violation of the MBTA.

4.3.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Wildlife and vegetation impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in one or more of the following:
a. Conflict with the provisions of the County’s MSHCP or other adopted regional conservation plan.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12).
c. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the USFWS or CDFG.

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors. e. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community or animal identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the USFWS or CDFG.
f. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
g. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.3.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to approximately 173.1 acres on-site (including fuel modification thinning) and an additional 2.0 acres off-site for off-site grading and off- TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-49
site infrastructure improvements. On-site impacts 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 disturbed Riversidean sage scrub.

Table 4-2: VEGETATION IMPACT SUMMARY

EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITY

TOTAL ACRES

ON-SITE

TOTAL ACRES

OFF-SITE
ACRES

IMPACTED
ACRES

PRESERVED
Agricultural/Disturbed/Ruderal 163.9 1.97 154.07 11.8
Northern Mixed Chaparral 2.6 0 2.10 0.5
Riversidean Sage Scrub 32.8 0.01 18.31 14.5
Riversidean Sage Scrub/Ruderal 2.4 0 2.4 0
Southern Arroyo Willow/
Mulefat Scrub 3.0 0.02 0.82 2.2
Total 204.7 2.0 177.7 29.0
Source: L&L Environmental, September 2003.

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 wildlife species, described below. Pursuant to MSHCP, the project’s impacts to Riversidean sage scrub would constitute a significant impact and shall be mitigated with the payment of Local Development Mitigation fees (see the mitigation measures below).

B. IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
No CNDDB records for listed or unlisted but sensitive plant species occur within the boundaries of the proposed project. No sensitive plant species and no narrow endemic species were identified in the general biological survey report compiled by L&L Environmental based on field surveys conducted in 2003 (see Appendix B1). Also, a majority of the proposed project 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 in association with agricultural activities.

Because the project site is not located in the MSHCP Criteria Area, pursuant to Permit No. TE088609, incidental take of “Covered Species Adequately Conserved” listed in Attachment 2 of the Permit is authorized. 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 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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-50
C. IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES
Sensitive species observed on the site include California horned lark, Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, CAGN, coast horned lizard, orange-throated whiptail, western whiptail and black-tailed jackrabbit. According to the analysis contained in the biology report, the proposed project would not significantly impact these species.

No direct impacts to CAGN would occur because the observed nesting pairs are located outside of the proposed disturbance area. Indirect impacts may occur to GAGN and direct and indirect impacts may occur to other observed sensitive species, but because the project site is located outside of the MSHCP Criteria Area and because the proposed project site is not identified in an area required to be surveyed pursuant to the MSHCP’s Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (with the exception of burrowing owl surveys), incidental take is authorized by Permit No. TE-088609. Therefore, impacts are not regarded as significant, except for potential impacts to burrowing owl. 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, thus mitigation will be required.

For mitigation of potential impacts to other sensitive wildlife species, 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.

Additionally, the project site is located within the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County, California (1993), therefore, the applicant will be required to mitigate for the development of land within the HCP by paying a per acre fee to the County of Riverside (see the mitigation measures below).

The project site is identified as having potential nesting habitat for raptors on site. If construction activities will occur between February 1 and August 31 and within 150 feet of suitable nesting locations, potential impacts may occur and a focused raptor survey will be required prior to construction to determine if there are active nests on the property site (see mitigation measures below).

D. IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Although some wildlife movement and foraging will occur within the native vegetation, the site does not provide a densely vegetated drainage, nor does it connect two larger tracts of native habitat. In addition, the drainage on site terminates within the center of the site and does not provide sufficient cover. The agricultural areas also do not provide sufficient cover to allow for wildlife movement.

The hillside does provide cover, but is not considered a wildlife corridor because the hills that are within the northeastern portion of the site are surrounded on all sides by agricultural or residential development. Therefore, the project site is not identified as a wildlife corridor and project implementation would not result in disturbances to local wildlife movement on the property.

E. IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS
Jurisdictional areas on the project site include 62,384.3 square feet (1.43 ac) of state streambeds, and of this, 37,667.9 square feet (0.86 ac) are federal jurisdictional drainages and 29,187.7 square feet TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-51
(0.67 ac) are considered state wetlands. Implementation of TTM No. 31194 would result in direct 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, requiring mitigation. Potential indirect impacts also may occur and are regarded as significant.

TTM No. 31194 proposes avoidance of 27,871.74 sq. ft. (0.64 acres) of state streambeds, all of which is considered state wetlands, and 18,919.3 sq. ft. (0.43 acres) of federal jurisdictional drainages. Also proposed is the creation of three wetland basins and jurisdictional drainages contiguous with the existing drainage and habitat and following the path of the historic blue-line stream. The created habitat and drainage will include approximately 53,400 sq. ft. (1.2 acres) of state streambeds and wetlands; of this, approximately 22,090 sq. ft. (0.51 acres) will be federal jurisdictional drainages.

The avoidance and creation has been proposed as a way to minimize impacts and provide a preferred alternative of quality habitat in a restored blue-line drainage.

4.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

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.

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.

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.

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

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-52

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-53

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 distributed to homeowners. The list of restricted plant materials and the reasons for such restrictions shall be listed in the project’s CC&Rs.

4.3.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-54

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This EIR analysis is based on a studies conducted by L&L Environmental Inc. (L&L) entitled “Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report for Menifee Assemblages TT # 31194, APN’s 360-300-002 to 006, 009, and 360-350-001, Menifee, County of Riverside, California” and the Historical Assessment Amendment and Off-Site Impacts Amendment to the above mentioned archaeological and paleontologiocal assessment report, which are included as Appendix C to this EIR. The report by L&L includes a review of all previous archaeological studies, an archaeological records search, field reconnaissance surveys to identify cultural materials within the subject property, informal interviews with neighbors and previous property owners, and an extensive testing and recording program to document the locations and content of all cultural features and deposits present within the project.

4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. REGIONAL AND SITE HISTORY
The cultural time periods identified in southern California consist of the Paleo-Indian manifestation of the San Dieguito Complex, the Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon (La Jolla Complex), and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean Native American populations. The Late Prehistoric culture in western Riverside County included the Luiseño Indians, with possible influences from the Gabrielino and Cahuilla Indians. The Menifee Valley was sparsely colonized or affected by the Spaniards and Mexican governments prior to the annexation of California. The project site lies to the south of the greater San Jacinto Valley which was a meeting place for several tribes, including the Luiseño, the Cahuilla, and the Serrano. The following provides a description of the cultural time periods within the Southern California region.

‰ The Paleo-Indian Period of North America (~13,000-11,000 YBP ) The history of the Paleo-Indian peoples in the California archaeological record and the culture history of this period generally follows that described for North America as a whole. Current thinking suggests that the period begins with the crossing of humans from Siberia, following a route from the Bering Strait into Canada and the Northwest Coast some time after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet receded (approximately 14,000 YBP) and before the Beringia land bridge was submerged (approximately 12,000 YBP).

Most of the known California Late Paleo-Indian/early Archaic sites are located near extinct desert valley lakes, caves, and on the Channel Islands. These consist of occupation sites, butchering stations, and burials. Late Paleo-Indian/early Archaic burials are known along the southern California coast. Many early sites in California are known along dry lake margins. Dates are generally late relative to other Paleo-Indian sites in North America. Lakeshore occupation sites exhibit artifacts such as large projectile points, debitage, and fire-cracked rock concentrations.

The Paleo-Indian period ends with a marked extinction of large game native to North America and a modification of the prehistoric toolkit. The late Pleistocene-early Holocene geologic period (approximately 11,000 YBP) in California is marked by generally warmer temperatures in desert valleys and less precipitation in mountainous areas.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-55
‰ The Archaic Period (~11,000-2,500 YBP )
The earliest occupation in this region of southern California has been documented as the San Dieguito tradition, which is dated to approximately 8000-5500 BC. These large game hunters used stemmed projectile points, crescents, and leaf-shaped knives. The first appearance of millingstone assemblages is associated with the La Jolla Complex (5500-1000 BC). This complex comprised basin millingstones and unshaped manos, projectile points, flexed burials under cairns and cogged stones. It appears to have been an adaptation to changes in climate after 6000 BC, which may have stimulated movements of desert peoples to the coastal regions, bringing millingstone technology with them. Peoples of the coastal regions focused on mollusks, while inland adaptations relied on wild seed gathering and acorn collecting.
‰ Late Prehistoric (~2,500- A.D.1769 )
Environmental changes around 2000-1000 BC initiated a shift to more land-based gathering practices. The late prehistoric period was characterized by the increasing importance of acorn processing, in addition to other hunting and gathering techniques. San Luis Rey I period (AD 1400 – 1750) is associated with bedrock mortars and millingstones, cremations, small triangular projectile points with concave bases and Olivella beads. The San Luis Rey II (AD 1750-1850) period is marked by the addition of pottery, red and black pictographs, cremation urns, steatite arrow straighteners, and non-aboriginal materials
‰ The Luiseño
The proposed project site is located within the eastern portion of what is a territory associated with the Luiseño, a tribe associated with San Luis Rey Mission. The Mountain/Pass Cahuilla also may have utilized this region. The proposed project site is also close to the ethnic boundaries of the Gabrielino and Juaneño groups. The Luiseño were characterized by the occupation of sedentary villages in subsistence territories. Villages were commonly located along valley bottoms, streams, or coastal strands. During October to November, much of the village population moved to temporary camps in the mountains to harvest acorns and hunt game. Inland groups also had fishing and gathering spots on the coast that they visited annually. In comparison with the Gabrielino and Cahuilla, the Luiseño appear to have had a higher population density and a more rigid social structure. The Luiseño patterns may have been relatively stable until mission secularization in 1834. ‰ Historic Aspects Of The Menifee Valley
The Menifee Valley was sparsely colonized by the Spaniards and Mexican governments prior to the annexation of California by the United States in 1846. The region was under nominal control of the Mission San Luis Rey after 1798, but was considered under-productive land. After secularization in 1830, the Mexican government issued several large land grants in the area, including the Rancho San Jacinto Viejo and the Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero. The Menifee Valley was not included in any of these grants. Therefore, the proposed project site was considered public land when California became a state. In 1880, the Menifee Quartz Lode gold mine, located approximately eight miles south of the community of Perris was discovered. The Menifee mining district was subsequently organized. In 1893 when the area became part of Riverside County, the Menifee School District was organized.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-56
‰ San Jacinto Valley
The proposed project site lies to the south of the greater San Jacinto Valley. Scholars believe the Riverside/San Jacinto area was the meeting place for several tribes, including the Luiseño, the Cahuilla, and the Serrano. It is believed that clan territory was jointly “owned” by the total group, while lineages owned portions of the tribal territory.

A small band of Indians living in the San Jacinto area during the late 1800’s were believed to be the Soboba, and were considered to represent a small branch of the western Cahuilla tribe. Today, the Soboba Band recognizes them as part of the Luiseño. The Agua Caliente Indians, believe that the Cahuilla people moved west after Lake Cahuilla dried up, some time around 500-700 YBP. The evidence presented suggests that prehistoric deposits dated from roughly 800-300 YBP may represent several different cultural entities.

The year 1769 marks the beginning of permanent European settlement in California. As a result of the contact with and the exploitation of conquering governments, aboriginal groups of Southern California suffered a 95% reduction in population from 1769 to 1900. This process, allowed for easy access to resources by immigrant populations from Spain, Mexico, and the Eastern United States.

Prior to American control of California, a wealthy Mexican landowner held most of the area around Hemet. In 1842, the landowner was granted the Rancho San Jacinto Viejo, a 35,000-acre parcel, which included an area encompassing the towns of Hemet, San Jacinto, Valle Vista, (Florida) and Winchester (Pleasant Valley). The ranch was eventually sold to immigrant American pioneers. The Lake Hemet Dam was constructed from 1891-1985. Thus began a trend of water storage, procurement, channeling, and division that would allow the production of foodstuffs, citrus, hay and alfalfa and ultimately the raising of cattle in the area.

B. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS
According to records housed at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside (EIC), Archaeological Resource Management Corp completed a cultural survey within the current project boundaries in 1982. The 1982 survey covered most of the eastern portion of the current project area and located no archaeological resources.

C. RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The results of records and reconnaissance surveys performed by L&L indicate that there are no known previously recorded archaeological sites found within the proposed project site. However, a total of 25 prehistoric and four historic archaeological sites were located within a one-mile radius of the study area.

One prehistoric site (P-33-011203) was recorded less than one quarter-mile to the south and consisted of three bedrock boulders, each containing one grinding slick. No artifacts were found in association with any of the slicks. The area within a one-mile radius is abundant in archaeological resources. Approximately three quarters of a mile to the northeast, several sites were found which appear to have been associated together as components of one large village complex occupied possibly by either different family groups or the same group at different points in time. Prehistoric sites P-33-000332, -000333, and -000634, are all separately recorded village sites situated in a north TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-57
to south trending line, which extends over an area less than one half-mile long. However, the northern most of the three, site P-33-000332 (also known as the Christensen-Webb site), covers approximately 2 to 3-acres and contains slightly differing elements than the others. Farther south is the largest recorded site of the three, P-33-000333, which measures approximately 7.0 acres. Testing at this site revealed over 1,500 artifacts. Prehistoric site P-33-000634, an approximate 2-acres, is located the farthest south, and contains midden deposits, bedrock milling features, and surface lithic scatter. Other sites associated with the village complex are areas of ceremonial use, including cupules and rock art (P-33-000339 and -000340). In addition to the village sites numerous areas exhibiting intermittent use such as food processing sites and habitation sites, are located within a one-mile radius of the project area.

Research was initialized by conducting informal interviews with neighbors and previous property owners to obtain local history of the area. In light of the oral tradition of the area, historic resources were consulted to verify information provided by the neighbors. It was determined that the area was not directly related to the Wells Fargo/Butterfield Stage Route, which ran from 1858 to 1861. One trail that has often been confused with the Butterfield Stage route is the Bradshaw Trail which ran to the northeast of the current project site. L&L was unable to tie the project site to any recorded location of a stage system or stop, neither the Butterfield Stage Route or Bradshaw Trail, nor with any other major mail or stage route that went through Southern California.

Research for the buildings located on the proposed project site consisted of reviewing historic maps of the area, researching online maps and historic data, and local archival research. L&L concluded that there was no stagecoach stop on the current property. There is a possibility that a stagecoach line or old trail could have run where the current Evans Road exists, but it was likely never mapped and was a small, local route intended for the accessibility of local inhabitants to reach the larger cities and towns. L&L determined that the buildings located on the proposed project site were not constructed around 1910 nor are the present buildings considered to be historic. L&L also concluded that the 1910 structure was previously destroyed most likely before 1952. The former residence on site is considered not significant and did not possess historical associations or design to qualify for the California Register of Historic Places. No physical evidence could be obtained to verify that the property was a historic stagecoach stop, stagecoach route or historic trail, therefore the proposed project site is deemed not significant according to the criteria listed by the California Register of Historic Places.

D. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Geologic and paleontologic literature including reports, papers, and maps that covered the geographic area in this region of Menifee and close to the proposed project site were reviewed to ascertain what lithologic unit or units underlie the site. It was then determined whether these units had produced fossils in the past. A record search and examination of the contents of the paleontologic collections at the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDSNH) and San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) was conducted to determine if previous records or formal fossil localities exist on or in the vicinity of the proposed site. No fossils were previously recorded on the project site, nor were fossils found on-site during a field survey conducted by L&L. The older on-site alluvium of the Quaternary Alluvium (Qofa) could, however, has a high potential to produce significant Pleistocene age fossils.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-58
E. REGULATORY CRITERIA
‰ Archaeological Criteria
In most cases prior to development, regulatory protocols require an archaeological record search and Phase I archaeological survey of a property with the potential for cultural resources. These must be conducted in order to determine the occurrence of archaeological sites or artifacts that may be impacted. A Phase I survey was conducted for the project site (see Appendix C to this EIR), and no archaeological resources were discovered. According to federal NHPA/NRHP (ArchNet 1999, CHRIS 1999) protocol, if a Phase I archaeological survey detects cultural sites or artifactual remains; the next step is to determine whether the materials are eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

If cultural materials potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register are in any way under federal jurisdiction and must be affected by the action (development), the action must undergo a Section 106 (NHPA) consultation process. According to state CEQA protocol (CEQA 1999), the archaeologist must determine whether the site is “Unique” or “Nonunique”. ƒ “Uniqueness” (CEQA), and “Significance” (NHPA/NRHP) Criteria. All cultural resources are protected, with provisions, under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

National Register regulations state that archaeological remains that might qualify for inclusion in the National Register (significance) must be mitigated for, while archaeological remains that cannot qualify may not be mitigated for. The "Potentially significant” determination is a colloquial term utilized when there is not enough information to make a conclusive ruling.

A similar evaluative procedure is outlined in CEQA (1999). Here, if a cultural resource is determined to be a Unique archaeological or historical resource, it must be mitigated for.

Those that are Non-unique, “need be given no further consideration, other than simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects”. For these reasons, a detailed evaluation of the resource relative to NHPA and CEQA guidelines may be required if the action disturbs ground within or directly adjacent a historical site boundary, and that site is thought to exhibit potential significance by a qualified archaeologist.

If a site may qualify for the National Register relative to the NRHP criteria, and/or Unique relative to CEQA criteria, the site must be carefully evaluated relative to the effects of the action. If the action will damage or destroy a significant cultural resource thought to be qualifying, that resource must be mitigated for. CEQA guidelines state that each jurisdictional agency is encouraged to publish a “Thresholds of Significance” document.

This document states under what conditions a site will be significant or unique. ‰ Paleontological Criteria
The paleontological sensitivity of a formation or unnamed sedimentary unit, described as high, low, unknown, or none, is the measurement most conducive to assessing the sensitivity of the paleontologic resources and reflects the potential productivity and importance of the fossils produced within a study area.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-59
The potential productivity of a formation is measured as high, low, unknown, or none, based upon the densities of fossil specimens or localities within or near the study area. Exposures of a particular formation within a study area most likely will yield fossils similar in number and kind to those previously recorded from the formation in the surrounding area, and may contain a similar density of fossil sites. The criteria for establishing the potential productivity of a formation exposed within the study area are described in Appendix C to this EIR.

4.4.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts would be regarded as significant if the proposed project would result in any of the following effects on a historic resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a):
a. Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

b. Demolishes or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that accounts for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.
c. Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Impacts also would be regarded as significant if the proposed project would result in the following effect on a paleontological resource.
d. Disrupt or adversely affect an important paleontological resource. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.4.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed in Section 4.1.1, there are no historic or prehistoric sites identified on the proposed project site as a result of field reconnaissance and research of archaeological records. However, archaeologically sensitive sites have been identified within the project vicinity, and the potential for archeologically sensitive sites occurring on the proposed project site exists. The potential for disturbance to undiscovered sites during grading is regarded as a potentially significant impact.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-60
B. IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed in Section 4.4.1, 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.

4.4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Archeological Resources

4.4-1 Prior to any clearing, grubbing and/or earth moving activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the land divider developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to 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, consultation with the culturally affiliated Luiseño Tribe(s) appropriate Native American Tribe (Pechanga), find the potential is high for impact to significant cultural resources, 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 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.

4.4-2(B) The project applicant shall 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.

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 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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-61

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.

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.

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.

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 paleontologic 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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-62

4.4-13 Paleontologic 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.

4.4-14 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 fossil 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 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 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.

4.4.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-63

4.5 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND DRAINAGE
The following discussion is based on a hydrology study entitled, Hydrology Study for Tentative Tract 31194, dated March 25, 2005 June 2006, and prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The Hydrology Study used the rational method for all of the drainage areas as outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (RCFC&WCD) hydrology manual. This study is included as Appendix D1 to this EIR and analyzes the project’s 204.7 acres to determine an approximation of flows generated by the current undeveloped conditions and build-out conditions of project development. A preliminary Hec-Ras calculation for the open channel from lot 335 to lot 360 was used to determine the water surface elevation in the channel at different locations and to verify that all of the lots proposed on both sides of the channel are protected from flooding.

4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
The TTM No. 31194 project site is located in the San Jacinto River Watershed of the Santa Ana Basin. The project site is divided into two drainage areas. Drainage areas are labeled “A” and “B” on Figure 4-9, Existing Conditions Hydrology Map. The major area, area “A”, contains an approximate area of 564.0 acres, on-site and off-site, and produces a 100-year storm runoff of 799.3 842.8 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow is conveyed to a 100-year storm channel located along Evans Road within adjacent TTM No. 30142. The minor area, area “B”, contains an approximate area of 16.8 acres and produces a 100-year storm runoff of 41.4 cfs. This flow drains to an existing canyon located to the east of the project site. Runoff for each drainage basin and supporting calculations are included in Appendix D1 of this EIR.

B. FLOODING AND DAM INUNDATION
According to the Flood Hazards Map of the SCMVAP (SCMVAP Figure 9), the proposed project site is located approximately 4.5 roadway miles south of the nearest 100 year flood zone. The proposed project site is not subject to hazards associated with dam failure. Therefore, the proposed project site would not be subject to flood hazards, and no further analysis of flooding is required.

4.5.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Hydrology, flooding and drainage impacts are considered significant if the project would result in any of the following:
a. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Existing Conditions Hydrology Map
4-64
Fig. 4-9

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com no
t to scal
e
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-65
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
c. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
d. Place habitable structures within a 100-year hazard area or place structures which would impede or redirect flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. e. Cause substantial changes in absorption rates or in the rate and amount of surface runoff or cause substantial changes to the amount of surface water in any water body. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.5.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE
The two drainage areas proposed for TTM No. 31194 are depicted in Figure 4-10, Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map. In its developed condition, drainage area “A” would contain an approximate area of 564.0 565.0 acres, on-site and off-site, and produce a 100-year storm runoff of 799.3 1,000.6 cfs before retention. A Two flow-by retention basins would be developed to keep the flow at or below the existing level. The two flow-by basins (Basin A-1) have been 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. These basins also serve as water quality basins. Basin A-1 would provide a volume of

4.04 acre-feet and Basin A-2 would provide a volume of 2.44 acre-feet as only 674.0 cfs to the outlet pipe at node 400 shown on the hydrology map in Appendix D1. Any peak flow rate above 674.0 cfs would be stored in the basin. The volume required to hold the excess peak flow rate is 2.16 acre-feet.

Because Basin A-1 also would serve as a water quality basin, it is designed to provide 5.35 acre-feet.

The minor area, area “B” would contain an approximate area of 17.01 acres and produce a 100-year storm runoff of 38.26 cfs. This flow would drain to an existing canyon located on the east side of the project site. The flow rate produced from the developed condition would be less than the existing level by 3.2 2.8 cfs. However, 10-year 24-hour unit hydrographs calculated for the area determined that a retention basin of 0.38 acre-feet is required to retain the excess runoff generated from Area B during a 10-year storm. A 0.82 acre-feet basin is proposed to provide retention and water quality treatment.

As the result of the drainage analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (see Appendix D1), a drainage system has been proposed for TTM No. 31194 as illustrated on Final EIR Figure 4 3-5, Revised Master Drainage Plan. As shown, storm drains would be installed on-site and detention basins are proposed to capture runoff and slow the rate of flow. A preliminary on-site hydrology study was used to analyze the project’s 204.7 acres to determine an approximation of flows generated by the current undeveloped conditions and build-out conditions of project development.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map
4-66
Fig. 4-10

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com no
t to scal
e
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-67
As standard conditions of project approval, the following requirements would be imposed on TTM No. 31194:
ƒ Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. ƒ Proposed grading and drainage improvements shall conform to Section 2907 and 7012 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
ƒ The project shall be in compliance with the basin plan of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.

4.5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts would not be regarded as significant; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

4.5.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Significant impacts would not occur.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-68

4.6 WATER QUALITY

4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The California Porter-Cologne Water Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 [also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA)] required that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California.

In order to accomplish this, the California State Water Resources Control Board divided the State into sixteen (16) planning regions. The TTM No. 31194 project area is located within the purview of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (hereafter, the RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQBB adopted Order No. R8-2002-0011/NPDES Permit No. CAS 618033 in 2004 which applies to all development projects submitted for review after January 1, 2005. The Order requires preparation and implementation of project-specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP).

The project site is located in the Santa Ana Basin is a group of connected inland subbasins and open coastal basins that are drained by surface streams flowing generally south-westward to the Pacific Ocean. Although specific results of the Santa Ana Basin water quality study are not available at this time, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has determined that the quality of surface and groundwater in the Santa Ana Basin becomes progressively poorer as water moves along the hydraulic flow-paths toward the Pacific Ocean (USGS, 1999). The highest water quality is typically found in tributaries flowing from surrounding mountains and groundwater recharged by these streams. The project site is located within the San Jacinto River watershed area of the Santa Ana Basin. The San Jacinto River watershed encompasses an area of approximately 753 square miles.

A. SURFACE WATER
All water leaves the subject property as sheet flow, which flows to either an existing 1-year storm channel located along Evans Road or to an existing canyon located east of the project site. Runoff then flows to Salt Creek, located in the San Jacinto River watershed area. Salt Creek is channelized through the developed portions of Menifee and Sun City, and flows into Canyon Lake, where it is ultimately conveyed to Lake Elsinore via Reach 1 of the San Janinto River. The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards. The waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303 (d) of the CWA. The Regional Board placed Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake on the 303 (d) list of impaired waters in 1994. Lake Elsinore is listed as impaired for nutrients, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, sedimentation, siltation and toxicity. Canyon Lake is listed as impaired for nutrients and pathogens.

A list of receiving waters for site runoff is provided below.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-69
B. GROUNDWATER QUALITY
This section summarizes variations and trends in the quality of groundwater. Findings are based upon data compiled by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) over the past several years from a variety of sources, including its ongoing AB3030 monitoring program. A regional groundwater aquifer does not exist under the TTM No. 31194 property, or under the immediately surrounding vicinity. The descriptions below relate to groundwater quality within EMWD’s groundwater basin.

Groundwater quality within the basin varies by location, depth, and over time. The water generally has a mixed water character dominated by sodium chloride and calcium sodium chloride.

Bicarbonate character groundwater occurs in some wells near the Lakeview Mountains. Sulfate character water occurs in the Menifee I subbasin near the Sun City Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility.

Total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations in groundwater range from less than 1,000 to more than 20,000 mg/L. Concentrations less than 1,000 mg/L occur in the Perris North subbasin, Perris South I subbasin, northeastern part of the Lakeview subbasin, and at some locations in other subbasins. The highest TDS concentrations (greater than 7,500 mg/L) occur in the Menifee I subbasin (deeper aquifer zones), northeastern part of the Perris South II subbasin, southwestern part of the Lakeview subbasin, and at isolated locations on the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) in the Perris North subbasin. Brackish groundwater with TDS concentrations generally between 1,000 mg/L and 3,000 mg/L occurs locally in nearly all of the subbasins, but in greater apparent volume in the Perris South II, Menifee I, and southwestern part of the Lakeview subbasin.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-70
Variations in TDS concentrations with depth are known at only a limited number of well sites (generally those explored and tested by EMWD and MARB). In general, groundwater with TDS concentrations above 1,000 mg/L occur in aquifer zones less than 300 feet deep and greater than about 550 feet deep. TDS concentrations above 7,500 mg/L appear to occur most often above a depth of 300 feet.

A general increasing trend in TDS concentrations is observed over time throughout many parts of the basin. The most significant increase is reported in the central part of the Lakeview subbasin, where several wells have experienced a two- to four-fold increase in TDS concentration since the mid1990s.

C. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Within California, three agencies [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)] regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas. Any development proposal that involves impacts to drainage courses, streams, or wetlands through filling, stockpiling, conversion to a storm drain, channelization, bank stabilization, road, or utility crossing or any other modifications would require permits from the ACOE, CDFG, and/or the RWQCB.

Additionally, the County of Riverside Environmental Health Department along with the RWQCB regulate the use of groundwater.

D. FEDERAL LAWS
The Clean Water Act is the principal federal law which addresses water quality. The primary objectives of the Clean Water Act are to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and to make all surface waters “fishable” and “swimmable.” The implementation plan for these objectives includes the regulation of pollutant discharges to surface water, financial assistance for public wastewater treatment systems, technology development, and non-point source pollution prevention programs. The Clean Water Act also establishes that states adopt water quality standards to protect public health or welfare and enhance the quality of water.

The use and value of state waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industrial purposes, and navigation must also be considered by the states.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires discharges (from point and non-point sources) into navigable water to meet stringent standards under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published regulations establishing requirements for application of stormwater permits for specified categories of industries, municipalities, and certain construction activities. The regulations require that discharges of stormwater from construction activity of five acres or more must be regulated and covered by a NPDES permit.

Non-point sources of water pollution consist of surface runoff from a site during or following a storm where the source of pollution cannot be traced to a specific location. When construction areas exceed one acre in size, the applicant must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control non-point pollution.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-71
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOE regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into “Waters of the United States,” including wetlands. A discussion of Waters of the United States on the TTM No. 31194 project site is included in Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

E. STATE LAWS
The California Water Code is the principle state law regulating water quality in California. Water quality provisions must be complied with as contained in the Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Harbors and Navigation Code, and the Food and Agriculture Code.

The California Water Code contains provisions which regulate water and its use. Division 7 covers water quality protection and management. The Health and Safety Code provides for protection of ground and surface waters from hazardous waste and other toxic substances. The Harbors and Navigation Code provides regulations designed to prevent the unauthorized discharge of waste from vessels into surface waters. The Fish and Game Code has provisions to prevent unauthorized diversions of any surface water and discharge of any substance that may be deleterious to fish, plant, animal, or bird life. The Food and Agriculture Code provides for the protection of groundwater which may be used for drinking water supplies.

4.6.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Water quality impacts are regarded as significant if the project would:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. Substantially degrade or alter surface water or groundwater quality. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.6.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Implementation of TTM No. 31194 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 is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area.

There is a statewide General Permit applicable to most areas of the state; however, because TTM No. 31194 is located in the San Jacinto Watershed, the project is subject to a special NPDES permit (No.

CAG 618005) per Order No. 01-34 as adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, on January 19, 2001. Therefore, as a mitigation measure for the project’s potential construction-related water quality impacts, the developer or builder shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES construction permit by developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPPP), approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board, that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff. During construction, the project would follow the specifications per the site’s SWPPP. In addition, the TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-72
permit requires the development and implementation of an approved Monitoring Reporting and Inspection Program, to assure the effectiveness of the controls.

B. POST-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Implementation of the 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. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified street surfaces as the primary source of pollution in urban areas. The street-generated pollutants typically contain atmospheric pollution, tire-wear residues, petroleum products, fertilizer and pesticide washoffs, as well as litter types of wastes. The pollutants are washed off from the street surfaces by a rainfall adequate to produce sufficient runoff. The amount of pollutants washed off the street surface is a function of the amount of pollutants on the street surface and the rainfall amount. The EPA has determined that 0.5 inches of runoff over a one-hour period is sufficient to remove 90 percent of the total accumulated pollutants on the street surfaces. Urban runoff is considered a “non-point” source. Unlike “point” source wastes, non-point sources cannot be quantified through flow measurement, sampling, and analysis techniques. This runoff, typical of urban use, would contribute to the incremental degradation of the water quality downstream. This is regarded as a potentially significant cumulative water quality impact.

In compliance with the The Santa Ana RWQBB Order No. R8-2002-0011/NPDES Permit No. CAS 618033 a project-specific WQMP has been prepared for TTM No. 31194 and is attached as Appendix D2 to this EIR. As specified by the WQMP, treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to remove pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. The project proposes several detention basins, one of which would be used for retention of storm water and the others of which would be used to treat the project’s storm water, in addition to retention purposes. The basins are proposed at the points where runoff from developed portions of the site would enter into the onsite natural drainage. All of the project’s proposed non-structural and structural BMPs are listed in the WQMP attached as Appendix D2.

C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The project would generate a demand for treatment of sewage, which would require treatment and ultimate disposal by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Management of the project area's wastewater would be accomplished by the EMWD, in accordance with the California State Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. The proposed project would comply with the Basin Plan adopted by the Board. As such, project impacts from wastewater disposal, related to water quality, are not anticipated to be significant.

4.6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project includes the following measures to reduce impacts to water quality 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 construction activities associated with the proposed project.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-73
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 part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. The permit requires the applicant to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutants in storm water runoff, as well as nonstorm 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 reduce 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 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.

4.6.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, in conjunction with the incorporation of water quality features into the project design, would reduce the project’s cumulative water quality impacts to less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-74

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SLOPE STABILITY
This section assesses the existing surface and subsurface geological conditions and features of the TTM No. 31194 project site and determines the potential for impacts associated with these features.

The EIR analysis is based on information contained within the County General Plan and a sitespecific technical reports prepared by Leighton and Associates. The reports are entitled, “Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Evans Road and Garbani Road Menifee Area Riverside County, California,” dated June 27, 2002, and “Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading Plans” and “Geotechnical Review Update” dated January 30, 2004, and November 2, 2004, respectively. The geotechnical reports are included as Appendiices H1 and H2 to this EIR.

4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is primarily undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes. Topographically, the central and southeastern portions of the property are relatively flat lying, while the northern region of the property is characterized by a steep topographic feature. A knoll exists near the southeast corner of the property. The site ranges in elevation from approximately 1,500 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 1,762 feet above MSL. The overall topographic relief is approximately 140 feet. Figure 4-11, Topographic Map, illustrates the existing topography of the project site.

A. GEOLOGY
There are three geologic layers present at the site, namely soil/colluvium, weathered bedrock, and unweathered bedrock of both basic and granitic composition. Only the deepest layer, composed of unweathered crystalline rocks, is non-rippable, but the nearest it comes to the surface is approximately 16 feet. Subsurface materials within the site consist of two geologic units consisting of Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) and Cretaceous-Aged Undifferentiated Granitic Bedrock (Kgr).

Provided below are general descriptions of the geologic units identified on-site during field reconnaissance by Leighton and Associates. The general site geology is depicted on Figure 4-12, Geologic Map.
‰ Quaternary Alluvium (Qal): Existing alluvial soil overlays the majority of the site. The alluvium was encountered in the test pits to depths ranging from about 3.5 feet to the maximum depth explored 14 feet below grade. Greater depths of alluvium could occur between the test pit locations. The encountered alluvium typically consists of a silty to clayey sand.

‰ Cretaceous-Aged Undifferentiated Granitics (Kgr): The alluvium is underlain by granitic bedrock that extends to the maximum depths explored in the test pits. In the higher relief regions of the site, the granitic rock is exposed at the ground surface in some locations. The Cretaceous-aged Granitic bedrock generally consists of very massive coarse-grained granodiorite to fine-to medium-grained gabbro. Some highly weathered, light gray to red brown, very fine grained materials also were encountered. The granodiorite is generally offwhite to dark in color while the gabbro is generally light to dark brown-gray.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Topographic Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-75
Fig. 4-11
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'

PROJECT

BOUNDARY
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Geologic Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-76
Fig. 4-12
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
Qal
Qal
Kgr
Kgr
Kgr
Kgr
TP-1
TP-2
TP-3
SL-1
TP-4
TP-5
SL-8
SL-4
SL-3
TP-6
TP-7
TP-12
TP-8
TP-11
TP-9
SL-7
Kgr
TP-10
SL-2
SL-5
SL-6
Qal
Legend
Qal
Kgr
Quaternary Alluvium
Cretaceous-Aged Undifferential
Granitic Bedrock
Approximate Location of
Exploratory Test Pit
Approximate Location of
Geologic Contact
Approximate Location of
Seismic Line
TP-4
SL-8
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-77
B. SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER:

Groundwater was encountered in one test pit at a depth of approximately 12 feet below grade. No seepage or standing water was observed on the ground surface during the time of the investigation.

Groundwater was not encountered within any of the other test pits during exploration.

C. NATURAL SLOPE STABILITY:

Landslides, soil failures, or other indications of natural or engineered slope stability are not known to exist, nor were they observed at the site or nearby properties.

D. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
There are no known active faults crossing the proposed project site. The nearest known active fault is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 6.6 roadway miles to the south of the proposed project site. The maximum credible earthquake is currently estimated to be magnitude 6.8 Mw.

There are secondary hazards associated with seismic activity including ground shaking and rupture, liquefaction, and seismically-induced settlement. These secondary seismic hazards are described below:
ƒ Ground Shaking and Rupture: Because no active or potentially active faults are located on the site, and based on the underlying geology of the property, the potential for ground rupture is low and is not considered significant. Although there are no active or potentially active faults located within the boundaries of the site, a major earthquake in the Southern California area, including the nearby segments of the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults, both of which are active, could cause moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. The seismic risk for the proposed project area is not considered to be substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area, and the geologic investigations conducted for the site conclude that from a geologic standpoint, the property is suitable for development.

Analysis conducted by Leighton and Associates indicates a 10 percent probability that a peak ground acceleration of .39g would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake is therefore considered to be a magnitude 6.8 event on the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone.
ƒ Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement: Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations.

Due to the lack of a shallow water table on the project site, and the presence of shallow bedrock, the potential for liquefaction on the site is low.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-78

4.7.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Geologic and slope stability impacts are considered significant if the property contains geologic constraints that would result in any of the following conditions:
a. Instability of proposed improvements, slope failure, or landslides. b. Exposure of people or structures to seismic induced ground rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, settlement, flooding or other secondary seismic effect that would cause substantial property damage, injury or loss of life. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.7.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. GEOLOGY AND SLOPE STABILITY
The geotechnical studies included as Appendices H1 and H2 to this EIR conclude that the project site is suitable for development from a geotechnical viewpoint. A majority of the site’s steep natural slopes would be preserved as open space in the northeast portion of the property. Based on the existing topography of the site, implementation of the proposed project would result in the creation of cut and fill slopes with a maximum height of approximately 110 feet and 20 feet, respectively.

These slopes would have a maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be landscaped. Initial site preparation would include removal of all existing vegetation, trash and debris from within planned structural areas of the project site. Any existing fill encountered during site development would be removed from beneath all improvements and areas to receive new fill. The existing fill and alluvium would be stockpiled and re-used as engineered fill provided it is free of vegetation and other deleterious materials. The exposed soils would then be scarified to a minimum depth of 8-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 a properly compacted fill. All excavated materials excluding oversized rock (over 8 inches in greater dimension), would be suitable for placement as compacted fill.

Marginally rippable to very difficult ripping with some blasting may be required at shallow depths within portions of the site. Marginally rippable rock and rock requiring heavy ripping (possibly with some blasting required) was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 1 to 50 feet below grade. Oversized boulders or localized hard lenses also may be present. The portions of the site containing 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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-79
B. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
Southern California is a seismically active area, and as such, the proposed project would be subject to seismic events. No active or potentially active faults are located on the property; however, secondary hazards associated with seismic activity have the potential to affect the site, as described below. ‰ Ground Shaking and Rupture: Because no active or potentially active faults are located on the site, and based on the underlying geology of the property, the potential for ground rupture is low and is not considered significant. Analysis conducted by Leighton and Associates indicates a 10 percent probability that a peak ground acceleration of .39g would be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake is therefore considered to be a magnitude of 6.8 event on the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone. Although there are no active or potentially active faults located within the boundaries of the site, a major earthquake in the Southern California area, including the nearby segments of the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults, both of which are active, could cause moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. The seismic risk for the proposed project area is not considered to be substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area, and the geologic investigations conducted for the site conclude that from a geologic standpoint, the property is suitable for development as proposed. Construction of proposed structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) would ensure that potential ground shaking impacts would not result in a significant impact.
‰ Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement: Due to the fact that shallow granitic bedrock exists at the site, impacts associated with liquefaction, and seismically induced settlement are considered unlikely.
‰ Tsunamis and Seiche: Because the Pacific Ocean is located over 25 miles west of the site, there is no potential for tsunamis. Lake Skinner is located approximately 21 roadway miles southeast, and Canyon Lake is located approximately 11 miles northwest of the proposed project site. The proposed project site is located outside of the dam inundation area for these lakes, as depicted in the County’s General Plan. The potential for seiches on the project site is non-existent.

4.7.4 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) underlying soil conditions, (b) liquefaction potential, (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 (UBC), including Appendix Chapter 33. Grading shall also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-80
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 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.

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.

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 representative. Fill shall not be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. 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 (greater than 12 inches) shall be place 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.

4.7.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-81

4.8 SOIL, SLOPES, AND EROSION POTENTIAL

4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. SOILS
A survey of soil for the western Riverside County area has been published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1971). The survey includes an analysis of soil associations in the Sun City/Menifee Valley area (including the project site). Soils are classified according to thickness, layering, type of soils within the layers, and other characteristics. Soils with similar classifications are then grouped into a soil series. The soil series distribution found within the TTM No. 31194 project area is shown on Figure 4-13, Soil Types and Location. Table 4-3, Soil Series and Type, provides a summary of the soil phases within each series.

Table 4-3: SOIL SERIES AND TYPE

SOIL TYPE
MAP
SYMBOL

ESTIMATED

PERCENTAGE

OF PROPERTY
SLOPE

PERCENTAGE
RUNOFF

POTENTIAL

EROSION

SUSCEPTIBILITY
Cajalco fine sandy loam CaC2 3.6% 2 to 8% Slow to
medium
Slight to
moderate
Cajalco fine sandy loam CaD2 3.7% 8 to 15% Medium Moderate Cajalco rocky fine sandy
loam CbD2 0.4% 5 to 15% Slow to medium
Slight to
moderate
Cajalco rocky fine sandy
loam CbF2 2.1% 15 to 50% Rapid High
Cieneba rocky sandy loam CkD2 0.5% 8 to 15% Medium Moderate Honcut sandy loam HnC 3.1% 2 to 8% Slow to
medium
Slight to
moderate
Honcut sandy loam HnD2 4.2% 8 to 15% Medium Moderate
Las Posas loam LaC 0.1% 2 to 8% Slow to
medium
Slight to
moderate
Las Posas loam LaD2 3.6% 8 to 15% Medium Moderate
Las Posas rocky loam LkD2 1.9% 8 to 15% Rapid High
Las Posas rocky loam LkF3 19.8% 15 to 50% Rapid High
Porterville clay PsC 2.1% 2 to 8% Medium Moderate
Vallecitos loam VeC2 4.6% 2 to 8% Medium Moderate
Wyman loam WyC2 34.9% 2 to 8% Medium Moderate
Yokohl loam YbC 14.3% 2 to 8% Medium Slight
Yokohl loam YbE3 1.1% 8 to 25% Rapid High
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey (Western Riverside County), November 1971 TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-82
Cajalco Series: This series consists of well-drained soils developed in decomposing gabbro or other basic igneous rocks. Rock outcrops occur in some areas. These soils are on uplands and have slopes of 2 to 50 percent. In a typical profile, the surface layer is yellowish-brown fine sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown fine sandy loam and loam. It grades to light yellowish-brown loam at a depth of about 18 inches. At a depth of about 22 inches is weathered gabbro.

Cieneba Series: This series consists of somewhat excessively drained soils on uplands with slopes ranging from 5 to 50 percent. These soils develop in coarse-grained igneous rock. In a typical profile, the surface layer is brown sandy loam about 14 inches thick. Underlying this is a light yellowish-brown gravelly coarse sand. At a depth of about 22 inches is slightly acid, weathered granodiorite.

Honcut Series: Soils of the Honcut series are well-drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils developed in alluvium from dominantly basic igneous rocks. Slopes range from 2 to 25 percent. In a typical profile, the surface layer is dark-brown sandy loam about 22 inches thick. The underlying material is brown fine sandy loam or sandy loam and extends to a depth greater than 60 inches.

Las Posas Series: Soils of the Las Posas series are on uplands with slopes that range from 2 to 50 percent. These well-drained soils developed on gabbro and other intrusive basic igneous rocks.

Typically, the surface layer is reddish-brown loam and clay loam about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is dark-red clay and red-heavy clay loam. At a depth of about 32 inches is yellowish-red weathered gabbro.

Porterville Series: The Porterville series consists of well-drained soils on alluvial fans. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. These soils developed in alluvium consisting mainly of very fine basic igneous materials. In a typical profile, the surface layer is brown cobbly clay about 15 inches thick. The next layer is reddish-brown clay about 10 inches thick
Vallecitos Series: The Vallecitos series consists of well-drained soils on uplands. Slopes range from 8 to 50 percent. These soils developed on fine-grained metamorphosed sandstone and shale. In a typical profile, the surface layer is brown loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish-brown loam and heavy clay loam about 12 inches thick. The parent material is fractured, metamorphosed, fine-grained sandstone with clay films on the structural faces.

Wyman Series: The Wyman series consist of well drained soils that lie on alluvial fans with slopes ranging from 2 to 15 percent. These soils developed in alluvium from predominately basic igneous materials. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam approximately 40 inches thick. The substratum is yellowish-red coarse sandy loam.

Yokohl Series: The Yokohl series consists of well-drained soils on old alluvial fans and terraces with slopes ranging from 2 to 5 percent. These soils developed in alluvium from predominately basic igneous materials and are underlain by a hardpan. Typically, the surface layer is reddish-brown loam approximately 10 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish-brown and dark-brown clay approximately 16 inches thick. At a depth of approximately 26 inches is a hardpan of reddish-yellow coarse sand. 4-83
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Soil Types & Locations

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-13 Source: Western Riverside Area, California Soil Survey sheets 128 & 129 TTM No. 31194
LEGEND

SOIL TYPE MAP SYMBOL
Cajalco fine sandy loam
Cajalco fine sandy loam
Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam
Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam
Cieneba rocky sandy loam
Honcut sandy loam
Honcut sandy loam
Las Posas loam
Las Posas loam
Las Posas rocky loam
Las Posas rocky loam
Porterville clay
Vallecitos loam
Wyman loam
Yokohl loam
Yokohl loam
CaC2
CaD2
CbD2
CbF2
CkD2
HnC
HnD2
LaC
LaD2
LkD2
LkF3
PsC
VeC2
WyC2
YbC
YbE3
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-84
B. SLOPES
A great majority of the project site is flat, while the northeastern region of the property is characterized by a steep topographic feature. A knoll exists near the southeast corner of the property.

The site ranges in elevation from approximately 1,500 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 1,762 feet above MSL. The overall topographic relief is approximately 262 feet.

C. EROSION POTENTIAL
Erosion is the process by which the upper layers of the surface (such as soils) are worn and removed by the movement of water or wind. Soils with characteristics such as low permeability and/or low cohesive strength are more susceptible to erosion than those soils having higher permeability and cohesive strength. Additionally, the slope gradient on which a given soil is located also contributes to the soil’s resistance to erosive forces. Because water is able to flow faster down steeper gradients, the steeper the slope on which a given soil is located, the more readily it will erode. The soils are described in Table 4-2 as having a slow, medium or rapid runoff potential, which corresponds to a slight, moderate, or high susceptibility to erosion.

4.8.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Erosion susceptibility and slope impacts are considered significant if the project site would:
a. Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. b. Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. c. Change deposition, siltation, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake.
d. Result in any increase in water erosion either on or off site. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.8.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. SOIL SETTLEMENT AND EXPANSION POTENTIAL
A preliminary settlement analysis was conducted to evaluate the general impact associated with future fills, building structures, and related improvements relative to the expansion and settlement capacity of the soil. The results of the geotechnical analysis indicate that the majority of the on-site materials consist of low plastic clays to fine sandy silts, and generally possesses 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 to be encountered during construction. If present, these materials would not be suitable for structural development, and this is regarded as a potentially significant impact.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-85
B. LANDFORM ALTERATION
Topographically, the central and southeastern portions of the TTM 31194 project site are relatively flat lying while the northern region is characterized by a combined vertical relief of roughly 262 feet between the highest and lowest elevation points on the property. The grading of TTM No. 31194 has been designed to be sensitive to natural landforms. As depicted on Figure 3-1, Tentative Tract Map, a majority of the proposed grading and development will occur on the southwestern portion of the site, and would generally avoid the steeper landforms located in the northeastern portion of the site which are designated natural open space.

The estimated earthwork quantities are 700,000 million cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 700,000 million c.y. of fill. Grading would occur over an approximate 165.7-acre disturbance area. Although alterations to the natural landform would occur, the majority of the site’s steep natural landform is located within the open space portions of the site and would be permanently preserved. Project grading would conform to the County’s Grading Standards. These standards include, but are not limited to maintaining natural drainage patterns, limiting street grades to less than 15 percent, ensuring slope stability, etc. Because the topographic character of the site would be maintained and because the project would comply with the County’s Grading Standards, significant impacts to landform would not occur.

C. EROSION
Development of the project site would include grading or disturbance of approximately 165.7 acres of the site. Grading would remove the property’s existing vegetative cover and expose the underlying soils, which would increase the rate of runoff and increase erosion susceptibility. As indicated in Table 4-2, 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 that have 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. Potential erosion impacts would be greatest in steeper areas and during the first rainy season after grading (before landscaping becomes established). Erosion and dust control techniques would be implemented as part of the required SWPPP that will incorporate BMPs during construction. 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. Erosion impacts to water quality are also discussed in EIR Section 4.6, Water Quality.

Following construction, wind and water erosion on the project site will be reduced, as the disturbed areas will be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces and drainage will be controlled through a storm drain system. The SWPPP for the project also requires post-construction measures to ensure ongoing erosion protection.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-86

4.8.4 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 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 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 the 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.

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.

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 overexcavated and compacted.

4.8.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-87

4.9 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

4.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Riverside County General Plan identifies agricultural lands based upon criteria established by State and Federal agencies. County farmlands are divided into four classifications: Prime Farmlands, Statewide Important Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, and Local Important Farmlands. These four farmland classifications are divided depending on soil characteristics, climatic conditions, and water supply. Figure 4-14, County Agricultural Resources Map, shows areas within the project vicinity which the County General Plan classifies as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” “Statewide Important Farmland,” and “Local Important Farmland.” As shown in Figure 4-14, a portion of the TTM No. 31194 project site lies within an area designated as Local Important Farmland. No areas of the site are designated as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland. “Local Important Farmlands” are considered economically important to the local community. They include farmlands that lack available irrigation water, dryland grain crops planted in 1980 and 1981, major crops (i.e. pasture, summer squash, okra, etc.) dairy lands, lands under County agricultural contracts, and jojoba crops. Approximately 164.7 acres (80.5%), of the TTM No. 31194 project site is designated as Local Important Farmland.

Williamson Act
Agricultural preserves are the result of Riverside County’s participation in the California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act. This program allows owners of agricultural land to have their properties assessed for tax purposes on the basis of agricultural production rather than current market value. Participation in this program is voluntary, and requires 100 contiguous acres of agricultural land under one or more ownerships to file an application for agricultural preserve status with the Riverside County Planning Department. The application is reviewed by the Comprehensive Agricultural Preserve Technical Advisory Committee (CAPTAC) and then submitted to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. The Board of Supervisors may approve, approve with changes, or deny the application. After an agricultural preserve has been established, the land within the preserve is automatically restricted to agricultural and compatible uses, and is also subject to agricultural zoning.

In order to have land within an agricultural preserve assessed on the basis of agricultural production rather than full market value, the property owner(s) and the County of Riverside must enter into a Land Conservation Contract. Either party may file a Notice of Non-Renewal, which would cause the contract to expire in ten years. After the contract has expired, a landowner may apply to remove that property from an agricultural preserve. The landowner also has the option of petitioning the Board of Supervisors for the cancellation of the contract. For a cancellation to be consistent with the Land Conservation Act of 1965, the Board must make all of the specific findings.

The TTM No. 31194 property comprises four parcels (i.e., 360-300-002 through 005) that were part of the Menifee Agricultural Preserve No. 4, Map Number 199, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 25, 1972. A Notice of Non-Renewal for Parcel 360-300-003 was filed on September 13, 1990 and recorded on October 1, 1990 by Instrument Number 362094. A Notice of Non-Renewal Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
County Agricultural Resources Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-88
Fig. 4-14
Source: Riverside County GIS
not to scale
LEGEND
Farmland of Local Importance
Grazing Land
Urban Built-up Land
Area Plan Boundaries
Cities
Major Roads & Highways
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Water
Area Not Mapped
TTM No.
31194

PROJECT
SITE

KEY MAP
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-89
for parcel number 360-300-002 was filed on September 27, 1990 and recorded on October 18, 1990 by Instrument Number 382737. A Notice of Non-Renewal for parcel number 360-300-005 was filed on September 27, 1990 and recorded on October 18, 1990 by Instrument Number 382753. Lastly, a Notice of Non-Renewal for parcel number 360-300-004 was filed on September 18, 1990 and was recorded on October 1, 1990 by Instrument Number 362098. A Notice of Diminishment for all parcels was filed on September 16, 2003, and is listed as Case Number AG00902. Dimishment of Menifee Agricultural Preserve No. 4, Map No. 902 was adopted by Resolution No. 2003-534 on December 1, 2003. In October 2003, the SCMVAP was approved which designated the site as “Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac)” and “Rural Residential.” Soils
A useful tool in determining the value for farming of a given soil type is by utilizing the Storie Index.

The Storie Index rating system ranks each soil according to four general factors, 1) the characteristics of the soil profile and its depth, 2) the texture of the surface soil, 3) the slope of the land on which the soil is located, and 4) other factors, such as drainage, salt content, erosion, and alkali. A rating from zero to 100 percent is then given to each of the four factors and then each is multiplied and a total is reached. Soils are then placed in grades according to their index as shown below in Table 4-4, Storie Index Rating.

Table 4-4: STORIE INDEX RATING

GRADE INDEX RATING
1 80 to 100
2 60 to 79
3 40 to 59
4 20 to 39
5 10 to 19
6 zero to 9
Soils of Grade 1 have few or no limitations that restrict their use for crops. Soils of Grade 2 have few special management needs and are suitable for most crops, but they have minor limitations that narrow the choice of crops. Grade 3 soils are suited to a few crops or to special crops and require special management. Grade 4 soils are severely limited for crops, and if used require careful management. Grade 5 soils generally are not suited to cultivated crops but can be used for pasture and range. Grade 6 consists of soils and land types that generally are not suited to farming. Table 4- 5, Storie Index Rating of On-Site Soils, details the Storie Index for each soil found on the TTM No. 31194 project site.

Approximately 45.8% of the site has a Storie Index rating of 1 or 2 which is considered suitable for farming with few limitations. Approximately 31.2% of the site has a Storie Index rating of 3 or 4 and is suited to a few crops or is severely limited for crops. The remaining 23% of the site is not suited for agricultural uses, as indicated by a Storie Index rating of 5 or 6.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-90

Table 4-5: STORIE INDEX RATING OF ON-SITE SOILS
SOIL TYPE AND SLOPE (%) STORIE
INDEX*
% OF

PROPERTY
Cajalco fine sandy loam, eroded – 2 to 8% 2 3.6%
Cajalco fine sandy loam, eroded – 8 to 15% 3 3.7%
Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, eroded 5 to 15% 4 0.4%
Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, eroded 15 to 50% 5 2.1%
Cieneba rocky sandy loam, eroded 8 to 15% 4 0.5%
Honcut sandy loam, eroded 2 to 8%** 1 3.1%
Honcut sandy loam, eroded 8 to 15% 2 4.2%
Las Posas loam, eroded 2 to 8% 3 0.1%
Las Posas loam, eroded 8 to 15% 3 3.6%
Las Posas rocky loam, eroded 8 to 15% 4 1.9%
Las Posas rocky loam, eroded 15 to 50% 5 19.8%
Porterville clay, eroded 2 to 8 %** 3 2.1%
Vallecitos loam, eroded 2 to 8%** 3 4.6%
Wyman loam, eroded 2 to 8%** 1 34.9%
Yokohl loam, eroded 2 to 8% 4 14.3%
Yokohl loam, eroded 8 to 25% 5 1.1%
*The story index for soils of the same type will vary depending on the gradient of the slope on which that soil is located.
** Indicates soils that are candidate for listing as “Prime Farmland” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance” as identified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s “Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance,” dated August 1, 1995.

4.9.2 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in significant impacts to agricultural lands if it would:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
b. Conflict with existing agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Cause development of non-agricultural uses within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property.
d. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. [Source: Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-91

4.9.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Large portions of the proposed project site have been used for dryland farming over the past 50 years. Approximately 54.2% of the soils in this area are rated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as having limitations for crop production (i.e., Storie Index Rating 3, 4, 5, or 6). Agricultural crops grown on the site have primarily consisted of dryland crops, such as wheat and barley. With implementation of the proposed TTM No. 31194 project, farming of the site would be precluded.

According to the most recent agricultural data available from the California Department of Conservation, in a reports titled “Farmland Conservation Report” for years 1998-2000 and 2000- 2002" Riverside County as a whole experienced a net 15,339-acre loss of Important Farmland between 2000 and 2002 and a net 16,917-acre loss between 1998 and 2000. In the previous four years, from 1994 - 1998, the Department of Conservation reported that the County saw a net loss of 10,637 acres of Important Farmland. Based on this trend over the eight years of collected data, for every 1 acre of loss, there was a gain of approximately 0.6 acres Countywide. This acreage represents only farmland that is classified as Prime, Unique, or of Statewide or Local Importance. As noted above, approximately 164.7 acres of the 204.7-acre TTM No. 31194 project site are designated as Locally Important farmland.

Several properties surrounding the proposed project site are zoned for agricultural use. Adjacent to the proposed project site on the north side are several properties that are zoned for Residential Agriculture (R-A-1, R-A-2 1/2, and R-A-5). Along the property’s western boundary, properties are zoned for Light agriculture (A-1-1) and Residential Agriculture (R-A-1). Properties adjacent to the proposed project site on the south side are zoned for Light Agriculture (R-A-1), and Rural Residential (R-R-1). Along the project’s eastern boundary are 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-toFarm”). Ordinance No. 625 states that any agricultural operation that has been in place for at least three years and is not considered a nuisance operation at the time the operation began, then no change in surrounding land uses shall cause said operation to become a nuisance. Additionally, Ordinance No. 625 requires a note to be added to the Environmental Constraints Sheet for any tentative land division that states:
“…that no agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes in the unincorporated area of the County, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after the same has been in operation for more than three (3) years, if it was not a nuisance at the time it began.”
Because the TTM No. 31194 project site is located within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property, a potentially significant impact to agricultural lands may occur, requiring mitigation in the form of compliance with County Ordinance No. 625.

The General Plan EIR identified that implementation General Plan land uses would result in the loss of approximately 62,084 acres of designated farmland Countywide a significant and unavoidable TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-92
effect of General Plan implementation. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the County for the loss of agricultural lands resulting from buildout of General Plan land uses.

Loss of land used for dryland crop production would occur with implementation of the proposed project; however this is not regarded as a significant impact because the loss of Locally Important Farmland is not considered significant due to the limitations for crop production posed by this type of farmland. The proposed project site does not contain Prime, Unique, or State Important Farmland.

The proposed project would also not conflict with a Williamson Act Contract because Notices of Non-Renewal were recorded over 10 years ago and Diminishment of Menifee Agricultural Preserve No. 4, Map No. 902 was adopted by Resolution No. 2003-534 on December 1, 2003.

4.9.4 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.

4.9.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-93

4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES

4.10.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The County of Riverside General Plan cites the importance of mineral extraction as being essential to the economic well-being of Riverside County. The County identifies that mineral deposits are important to industries such as construction, transportation, and chemical processing.

In 1975 the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted to promote conservation of the State’s mineral resources and to ensure adequate reclamation of mined lands. In part, SMARA requires the State Geologist to classify lands in California according to their mineral potential. The mineral land classification reports are then submitted to the State Mining and Geology Board. The State Mining and Geology Board forwards the information to the appropriate local governments that maintain jurisdictional authority in mining, reclamation, and related land use activities. This information is required to be incorporated into local governments’ general plans and must be considered when making land-use decisions.

A. MINERAL RESOURCE ZONES
The State Geologist separates areas subject to the California Mineral Land Classification into four basic Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories and two sub-categories. Figure 4-15, Mineral Land Resource Zones and Classification, depicts the MRZ areas as they relate to the project site and areas adjacent to the project. The project site does not contain any identified Mineral Resource Zones; however, individual Mines and Prospect areas are identified by the State Geologist. Each Mine and Prospect area is assigned an MRZ zone. The following zones are depicted in Figure 4-16, RCIP Mineral Resource Maps.
‰ MRZ-1: Areas where available geologic information indicates there is little likelihood for the presence of significant mineral resources.
‰ MRZ-2: Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicates that significant measured, indicated or inferred, resources are present. MRZ-2 is divided on the basis of both degree of knowledge and economic factors.
‰ MRZ-2a: These areas contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured or indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in the MRZ-2a category is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits. ‰ MRZ-2b: Areas classified MRZ-2b contain discovered mineral deposits that are either inferred reserves as determined by limited sample analysis, exposure, and past mining history or are deposits that presently are sub-economical. Further exploration work and/or changes in technology or economics would result in upgrading areas classified as MRZ2b to MRZ-2a.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Mineral Land Resource Zones and Classification

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-94
Fig. 4-15
Source: Mineral Land Classification Map of the Southern Temescal Valley Area not to scale
TTM No.
31194
LEGEND
MRZ-3a: Areas containing known mineral occurrences of
undetermined mineral resource significance.

Further exploration work within these areas could
result in the reclassification of specific localities into MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories.

MRZ-4: Areas of no known mineral occurrences where
geologic information does not rule out either the
presence or absence of significant mineral
resources.*
*The distinction between the MRZ-1 and MRZ-4
categories is important for land use considerations.

It must be emphasized that MRZ-4 classification
does not imply that there is little likelihood for the
presence of mineral resources, but rather there is a
lack of knowledge regarding mineral occurrence.

Further exploration work could well result in the
reclassification of land in MRZ-4 areas to MRZ-3 or
MRZ-2 categories.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
RCIP Mineral Resources Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-95
Fig. 4-16
Source: Riverside County GIS
not to scale
LEGEND
State Designated Aggregate Resource Area
Water
Cities
Unstudied
MRZ-2
MRZ-3
MRZ-4
Major Roads & Highways
Area Plan Boundaries
TTM No.
31194

PROJECT
SITE

KEY MAP
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-96
‰ MRZ-3a: Areas classified MRZ-3a contain known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Further exploration work within these areas could result in the reclassification of specific localities into MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. As shown on the California Mineral Land Classification Diagram, MRZ-3 is divided on the basis of knowledge of economic characteristics of the resource.
‰ MRZ-3b: Areas classified MRZ-3b contain inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Land classified MRZ-3b represents areas in geologic settings that appear to be favorable environments for the occurrence of specific mineral deposits.

Further exploration work could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the MRZ-3a category or specific localities into MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b categories. ‰ MRZ-4: Areas of no known mineral occurrences where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of significant mineral resources. (MRZ-4 classification does not imply that there is little likelihood for the presence of mineral resources, but rather there is a lack of knowledge regarding mineral occurrences.) B. MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION
The TTM No. 31194 property is not identified as a mineral resource zone. However, individual mines and prospect sites are located within the project vicinity and are therefore classified as a MRZ resource.

MRZ-3a (h-7): As shown on Figure 4-15, Mineral Land Resource Zones and Classification, TTM No. 31194 is located approximately 3 miles northwest of the proposed project site. This zone includes the historic Alice Mine. Gold was discovered in the early 1890’s in outcroppings of quartz veins in deeply weathered gabbroic country rock. Development of this mine was reported underway in 1894. At its peak, approximately 500 tons of ore were said to be ready for milling. Operations at the mine were suspended in 1896, and subsequent reports indicate no further activity. Future mineral development in the Alice mine area would be dependent on establishment of remaining economic ore reserves at depth and laterally along strike of the vein system. Favorable economics for underground mining would also be necessary if the gabbroic country rock does not contain economic reserves.

C. MINES AND PROSPECTS
The California Mineral Lands Classification identifies five mine/mining prospect areas within the immediate vicinity of the proposed TTM No. 31194 project. As shown on Figure 4-15, Mineral Land Resource Zones and Classification, mines and mining prospect areas are depicted on the Mineral Land Classification Map using a circle representing the location of the mine or prospect area, and a number that corresponds to a description of the mine or prospect area within a report entitled, “Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, 1991.” There are no active mines or mining prospect areas on the proposed project site.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-97

4.10.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts to mineral resources would be considered significant if the project would:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in an area designated by the State of California that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a designated Aggregate Resource Area as delineated on the Riverside County General Plan.
c. Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine.
d. Expose people to hazards from proposed, existing, or abandoned quarries or mines. [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.10.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
As indicated on Figure 4-15, Mineral Land Resource Zones and Classification, the project site is not designated by the State of California as a known mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources.

As indicated on Figure 4-16, RCIP Mineral Resources Map, no mineral resource areas are identified on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project 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 proposed project site are generally located between 1.5 to 2.5-mile away from the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not represent an incompatible land use located adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine. As discussed in Section 4.11, Toxic Substances, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to hazards from proposed, existing, or abandoned quarries or mines. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would not occur.

4.10.4MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant impacts to mineral resources would not occur; therefore, mitigation is not required.

4.10.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Significant impacts would not occur.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-98

4.11 TOXIC SUBSTANCES
The information and analysis presented in this section is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, titled “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Wickerd Street Site” prepared by EnGEN Corporation, dated June 3, 2002. This report is contained as Appendix I to this EIR.

4.11.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
For the purposes of this EIR, the term “toxic substance” is defined as a substance, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause any of the following: 1) significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial presence of potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Toxic substances include chemical, biological, flammable, explosive, and radioactive substances.

Various government levels share responsibility for the safe disposal of contaminates, toxic wastes and the cleanup of hazardous substance spills. As reports of toxic pollution have multiplied in recent years, national, state, regional, and local agencies have become increasingly concerned with the adequacy of current disposal and spill clean-up systems. State and regional agencies have asked local governments to participate in the establishment of disposal sites, uniform handling practices, and regulations to insure adequate toxic substance waste disposal and spill clean-up.

The proposed project site consists of approximately 204.7 acres located north of Wickerd Road and south of Daniel Street in unincorporated Riverside County. A review of historical aerial photographs and historic maps conducted by EnGEN Corporation (EnGEN) determined that the subject property has been used historically for agricultural crop production.

A review of regulatory agencies databases was conducted by EnGEN in an effort to locate nearby properties that may contain possible environmental contaminants. Information obtained indicated that the project site has never been cited or known to have been involved with hazardous waste and/or petroleum generation, storage, treatment, or disposal. An environmental record search indicates there is one site located within a distance of 2,000 feet of the proposed project site which is known to be associated with the use of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons. Review of the available data reveals no adverse environmental impact on the subject site.

Field reconnaissance of the proposed project site performed by EnGEN in 2002 revealed no apparent presence of asbestos-containing materials or PCBs on or near the project site. The inspection did not uncover above-ground or underground storage tanks on the property, and no unusual odors or other conditions that would be of concern from an air emission standpoint were encountered on the subject property. There was no observed evidence of disposal of hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or other liquid wastes either on the subject property or on adjacent properties along the perimeter of the subject property. Furthermore, there was no evidence of hazardous waste generation storage and disposal observed on the site. In addition, there was no observed evidence of major use of disposal of pesticides and herbicides on the project site or adjacent properties along the project boundaries, and there was no evidence of lead-based paint on the property. Finally, there is no TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-99
evidence of regulatory actions, known site problems, or nearby problems on the property and the likelihood of toxic substances migrating onto the proposed project site for off-site services is low.

4.11.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in significant impacts with regard to toxic substances if the proposed project would:
a. Create a significant impact hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan.
d. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. e. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to a Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
[Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.11.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
The predominant land uses proposed for the project site include residential development, open space, and neighborhood park. These uses have little potential for storage of toxic substances with the exception of household chemicals. Common household chemicals are of such a low concentration and volume that they pose no significant impacts to human health and safety.

During grading and construction, there is a low potential for the discovery of hazardous materials; however, this possibility for discovery of hazardous materials is regarded as a potentially significant impact. Household waste, such as paints, roofing materials and solvents, would be used in building and construction of the TTM No. 31194 project. Disposal of this type of waste is prohibited in County landfills. The County has implemented load check programs at the County landfills to identify and recover household hazardous waste (HHW). The County has initiated the first phase of a Phased Reuse program at the CAF in order to reuse recovered items rather than putting them aside for disposal.

State, federal, and local laws strictly regulate the storage and use of hazardous materials. Existing control regulations reduce potential impacts associated with storage and use of hazardous materials to less than significant levels. Additionally, implementation of the objectives contained in the Riverside County General Plan with regard to toxic substances requires that the safe handling, disposal, and TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-100
clean-up of toxic substances be implemented in compliance with federal, state, regional programs and regulations.

4.11.4MITIGATION 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, asbestoscontaining materials and/or buried trash/debris encountered during removal and/or grading shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.

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 assessed prior to proposed off-site use or disposal. Exported soil, if contaminated, shall be and 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, 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.

4.11.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-101

4.12 CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC

4.12.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following discussion is based on the technical traffic study entitled, “Tentative Tract 31194 Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) County of Riverside, California, dated November 22, 2004, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This report is included in its entirety in Appendix E of this document. A supplement to the traffic report that supports the Project’s proposed Circulation Element General Plan Amendment also is included in Appendix E.

A. EXISTING ROADWAYS
Western Riverside County is served by major freeways connecting Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange Counties to central Riverside County and San Bernardino County. The Riverside Freeway (State Highway 91) provides a major access through Riverside County in an east-west alignment.

This freeway links Riverside County to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Major north-south access is provided by Interstate 15 (I-15) and Interstate 215 (I-215). These freeways connect the western Riverside County area to San Diego County to the south and San Bernardino County to the north.

The proposed project is located north of Wickerd Road and south of Garbani Road between Murrieta Road and Haun Road in the County of Riverside. The project site can be accessed from the south at the I-215/Scott Road interchange and from the north at the I-215/Newport Road interchange. The site is currently undeveloped and generates nominal traffic volumes from agricultural activity on-site.

Figure 4-17, Existing Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element, shows the current designations and cross-sections for the major roads surrounding the TTM No. 31194 project site.

Figure 4-18, Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls, identifies the existing number of through lanes and intersection controls for the major roadways surrounding the proposed project site. Figure 4-19, Study Area Roadways, depicts the existing study area roadways directly relevant to TTM No. 31194. The following paragraphs describe the existing study area roadways depicted in Figure 4-19.
‰ Interstate 215 (I-215): I-215 is a north-south oriented freeway located in western Riverside County approximately 0.77 roadway mile east of the proposed project site. I-215 can be accessed via Scott Road to the south of the project site and via Newport Road to the north of the project site.
‰ Scott Road: Scott Road is generally an east-west trending roadway located approximately

0.50 roadway mile to the south of the project site. Scott Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as an “Arterial (128’ ROW)” roadway.
‰ Newport Road: Newport Road is generally an east-west oriented roadway located approximately 2.0 roadway miles to the north of the project site. Newport Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as an “Urban Arterial (152’ ROW)” roadway.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Existing Riverside County General Plan
Circulation Element

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-102
Fig. 4-17
Source: RCIP
not to scale
LEGEND

GARBANI ROAD

DAOR ATEI RRUM

DAOR SNAVE

WICKERD ROAD

DAOR YELDARB

DAOR NUAH
*SCOTT ROAD
TTM No.
31194
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Existing Number of Through Lanes
and Intersection Controls

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-103
Fig. 4-18
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Study Area Roadways

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-104
Fig. 4-19
not to scale

NEWPORT RD
M
U
R
RIETA
R
D
H
A
U
N
R
D

HOLLAND RD

CRAIG AVE

SCOTT RD

WICKERD RD WICKERD RD

GARBANI RD

HOLLAND RD

GARBANI RD
.77 Miles
.50 Miles

2.0 Miles
.44 Miles .50 Miles

1.0 Mile
.51 Miles
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-105
‰ Murrieta Road: Murrieta Road is generally a north-south trending roadway located approximately 0.44 roadway miles to the west of the project site. The project site can be accessed via the intersection of Murrieta Road and Garbani Road. Murrieta Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as an “Arterial (128’ ROW)” roadway. ‰ Garbani Road: Garbani Road is generally an east-west oriented roadway located directly north of the project site. This roadway intersects Haun Road to the east of the project site and Murrieta Road to the west of the project site. Garbani Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as an “Urban Arterial (152’ ROW)” roadway and proposed CETAP corridor.
‰ Haun Road: Haun Road is generally a north-south oriented road located approximately 0.50 roadway mile to the east of the project site. Haun Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as a “Major (118” ROW)” roadway.
‰ Holland Road: Holland Road is an east-west oriented roadway located approximately 1.0 roadway mile to the north of the project site. This roadway is intersected by Haun Road to the east of the project site and Murrieta Road to the west of the project site. Holland Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as a “Major (118” ROW)” roadway. ‰ Wickerd Road: Wickerd Road is a roadway traversing the project site from northwest to southeast. This roadway is intersected by Haun Road to the east of the project site and Evans Road to the west of the project site. Wickerd Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as a “Secondary (100’ ROW)” roadway.
‰ Craig Avenue: Craig Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located approximately 0.51 roadway miles to the north of the project site. Craig Road is designated by the SCMVAP Circulation Plan as a “Secondary (100’ ROW)” Roadway.

B. TRANSIT
The study area is served by the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) Routes 37 and 40. Route 37 provides fixed bus service along the I-215 Freeway and Antelope Road between Newport Road and Scott Road. Route 40 provides service at Bradley Road (north of Newport Road), Newport Road (west of Murrieta Road and east of Bradley Road), and Murrieta Road (north of Newport Road).

C. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). The HCM defines Level of Service (LOS) as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate Level of Service (LOS) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of LOS for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are:

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-106
• LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
• LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
• LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream.
• LOS "D" represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. • LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement.
• LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations.

LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS

LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (IN SECONDS) Signalized Unsignalized
A 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00
B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01-15.00
C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00
D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00
E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00
F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up
A total of 14 intersections in the vicinity of the project have been evaluated to determine their existing levels of service. These 14 intersections are those identified by the County of Riverside Transportation Department for study as part of the technical traffic report. These intersections and their morning and evening peak hour LOS are listed in Table 4-6, Intersection Analysis for Existing Traffic Conditions. Estimates of existing traffic conditions are delineated in Figure 4-20, Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes and Figure 4-21, Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes.

As shown on Table 4-6, all study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable Level of Service during the peak hours except for the following intersection:
• Haun Road (NS) at :
--Scott Road (EW)
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-107
Table 4-6: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Delay1 LOS2 (AM) Delay1 LOS2 (PM)
Murrieta Road (NS) at:
-Holland Road-N (EW) 15.3 C 10.8 B
-Holland Road-S (EW) 14.5 B 10.8 B
-Garbani Road (EW) 14.2 B 9.4 A
-Scott Road (EW) 12.1 B 12.7 B
Evans Road (NS) at:
-Garbani Road-W(EW) 8.6 A 8.5 A
-Garbani Road-E (EW) 8.4 A 8.4 A
Haun Road (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) 11.0 B 8.7 A
-Holland Road (EW) 12.9 B 10.6 B
-Wickerd Road (EW) 10.9 B 9.4 A
-Scott Road (EW) 30.4 D 36.5 E*
I-215 SB Ramps (NS) at :
-Newport Road (EW) 13.0 B 14.1 B
-Scott Road (EW) 11.5 B 12.3 B
I-215 NB Ramps (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) 11.9 B 13.3 B
-Scott Road (EW) 20.6 C 27.0 D
1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 Operations Method (Delay in Seconds) 2 Level of Service (LOS)
* = Unacceptable Level of Service.

Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc., November 22, 2004
For existing traffic conditions, traffic signals are currently warranted at the following study area intersections:
• Murrieta Road (NS) at:
--Garbani Road (EW)
--Scott Road (EW)
• Haun Road (NS) at:
--Scott Road (EW)
• I-215 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at:
--Scott Road (EW) *
• I-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at:
--Scott Road (EW) **
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-108
Fig. 4-20
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-109
Fig. 4-21
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-110

D. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
The Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) represents a directive for local governments to measure and mitigate the impact of land use decisions on streets, highways, and regional transportation systems, or face funding sanctions. The CMP directly links land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will more effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality.

The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan - Western Riverside County Sub-Region has two goals to improve the existing regional non-motorized system and help the SCAG region meet its mobility and air quality goals. The first goal is make the overall transportation system accessible, safe, and convenient for bicycle and pedestrian travel and the second goal is to increase the pedestrian and bicycle mode-split, thus reducing vehicle trips and miles traveled.

Freeway interchange improvements, railroad grade separations, and arterial widening projects are being considered for inclusion into the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The TUMF includes a network of regional facilities (Regional System of Highways and Arterials-RHSA Network) and endeavors to spread the cost on a regional basis through participation of the County and individual cities. The following roadways in the study area are included in the TUMF program for Riverside County: Newport Road (Murrieta Road to I-215 Freeway); I-215 Freeway/Newport Road Interchange; I-215 Freeway/Scott Road Interchange; Scott Road (Murrieta Road to I-215 Freeway); and the Murrieta Road/Scott Road intersection. In addition, the proposed project site is located within the County of Riverside’s Scott Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) which also funds transportation projects in a select area of the County.

E. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) As part of the RCIP process, the County is considering adoption of the CETAP. CETAP identifies locations for major new multimodal transportation facilities to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is conducting various studies to determine the most appropriate location for each of these facilities. Two primary linkages or “corridors” are being studied in the vicinity of the proposed project: the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Alternative and the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Alternatives. The proposed project site is located northwest of the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Alternative and south of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Alternatives. No corridor alternatives are planned to traverse the project site; thus, the proposed project is not expected to be directly affected by any CETAP policies or alternatives.

4.12.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The project would result in a significant impact on circulation and traffic if it would generate traffic that would:
a. Cause a study area intersection to fall below an acceptable level of service (direct impact).
b. Contribute traffic to a study area intersection operating at below an acceptable LOS without project traffic (cumulative impact).

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-111
c. Fail to construct on-site or off-site road segments and/or traffic controls as needed to accommodate project-generated and anticipated ambient traffic. d. Be inconsistent with regional transportation plans.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942]

4.12.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED BY THE PROJECT
As part of the proposed project, several roadway improvements are proposed. ƒ The construction of Wickerd Road from the easterly project boundary to align with Garbani Road at its ultimate full-section width as a Major roadway. This includes realigning and upgrading the designation of Wickerd Road in the SCMVAP from a Secondary roadway (110’ ROW) to a Major roadway (118’ ROW) between Evans Road and Haun Road.

ƒ The construction of Garbani Road as a paved two-lane extension from Evans Road to the westerly project boundary to provide site access with a minimum of a 32-foot paved section. ƒ The construction of Wickerd Road as a paved two-lane extension from the easterly project boundary to Haun Road in conjunction with development to provide site access with a minimum of a 32-foot pavement section.

In addition to the above-listed improvements, the proposed project would be subject to the following standard Riverside County Conditions of Approval.
• The project will be subject to the County of Riverside Traffic Signal Fee program which is administered on a per-dwelling-unit basis for residential development. The project’s costs to construct the road and signal improvements outlined in the above mitigation measures shall be credited against the fees required by this transportation fee program. • Traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.
• Sight distance at each project access roadway shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/County of Riverside sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
• The project applicant or developer shall participate in funding of off-site improvements needed to serve cumulative future conditions through payment of appropriate fees. The TUMF process includes a network of regional facilities and endeavors to spread the cost on a regional basis through participation of the County and individual cities. It provides a key funding source for General Plan improvements in the area. In addition to TUMF fees, the project applicant or developer shall participate in funding required by the Scott Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) for construction of off-site improvements.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-112
B. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The technical traffic study analyzed 484 single-family dwelling units, which is projected to 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. Table 4-7, Project Trip Generation, shows daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed development.

Table 4-7: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

PEAK HOUR ADT
AM PM
LAND USE QUANTITY1

IN OUT IN OUT

DAILY ADT
Single-Family Detached Residential 484 DU 92 271 315 174 4,632 1 DU = Dwelling Units
Source: Urban Crossroads, 2003; November 22, 2004
C. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Figure 4-22, Project (Opening Year) Trip Distribution, shows the volume of project traffic assigned to the local roadway network at the opening year.

D. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS (OPENING YEAR)
The Opening Year intersection levels of service with and without the TTM No. 31194 project and with and without planned improvements are shown in Table 4-8, Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Project Traffic Conditions. As shown in Table 4-8, all intersections in the study area would operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed project and planned improvements. Figure 4-23, Opening Year with Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, and Figure 4-24, Opening Year with Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, depict the volume of traffic assigned to the local roadway network. A list of improvements anticipated to be constructed at opening year are depicted in Figure 4-25, Summary of Intersection Improvements.

E. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS AT GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (YEAR 2025 CONDITION) Year 2025 intersection levels of service with and without the TTM No. 31194 project and with and without planned improvements are shown in Table 4-9, Intersection Analysis for Post 2025 Project Conditions. As depicted in Table 4-9, all intersections in the study area would operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed project and planned improvements.

The addition of project traffic to the 2025 buildout condition would not result in significant impacts to any study area intersection because the addition of project traffic would not cause any intersection to fall below an acceptable LOS. However, as previously mentioned, the level of service at study area intersections would only be maintained at acceptable levels with implementation of the improvements envisioned by the County General Plan and the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP) Circulation Plan. Many of the improvements envisioned by the SCMVAP are regional in nature, and project implementation would cumulatively contribute to the need for these improvements. Therefore, project implementation would result in a cumulatively significant impact to study area intersections. Also, in the event that the approval of the other jurisdictions for identified intersection improvements cannot be obtained, cumulative impacts to be mitigated by these Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Project (Opening Year) Trip Distribution

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-113
Fig. 4-22
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-114
Table 4-8: INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Level Of
Service Without Project
Level Of
Service With Project

WITHOUT

IMPROVEMENTS
WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

WITHOUT

IMPROVEMENTS
WITH

IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Murrieta Road (NS) at:
-Holland Road-N
(EW)

D B B A D C A A
-Holland Road-S (EW) C B - - C B - -
-Garbani Road (EW) F* C B A F* C B B
-Scott Road (EW) C E* B B D F* B B
Haun Road (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) B A - - B B - -
-Holland Road (EW) C B - - C B A A
-Wickerd Road (EW) B A - - B B A A
-Scott Road (EW) F* F* C C F* F* A A
I-215 SB Ramps (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) B B - - B B - -
-Scott Road (EW) B D B B C F* A A
I-215 NB Ramps (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) B B - - B B - -
-Scott Road (EW) D F* C D E* F* C B
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc. November 22, 2004
* = Unacceptable Level of Service
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-115
Table 4-9: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR POST 2025 PROJECT CONDITIONS Level Of
Service Without Project
Level Of
Service With Project

WITHOUT

IMPROVEMENTS
WITH

IMPROVEMENTS

WITHOUT

IMPROVEMENTS
WITH

IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Murrieta Road (NS) at:
-Holland Road (EW) F* F* C C F* F* C C
-Garbani Road (EW) F* F* C C F* F* C C
-Scott Road (EW) F* F* C C F* F* C C
Evans Road (NS) at:
-Garbani Road (EW) F* F* C C F* F* C C
-Scott Road (EW) F* F* B C F* F* B C
Garbani Road (NS) at:
- Wickerd Road (EW) - - B C - - B C
Haun Road (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) F* F* C D F* F* C D
-Holland Road (EW) F* F* D D F* F* D D
-Craig Avenue (EW) - - A A - - A A
-Garbani Road (EW) F* F* D D F* F* D D
-Wickerd Road (EW) F* F* C C F* F* C C
-Scott Road (EW) F* F* D D F* F* C D
I-215 SB Ramps (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) F* F* B C F* F* B C
-Scott Road (EW) F* F* C D F* F* C D
I-215 NB Ramps (NS) at:
-Newport Road (EW) F* F* B C F* F* B C
-Scott Road (EW) F* F* A C F* F* A C
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc., November 22, 2004
* = Unacceptable Level of Service
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Opening Year With Project AM Peak
Hour Intersection Volumes

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-116
Fig. 4-23
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Opening Year With Project PM Peak
Hour Intersection Volumes

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-117
Fig. 4-24
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
4-118
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Summary of Intersection Improvements (1 of 3)

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-25
4-119
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Summary of Intersection Improvements (2 of 3)

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-25
4-120
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Summary of Intersection Improvements (3 of 3)

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-25
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-121
improvements would be significant and unavoidable. Pplanned improvements within the approval authority of other jurisdictions include the I-215 southbound ramps at Newport Road (Caltrans), the I-215 northbound ramps at Newport Road (Caltrans and City of Murrieta), and the southbound and northbound ramps at Scott Road (Caltrans).

F. FREEWAY MAINLINE ANALYSIS
The proposed project will contribute vehicle trips to the freeway system, including Interstates 15 and 215. The County General Plan EIR identified segments of I-15 and I-215 as facing a 50 to 100 percent increase in traffic and operating conditions below LOS D as a result of General Plan buildout. The project’s incremental contribution to freeway mainlines is considered a significant cumulative impact.

G. PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS The proposed project complies with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan by meeting the anticipated need for roadway improvements. Specifically, the project proposes to realign and upgrade Wickerd Road from a Secondary (100’ ROW) roadway to a Major (118’ROW) through the project site, and the project’s traffic report recommends that such upgrade be accomplished between Evans Road and Haun Road, and construct that segment. The project’s Circulation Element General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00729) also proposes 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 between Craig Avenue and Garbani Road, and to correct a mapping error to remove an unnamed Secondary between Wickerd Road and Evans Road. The project’s traffic report and supplement supports these proposed roadway classification changes as shown on Figure 4-25A, General Plan Amendment Circulation Element Recommendations.

The Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) prompts reasonable growth management programs that would more effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. The TTM No. 31194 project would construct on-site roadways to accommodate development consistent with the property’s SCMVAP land use map.

Through-traffic movements would be accompanied by nearby arterial roadways. The future availability of transit service, planned traffic signal improvements, and planned roadway improvements would accommodate the growing population and would help prevent significant impacts caused by higher traffic volumes.

Figure 4-26, SCMVAP Trails and Bikeway System, depicts a regional trail located directly north of the proposed project site, but as shown, no regional facilities are planned to be located on the TTM No. 31194 project site. As part of project development, however, local pedestrian and bicycle systems will be provided.

4.12.4MITIGATION 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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-122

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 project 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).

4.12.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Direct impacts – less than significant.

Cumulative impacts – significant.

There no mechanism available for payment of fair share contributions to mitigate freeway impacts.

Therefore, cumulative impacts to I-15 and I-215 freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable.

In addition, improvements at the I-215 northbound and southbound ramps at Newport Road and Scott Road require the approval of Caltrans or the City of Murrieta. In the event that the approval of the other jurisdictions for these identified intersection improvements cannot be obtained, cumulative impacts to be mitigated by these improvements would be significant and unavoidable.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
General Plan Amendment Circulation
Element Recommendations

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-123
Fig. 4-25A
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
SCMVAP Trails & Bikeway System

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-124
Fig. 4-26
Source: RCIP
not to scale
LEGEND
TTM No.
31194

KEY MAP
TTM No.
31194 215
*
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Circulation Recommendations

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
4-125
Fig. 4-27
Source: Urban Crossroads
not to scale
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-126

4.13 AIR QUALITY
The following air quality assessment is based on a technical report entitled, Air Quality Impact Analysis Woodside Homes, Tentative Tract No. 31194, prepared by Giroux & Associates, and dated August 15, 2003 October 2005. The air quality technical report is contained within Appendix F of this EIR.

4.13.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. ATMOSPHERIC SETTING
Tentative Tract No. 31194 is located in the Menifee Valley of Western Riverside County. The climate of the Menifee area, called an interior valley subclimate of Southern California’s Mediterranean-type climate, is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. The clouds and fog that form along the area’s coastline rarely extend as far inland as the Menifee Valley, and usually burn off quickly after sunrise. The most pollution-related weather pattern is associated with the warm season airflow across populated areas of the Los Angeles Basin that brings polluted air into Western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality when the fringes of this “urban smog cloud” extend to the project site during the summer months.

Temperatures in the project area average 65 degrees Fahrenheit (F) year-round, with warm summer afternoons (95 + degrees) and often cool winter mornings (around 35 degrees). Rainfall in the project area varies considerably. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of midlatitude storms from late November to early April, with summers often completely dry. Rainfall in Menifee averages 12.5 inches per year, but varies markedly from one year to the next.

Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of the project site because they both determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the local rate of pollution dispersion near a source. Daytime winds are from the West to Northwest at 6 to 8 mph as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean to the warm Mojave Desert interior of Southern California. These winds allow for good local mixing, but they may bring air pollutants from urbanized coastal areas into interior valleys.

Strong thermal convection in the summer in the Menifee Valley ultimately dilutes the smog cloud from urbanized development, but the project area is too close to Los Angeles Basin emissions sources to completely avoid the regional air quality degradation resulting from the photochemical airborne reactions that create the summer smog and haze throughout the air basin. At night, air drains off surrounding mountains and then pools on the valley floor. Nocturnal breezes are cool and clean, but they may allow for local stagnation of air on the valley floor. Such near-calm winds, in conjunction with localized temperature inversions tend to maximize the impact of any local pollution emissions sources.

In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California experiences strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-127
A second inversion type forms on clear winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution “hot spots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough traffic in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. Thus, while summers are periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air, winter is often a period of good visibility and excellent air quality in the project area.

B. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Air quality control in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is regulated by federal, state, and regional control authorities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is involved in local air quality planning through the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as recently amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. At the state level, the California Clean Air Act of 1988 set air quality planning and regulatory responsibilities for the Basin. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is charged with the responsibility for coordinating efforts to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards and conducting research into the causes of, and solutions to, air pollution problems.

At the regional level, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has responsibility for preparing and periodically revising their Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which contains measures to meet state and federal requirements.

C. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)
In order to assess the air quality impacts of a development, the projected emissions from the proposed project, together with baseline air quality levels must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called “sensitive receptors.” Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established national AAQS for six pollution species and retained the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline for Southern California is the year 2010. Because California established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Table 4-10, Ambient Air Quality Standards, compares the state and federal ambient air quality standards.

The federal CAAA of 1990 required that the EPA review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM-2.5"). New national TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-128
Table 4-10: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Air Pollutant California Standard National Standard

PRIMARY SECONDARY
Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm, 1-hr. avg.

N/A 0.07, 8-hr avg.

0.12 ppm, 1-hr. avg.;

0.08 ppm, 8-hr. avg.

Same as primary
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM 10)
320 F g/m3
, annual
geometric arithmetic
mean; 50 F g/m3, 24-hr
avg.; N/A, annual
arithmetic mean
150 F g/m3
, 24-hr avg.;
50 F g/m3
, annual
arithmetic mean
Same as primary
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm, 1-hr. avg. No federal standards No federal standards Carbon Monoxide
(CO)

9.0 ppm, 8-hr. avg.;
20 ppm, 1-hr. avg.

9.0 ppm, 8-hr. avg.;
35 ppm, 1-hr. avg.

None
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)

0.25 ppm, 1-hr. avg.

N/A, annual arithmetic
mean
N/A

0.053 ppm (100 F
g/m3
), annual
arithmetic mean
Same as primary
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.25 ppm, 1-hr.;

0.04 ppm, 24-hr. avg.

0.03 ppm, annual avg.
arithmetic mean; 0.14
ppm, 24-hr. avg.

0.50 ppm, 3-hr. avg.

Sulfates 25 F g/m3, 24-hr avg. No federal standards No federal standards Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
No separate State
standard 12 ug/m3,
annual arithmetic mean
65 Fg/m3
24-hour,
15 Fg/m3
annual
average arithmetic
mean
Same as primary
Lead (Pb) 1.5 ug/m3
, 30-day avg. 1.5 ug/m3, calendar
quarter
Same as primary
Vinyl Chloride 0.1 ppm, 24-hr. avg. No federal standards No federal standards Visibility Reducing
Particles
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per kilometer –
visibility of 10 miles or
more due to the
particles when the
relative humidity is less
than 70%. Method:

Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape.

No federal standards No federal standards
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002 January 25, 1999 AAQS were adopted on July 17, 1997. California standards for PM-10, which includes PM-2.5, are more stringent than the federal PM-2.5 standard. Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is much more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted on June 20, 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-129
D. BASELINE AIR QUALITY
There are no baseline air quality data available directly from the proposed project site. Long-term air quality monitoring for ozone, nitrogen oxides, and 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at the nearby Perris Monitoring Station, but the closest data resource for some gaseous and/or particulate species is in Riverside. Table 4-11 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary, summarizes the last six years of monitoring data from a composite of available resources.

As depicted in Table 4-11, ozone and particulates the two greatest air quality concerns within the project vicinity. However, the six-year trend in these data shows a downward trend in violations of various ozone standards. The last first-stage smog alert in Perris was called in 1995 (one hour > 0.20 ppm). In 1999, the federal one-hour ozone standard was met for the first time in the monitoring history of the Perris station. The number of violations of the more stringent State one-hour ozone (smog) standard dropped from 125 days per year in 1994 to only 10 violations in 1999. Weather conditions during the 2000 summer smog season were considerably less favorable than in 1999.

Table 4-11: PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 1996-2001 1998-2003 (Days Standard Were Exceeded and Maximum Observed Levels) Pollutant/Standard 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Ozone1
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm 95 89 38 10 65 73
1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 31 13 8 0 15 19
8-Hour > 0.08 ppm 63 52 28 6 41 58
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.15
Carbon Monoxide2
1-Hour > 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
8-Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 9. 7. 5. 7. 5. 5.

Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 5.0 5.8 4.6 4.4 4.3 3.4
Nitrogen Dioxide2
1-Hour > .025 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.12 0.10 .013 0.10 0.15
Particulate Lead2
1-Month > 1.5 ug/m3 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12
Max. 1- Month Conc. (ug/m3) 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.04 Particulate Sulfates2
24- Hour Conc. (ug/m3) 0/61 0/59 0/62 0/60 0/62 0/57
Max. 24- Hour Conc. (ug/m3) 14.9 13.1 12.8 10.7 11.0 10.7 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)1
24- Hour > 150 ug/m3 32/61 19/60 42/78 30/60 13/59 16/60 24- Hour > 150ug/m3 3/61 0/60 0/78 0/60 0/59 0/60
Max 24- Hour Conc. (ug/m3) 250. 139. 116. 112. 87. 86.

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5)2
24- Hour > 65ug/m3 - - - 9/151 11/304 19/325
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (ug/m3) - - - 111.2 119.6 98.0
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-130
Pollutant/Standard 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Ozone1
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm 52 51 45 62 52 50
1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 22 4 1 12 6 7
8-Hour > 0.08 ppm 44 33 26 46 41 36
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15
Carbon Monoxide3
1-Hour > 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
8-Hour > 9. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 5.5 7.0 5.3 5.2 4.1 4.5
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 4.6 4.4 4.3 3.5 3.1 3.7
Nitrogen Dioxide1
1-Hour > .025 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.08 .011 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.07
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)2
24- Hour > 150 ug/m3 42/78 30/60 13/59 16/60 24/61 8/58 24- Hour > 150ug/m3 0/78 0/60 0/59 0/60 0/61 0/58
Max 24- Hour Conc. (ug/m3) 116. 112. 87. 86. 100. 142.

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5)3
24- Hour > 65ug/m3 - 9/151 11/304 17/325 8/327 1/350
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (ug/m3) - 111.2 119.6 98.0 77.6 72.9 - = No data reported
Source: South Coast AQMD- 1
Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station, 2 Perris Air Monitoring Station, 3Rubidoux Air Monitoring station-Riverside
Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current decade.

Although photochemical smog levels have improved significantly throughout the last decade, airborne dust (PM-10) trends have remained relatively unchanged throughout the same period. The frequency of violations of the California 24-hour PM-10 standard in 1998-2000 was very similar to earlier years in the decade. While many of the major ozone precursor emissions (automobile, solvents, paints, etc.) have been substantially reduced, most major PM-10 sources (construction dust, vehicular turbulence along roadway shoulders, truck exhaust, etc.) have not been as effectively reduced.

More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, etc. are very low near the proposed project site because background levels even in downtown Riverside never exceed allowable levels, and there are almost no sources of such emissions near the project site, thus there is substantial excess dispersive capacity within the region to accommodate localized vehicular air pollutants, such as NOx or CO, without any threat of violating applicable AAQS.

E. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) stipulated that those agencies in areas of the nation not meeting the national clean air standards must prepare a regional air quality plan demonstrating the steps needed to bring the area into compliance with all national standards by December 31, 1987.

In the South Coast Air Basin, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-131
plans are the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it in 1982 to project attainment of the standards in 2000.

In 1988, because of uncertainty in federal Clean Air Act reauthorization, the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA requires that regional emissions be reduced by five (5) percent per year, averaged over three-year periods, until attainment can be demonstrated. Each area that did not meet a national or state ambient air quality standard was required to prepare a plan which demonstrated how the five (5) percent reduction was to be achieved.

The plan was to be locally adopted and submitted to the CARB by June 30, 1991. Areas with the most heavily degraded air quality were required to reduce emissions by 50 percent (from 1987 levels) by December 31, 2000. In July 1991, the SCAQMD adopted a revised AQMP which was designed to meet the CCAA requirements. The 1991 AQMP deferred the attainment date to 2010, consistent with the amended 1990 federal Clean Air Act
The 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments required that all states with airsheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 1991 AQMP was modified/adapted and submitted as the South Coast Air Basin portion of the SIP. The 1991 SIP submittal estimated that an 85% basinwide reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and a 59% reduction in oxides of nitrogen (Nox) between 1990 to 2010 was needed to meet federal clean air standards. About 40% of these reductions were to come from existing pollution control programs. The rest would come from new rules, technologies, or other reduction programs.

Table 4-12, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Summary, summarizes the currently proposed regional attainment planning for ozone (VOC and Nox), and for carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions reductions of approximately 62 percent for VOC, 56 percent for Nox and 66 percent for CO are anticipated from the currently proposed AQMP update. The 1999 SIP Amendment was approved by EPA in 2000 as the currently adopted clean air plan for the basin.

A development such as the TTM No. 31194 residential project relates to the air quality planning process through the growth forecasts that were used as inputs into the regional transportation model.

If a proposed development is consistent with those growth forecasts, and if all available emissions reduction strategies are implemented as effectively as possible on a project-specific basis, then the air quality impact on a regional basis may be considered as less-than-significant. The proposed site is within the SCMVAP; therefore the project site is included in regional growth forecasts. The South Coast AQMD, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, recommends that project air quality impacts be analyzed independent of planning consistency.

Inconsistency as to project scope or schedule is considered a basis for a finding of impact significance. Project/clean air plan consistency is not considered an adequate basis to support a finding of less-than significant.

The AQMP also contains a number of land use and transportation control measures (TCMs). Many of these measures cannot be implemented on any single development basis because they require an integration of all development and all transportation planning. AQMP consistency on a single development is thus more a matter of facilitating or providing the infrastructure for TCM implementation than of actually specifically being solely responsible to carry out regionally comprehensive AQMP measures.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-132
Table 4-12: SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT PLAN
(Emissions in tons/day)
VOC* NOX* CO**
Current Inventory a
Stationary + Areawide 410 304 144 103 363 246
On-Road Mobile 562 276 761 581 5,826 2,705
Off-Road Mobile 119 131 304 286 1,009 1,003
TOTAL 1,092 710 1,208 970 7,197 3,953
2010 Forecastb
Stationary + Areawide 531 296 98 89 337 217
On-Road Mobile 163 212 360 434 1,913 2,048
Off-Road Mobile 144 122 269 257 1,643 1,094
TOTAL 838 630 727 780 3,893 3,359
2020 Forecastb
Stationary 340 90 234
On-Road Mobile 130 206 1,097
Off-Road Mobile 114 141 1,104
TOTAL 584 537 2,435
Short-term +
Intermediate
Reductions
<221> < <120> <1,468>
Long-term Reductions <204> <77> <0>
2010 Remainingc 413 530 2,425 a
20050 Base Year
b
With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts c Levels at which all federal air quality standards will be met *Summer ozone precursors
**Winter CO “hot spot” precursors
Source: California Air Resources Board, The 2005 California Almanac of Emissions & Air Quality 2001 California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality, and SQAMD, Draft Final 1197 AQMP (October 1996).

4.13.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The project would result in a significant air quality impact if it would:
a. Interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. b. Generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.
c. Create or be subjected to objectionable odors.
d. Result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or emit an air toxic contaminant. e. Violate the following SCAQMD air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-133

POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

EMISSION THRESHOLDS

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY

EMISSION THRESHOLDS
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
Fine Particulate Matter (PM10)
Sulfur Dioxide (SOx)
550
100
75 150
150
550
55 55
150
150
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942]

4.13.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
New developments such as the proposed TTM No. 31194 project impact air quality almost exclusively through increased automotive emissions. Any single project typically does not cause enough traffic and associated air pollutants to be generated as to individually threaten clean air standards. It is the cumulative effect of many projects, when considered together, that causes the small incremental impact from any one development to be regarded as cumulatively significant.

Minor secondary emissions during construction, from increased fossil-fueled energy utilization and from small miscellaneous sources are also generated by new development, but these are usually much smaller in both duration and volume than the mobile source emissions.

Intensification of land uses in Riverside County potentially impacts ambient air quality on two scales, regional and local. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. Basinwide air quality impacts are, therefore, addressed in terms of project compatibility with regional air quality plans. If any given project or plan has been properly incorporated into basinwide growth projections, which are the basis for regional air quality/transportation planning, then there will be no significant basinwide impact because of unanticipated growth.

A. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS
Temporary construction activity emissions would occur during project buildout. 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. ‰ PM-10
Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure.

Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called fugitive emissions.

Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc., regulatory agencies typically use one universal default factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid-range average values.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-134
Using the dust emissions factor developed by EPA for grading activities, the PM-10 fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 9-2). Mandatory measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) are generally assumed to reduce this rate by approximately 50%. Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds/acre. This estimate is based upon required dust control measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was prepared. Rule 403 was subsequently revised to require use of a greater array of fugitive dust control on construction projects. Use of enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve a substantially higher PM-10 control efficiency.

The project site occupies approximately 204.7 acres and would be built-out with 492 484 singlefamily dwelling units. The proposed project site would not be under simultaneous disturbance during project grading. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions computer model predicts that the average daily disturbance “footprint” for the proposed uses would be approximately 24.8 acres. Calculated PM-10 emissions in a disturbance area of 24.8 24.2 acres is estimated to be 655.5 639 pounds per day with the application of standard dust control, and 248.8 242 pounds per day with the application of best available control measures. Therefore, even with application of the best available control measures, the SCAQMD standard of 150 pounds per day of construction-related PM-10 emissions would be exceeded during project grading. This is regarded as a potentially significant impact.
‰ PM-2.5
Current research in particulate exposure health effects suggests that the most adverse effect derives from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates, or organic material. A new national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (“PM-2.5”) was adopted in 1997. Very little construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. Soil dust is also more chemically benign than typical urban atmospheric PM-2.5. The limited amount of PM-2.5 within the threshold PM-10 burden further reinforces the finding of a less-than-significant air quality impact.

In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard. With a low population density downwind of the TTM No. 30443 project site, dust nuisance potential for this project is not considered individually significant.

Any nuisance potential will tend to be highly localized when a new tract is built in very close proximity to an already completed development.

In addition, there may be some "spill-over" of dust emissions into the surrounding community. That spill-over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets.

Spill-over may also occur via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-135
require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that maintains such "spill-over" effects at a less-than-significant level. ‰ VOC
Construction activities also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar, and other coatings. The volatility of the materials used in asphalt is regulated by AQMD rules, as are paints and solvents. Even water-based paint, however, still contains a high percentage of VOCs such that paint and other architectural coatings are the primary source of construction-related VOC emissions. Typical water-based paints contain around 2 pounds of VOC per gallon of paint (AQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9-13-C). Revised SCAQMD Rule 1113 now limits the level of VOC in paint to 100 grams/ liter, or around 0.8 pounds per gallon.

If painting one home requires perhaps 20 gallons of paint, about 16 pounds of VOCs will be released per house painted (inside and out). Using more than 100 gallons of paint per day could cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of VOCs to be exceeded, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
‰ Equipment Emissions
Exhaust emissions will result from on- and off-site heavy equipment. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that these emissions can not be quantified with certainty. Typical emission rates for a single diesel powered scraper were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook and are provided in Table 4-13, Total Daily Construction Emissions. Diesel scrapers are the most common equipment used for grading activities. The following fleet equipment has been assumed to be utilized as a basis for estimating maximum daily equipment exhaust emissions: 2 graders, 2 rubber-tired dozers, 2 other equipment, 8 scrapers, 1 rubber-tired loader, and 1 tractor/loader/backhoe.

Although tThe NOx emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold by approximately 224 percent. , the mobile nature of the on-site construction equipment and off-site trucks will prevent any microscale violation of the NOx or other standards. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment, but such transitory exposure is a brief nuisance and will not threaten air quality standards. Because the SCAQMD threshold would be exceeded during grading, construction-related impacts would be regarded as significant.

Table 4-13: TOTAL DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
ACTIVITY ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10
Grading
(year 2006)

46.6 46.5
386.0
324.2a
330.6
373.1

0.00 266.9
256.5
Finished
Work
(year 2007)
2,023.7
802.7b

2.2 47.8

58.7 98.5

0.00 0.8

2.5 SCAQMD
Threshold

75. 100 550 150 150
a
Exceeds NOx threshold from equipment exhaust
b
Exceeds threshold due to application of paints and coatings Source: Giroux & Associates, October 2005. August 15, 2003.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-136
B. LONG-TERM MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION IMPACTS
The greatest project-related air quality concern centers on the 4,728 4,632 new vehicle trips that would be generated at project completion. For typical Riverside County trip lengths (approximately

7.5 miles), additional vehicle travel from project implementation will be 35,500 vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The California ARB land use and air pollution emissions URBEMIS2002 computer model was run for opening year 2007 2005, interim years 2010, 2015, 2020, and area build-out year 2025. The results of this analysis are depicted on Table 4-14, Project Related Emissions Burden. By year 2010, NOx and CO levels would drop to below significance standards, and by 2015 ROG levels also drop below the SCAQMD thresholds. However, p Project-related emissions would clearly not attain the would be below the SCAQMD standards for all emission levels except ROG, NOx, and CO during the opening year (20072005) of the project. This is regarded as a short-term significant impact on air quality. In addition, the proposed project would contribute to the non-attainment of Federal Air Quality Standards within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

Also related to impact significance is whether the growth has been properly anticipated in the air quality planning process. The growth assumptions for the 1994 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) calls for an increase of 412,321 residents in the unincorporated part of Western Riverside County between years 2005 to 2030, housed in 179,626 new homes, along with an increase of 148,000+ jobs.over 1 million residents in western Riverside County between 1990-2010, housed in 367,000 new homes, along with an increase of 300,000+ jobs.

The conversion of vacant, agricultural land to more transportation–intensive land use is therefore anticipated, and the TTM 31194 residential project provides housing within the planning areas forecast levels.

Table 4-14: PROJECT-RELATED EMISSIONS BURDEN
Emissions (pounds/day)
Year 2007 ROG NOx CO PM-10 SOx
Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 24.8 6.1 8.5 0.0 0.2 Area Source Emission Estimates* 44.9 48.2 530.3 47.1 0.3 Total: Operational + Area 69.7 54.3 538.8 47.1 0.5
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
Exceeds Threshold (?) Yes No No No No
% of Threshold 127 99 98 31 <1
Year 2005 Source ROG NOx CO PM-10 SO2
Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 52.0 56.3 628.0 48.1 0.5 Area Source Emission Estimates* 25.3 6.3 8.7 0.02 0.2
Total: Operational + Area 77.3 62.6 636.7 48.1 0.7
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
Exceeds Threshold (?) Yes Yes Yes No No
% of Threshold 140 114 116 32 <1
Year 2010 Source ROG NOx CO PM-10 SO2
Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 36.3 38.2 422.0 48.0 0.3 Area Source Emission Estimates* 25.3 6.3 8.7 0.02 0.2
Total: Operational + Area 61.6 44.5 430.7 48.0 .05
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-137
Exceeds Threshold (?) Yes No No No No
% of Threshold 112 81 78 32 <1
Year 2015 Source ROG NOx CO PM-10 SO2
Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 24.3 23.2 261.1 47.9 0.3 Area Source Emission Estimates* 25.3 6.3 8.7 0.02 0.2
Total: Operational + Area 49.6 29.5 269.8 47.9 0.5
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No
% of Threshold 90 54 49 32 <1
Year 2020 Source ROG NOx CO PM-10 SO2
Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 18.2 15.9 190.6 47.8 0.3 Area Source Emission Estimates* 25.3 6.3 8.7 0.02 0.2
Total: Operational + Area 43.5 22.2 199.3 47.8 0.3
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No
% of Threshold 79 40 36 32 <1
Year 2025 Source ROG NOx CO PM-10 SO2
Operational (Vehicle) Emission Estimates 13.2 10.7 129.3 47.8 0.3 Area Source Emission Estimates* 25.3 6.3 8.7 0.02 0.2
Total: Operational + Area 38.5 17.0 138.0 47.8 0.5
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No
% of Threshold 70 31 25 32 <1
*Energy consumption, consumer products, landscape maintenance, etc.

Source: URBEMIS20002 Air Quality Model; Output in Appendix of the Air Quality Technical Report, Appendix F ‰ Secondary Air Quality Impacts
Secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption in power plants or on-site heaters, stoves, water heaters, etc. General development also creates miscellaneous emissions from a variety of sources such as cleaning products, landscaping equipment, or fireplaces, and also contributes to off-site emissions at restaurants, gas stations, dry cleaners, or sand and gravel plants.

Except for more readily quantifiable energy consumption (stationary sources), many of the small miscellaneous sources are typically not quantified on a single project basis.

In addition to regional air quality concerns that focus on the photochemical conversion of air pollution emissions to more harmful forms, vehicular exhaust may impact air quality immediately adjacent to the roadway travel lanes. Such impacts occur during periods of maximum traffic congestion and minimum atmospheric dispersion. Micro-scale air quality impacts are a potential problem because some intersections are forecast to operate at congested levels of service at area buildout.

In order to determine whether any possible traffic congestion may contribute to localized air pollution standard violations, a screening procedure based upon the California roadway dispersion model CALINE4 was run on several roadways surrounding the project area. Carbon monoxide (CO) was used as an indicator pollutant to determine "hot spot" potential. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 4-15, Microscale Air Quality Impact Analysis.

Maximum existing background CO levels in the project area are approximately 4.5ppm. Therefore, it would take a contribution of +15.5 ppm to reach or exceed the hourly CO standard of 20 ppm. The maximum existing peak one-hour CO concentrations are approximately 2.1 1.4 ppm. above the background levels, and maximum future hourly CO levels are anticipated to measure 7.9 ppm. The TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-138
future theoretical maxima plus the background will be approximately 12.9 ppm, which will not exceed the hourly CO standard of 20 ppm. The “With Project” CO levels are lower than the levels without the project because the roadway level of service at most intersections will improve with implementation of the project and associated roadway improvements. Maximum local CO exposures for all scenarios are less than 2.0 ppm. No existing or future CO hot spots are forecast to occur at any of the intersections near the project area from combined background (no project) plus project traffic. Micro-scale air quality impacts are individually and cumulatively less than significant.

Table 4-15: MICRO-SCALE AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
(Hourly CO concentrations (ppm) above background)

INTERSECTION EXISTING

EXISTING
WITH

PROJECT

OPENING
YEAR

OPENING
YEAR
WITH

PROJECT
POST
2025
POST
2025
WITH

PROJECT
AM Peak Hour
Murrieta Rd at: Holland Rd - - - 0.5 - -
Garbani Rd 1.2 0.7 1.1 - - -
Haun Rd at: Newport Rd - - - - 1.0 1.0
Scott Rd 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8
I-215 SB Ramp at: Newport Rd - - - - 1.0 1.0
I-215 NB Ramp at: Newport Rd - - - - 1.1 1.1
Scott Rd 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 - -
PM Peak Hour
Murrieta Rd at: Holland Rd - - - 0.2 - -
Scott Rd 1.2 - - - - -
Haun Rd at: Newport Rd - - - - 1.3 1.3
Scott Rd 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.0
Newport Rd - - - - 1.3 1.3
Scott Rd 1.2 0.6 0.8 - - -
I-215 SB Ramp
at:

Scott Rd - 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.5
INTERSECTION EXISTING 2005 2025
No
Project
With
Project
No
Project
With
Project
AM Peak Hour
Holland Rd - 1.2 1.2 2.4 2.4
Garbani Rd - 2.7 2.9 1.9 2.0
Murrieta Rd at:

Scott Rd - - 1.4 3.2 3.2
Garbani Rd - - - 1.3 1.5
Wickerd Rd - - - 1.3 1.3
Evans Rd at:

Scott Rd - - - 3.1 3.1
Daniel St at: Garbani Rd - 1.3
Newport Rd - - - 5.0 5.0
Holland Rd - - - 2.9 3.0
Garbani Rd 2.5 2.5
Wickerd Rd 1.7 1.9
Haun Rd at:

Scott Rd 1.4 2.3 2.4 4.0 4.1
I-215 SB Ramp Newport Rd - - - 5.7 5.7
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-139
at: Scott Rd - - - 4.3 4.4
I-215 NB Ramp Newport Rd - - - 6.4 6.4
at: Scott Rd - 1.5 1.9 5.1 5.1
PM Peak Hour
Holland Rd - - - 2.8 2.8
Garbani Rd - - - 2.0 2.1
Murrieta Rd at:

Scott Rd - 2.0 2.1 4.2 -
Garbani Rd - - - 1.3 1.3
Wickerd Rd - - - 1.0 1.3
Evans Rd at:

Scott Rd - - - 3.7 3.7
Daniel St at: Garbani Rd - 0.6
Newport Rd - - - 6.7 6.8
Holland rd - - - 3.6 3.9
Garbani Rd - - - 3.0 3.1
Wickerd Rd - - - 2.4 2.6
Haun Rd at:

Scott Rd 2.1 3.0 3.5 5.5 5.7
I-215 SB Ramp Newport Rd - - - 6.9 7.0
at: Scott Rd - 1.7 3.3 6.4 6.6
I-215 NB Ramp Newport Rd - - - 7.3 7.9
at: Scott Rd 1.6 2.9 3.3 7.8 7.9
Note: Only intersections with level of service (LOS) D or worse analyzed Add 5.0 ppm (background) to each value above and compare to 20 ppm one-hour standard.

Source: Giroux & Associates, Screening procedure based upon CALINE 4 Model

4.13.4MITIGATION MEASURES
Project-related air quality impacts would be significant during both project construction and operations, and the project may contribute cumulatively to continued regional air quality degradation.

Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts on air quality.

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 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.

4.13-2: 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 TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-140
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 lowemissions 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 lowVOC paint (100 grams or less of VOC per liter) and high pressure-low volume (HPLV) paint applicators.

4.13.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Direct long-term emissions – less than significant.

Cumulative long-term emissions – significant for CO (mobile source emissions).

Direct and cumulative short-term emissions – significant for NOx (construction equipment exhaust) PM-10 (construction dust) emissions, NOx (construction equipment exhaust) and VOC (architectural surface coatings) emissions would be reduced to below levels of significance with implementation of mitigation measures. Reasonable project-specific mitigation measures for CO (long-term mobile source emissions) cannot reduce the level of "excess" cumulative emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold; thus, mobile source emissions impact would remain cumulatively significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-141

4.14 NOISE
The following analysis is based on the technical report entitled, Tentative Tract Map 31194 EIR Noise Impact Analysis (Revised) County of Riverside California, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated June 29, 2004. A copy of this report is contained within Appendix G to this EIR. Information was also obtained from the Riverside County General Plan Noise Element (2003).

4.14.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. NOISE DEFINITIONS
Noise has been simply defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise sources by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. dBA is adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.

Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) provides a method by which steady, constant noise sources (e.g. traffic) and time variable noise sources (e.g. rock blasting) can be compared. The Leq is measured by averaging total noise levels over a given time period.

The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder and it is weighted accordingly. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound pressure.

The Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to the sound levels at three time periods because during the evening and night hours, with the decrease in overall amount and loudness of noise generated, when compared to daytime hours, there is an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason the sound is perceived as louder and is weighted accordingly. The County of Riverside relies on the Ldn and CNEL noise standard to assess transportation related impacts on noise sensitive land uses.

B. TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: 1) the volume of the traffic, 2) the speed of the traffic, and 3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-142
Because of the logarithmic nature of traffic noise levels, a doubling of the traffic noise (acoustic energy) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) community noise assessment criteria, a change of 3 dBA is “barely perceptible.” In other words, assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change, a doubling of the traffic volume results in a noise increase of 3 dBA. The truck mix on a given roadway also has an effect on community noise levels. As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, noise levels increase.

To account for the ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models: soft site and hard site. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. A drop-off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 3.0 dBA drop-off rate over hard ground, such as asphalt, concrete, stone, and very hard packed earth. To predict the worst-case future noise environment, hard site conditions were used in this analysis.

C. CONSTRUCTION NOISE PREDICTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. These data are depicted in Table 4-16, Construction Equipment Noise Levels. As depicted in Table 4-16, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to noise levels in excess of 100 dBA when measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 68 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would be reduced to 62 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and would be further reduced by another 6 dBA to 56 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor.

D. NOISE ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 decibels, cutting the loudness of certain types of noise in half. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the noise generating source. Noise barriers do very little good if the noise generating source is directly visible to the noise perceiver.

For example, noise barriers are relatively ineffective for a home on a hillside overlooking a road, or if a home is taller than the noise barrier. A noise barrier can achieve a 5 dB noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-of-sight.

E. STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE STANDARDS
The State of California has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels which are based on the Ldn rating scale. The guidelines rank noise and land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. As shown in Table 4-17, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure, single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL based on this scale. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Exterior noise levels for schools, libraries, churches, and office, commercial, and professional structures are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-143
Table 4-16: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL AT 50 FEET (dBA)

EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Compactors (Rollers) 72-74
Front Loaders 72-83
Backhoes 72-93
Tractors 73-96
Scrapers, Graders 79-93
Pavers 86-88
Trucks 82-95
Concrete Mixers 73-87
Concrete Pumps 82-84
Cranes (Moveable) 73-87
Cranes (Derrick) 86-88
Pumps 68-70
Generators 71-82
Compressors 75-85

IMPACT EQUIPMENT
Pneumatic Wrenches 83-88
Jack Hammers, Rock Drills 70-98
Pile Drivers (Peak) 93-106
OTHER
Vibrators 69-81
Saws 72-81
Source: Urban Crossroads Inc., June 29, 2004.

F. RIVERSIDE COUNTY NOISE STANDARDS
The County of Riverside has adopted a modified version of the State guidelines (see Table 4-17) for interior and exterior noise standard sources as part of the General Plan Noise Element for assessing the compatibility of land uses with transportation related noise impacts.

The County of Riverside has identified two separate types of noise sources: mobile and stationary.

To control mobile or transportation related noise sources such as freeways, airports, and railroads, the County has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The most effective method to control community noise impacts from nontransportation noise sources (such as speakerphones, trash compactors, air-conditioning units, etc.) is through the application of a community noise ordinance. ‰ Riverside County General Plan Noise Element Criteria
The County has adopted interior and exterior noise standards as part of the General Plan Noise Element for assessing the compatibility of land uses with transportation related noise impacts. For noise sensitive residential land use, the County requires an exterior noise level of less than 65 CNEL or Ldn for the outdoor living areas and an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL or Ldn. The “outdoor living area” for residential uses includes single-family private yards and multi-family patios or balconies which are greater than six (6) feet in depth. The County of Riverside exterior and interior noise standards are included in Appendix “A” to the noise impact analysis, which is located in Appendix G.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-144
Table 4-17: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE

LAND USE CATEGORY COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (LDN DBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential - Low Density 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85 Residential - Multiple
Family
50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85
Transient Lodging - Motel,
Hotels
50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Schools, Libraries,
Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85
Auditoriums, Concert halls,
Amphitheaters
NA 50 - 70 65 - 85 NA
Sports Arenas, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
NA 50 - 70 70 - 85 NA
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
50 - 70 NA 67.5 - 75 72.5 - 85
Golf Courses, Riding
Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
50 - 75 NA 70 - 80 80 - 85
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and
Professional
50 - 70 67.5 - 77.5 NA 75 - 85
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
50 - 75 70 - 80 NA 75 - 85
Notes:

NA: Not applicable.

Normally Acceptable. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design.

Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, would normally suffice. Outdoor environment would seem noisy.

Normally Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

Clearly Unacceptable. New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be useable.

Source: California Office of Noise Control, obtained from Riverside County General Plan Noise Element (2003). ‰ Noise Ordinance Criteria
The County of Riverside does not have a County-adopted noise ordinance for peak events, except for construction noise, which is regulated by the County Noise Ordinance No. 457.84.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-145
‰ Community Noise Assessment Criteria
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as “barely perceptible,” while a change of 5 dBA is considered “readily perceptible.” In the range of 1 dBA to 3 dBA, people who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change in noise level.

No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community situation the noise exposure is extended over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernable is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people.

G. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
To determine the existing noise level environment and to assess potential noise impacts on adjacent residential areas, noise measurements were taken at three (3) locations in the project study area.

Figure 4-28, Noise Monitoring Locations, depicts the location of these measurements. The noise monitoring locations were selected based on their respective impact potential. Site 1 was located in the south portion of the project site, approximately 20 feet from Wickerd Road (unpaved). Site 2 was located in the north portion of the project site 20 feet from Daniel Street (unpaved). Site 3 was located north of the property approximately 20 feet from the edge of the curb along Daniel Street, in front of the Menifee Valley Middle School, adjacent to the grass field and south of the playground area. A thorough description of the procedures employed to measure sound at these locations is included in the noise impact analysis contained as Appendix G to this EIR.

Table 4-18, Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements, provides a summary of the results of the noise level measurements for each of the three locations. As depicted in Table 4-18, the existing ambient Leq noise levels measured in the project area range from 39.5 dBA Leq to 56.3 dBA Leq.

There are few residential areas located near the project site and the existing noise levels are very low within the project site (below 42.5 dBA Leq). The primary source of noise impacts will be traffic noise from Wickerd Road and Evans Road. Additional noise impacts may result from the internal roads, however, due to the distance, topography, low traffic volume and speed, traffic noise from these roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment of the proposed project site.

In addition, there are no airports in the project vicinity that expose the project site to “excessive” noise levels. The proposed project site is located well to the northwest of the French Valley Airport Influenced Area, therefore, the project site is not subject to excessive noise levels associated with air traffic. No further aircraft noise analysis is provided or necessary.

4.14.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would:
a. Create a measurable, substantial or excessive increase in noise levels that result in exceeding the County’s established noise standards.
4-146
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Noise Monitoring Locations

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com no
t to scal
e
Fig. 4-28
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-147
Table 4-18: EXISTING (AMBIENT) NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

OBSERVER

LOCATION

DESCRIPTION PRIMARY NOISE
SOURCE
NOISE
LEVELS
(dBA Leq)
1 Located in the south portion of the
project, 20 feet from Wickerd Road Ambient noise 42.5
2 Located in the north portion of the
project, 20 feet from Daniel Street Ambient noise 39.5
3 Located 20 feet from the curb with Daniel
Street, in front of the middle school grass
field.

Vehicle noise from
Garbani Road and
school

56.3 Source: Urban Crossroads, June 29, 2004
b. Result in exposure of on-site residences to noise levels above 65 dBA (CNEL) exterior or 45 dBA CNEL interior.
c. Measurably increase baseline noise levels above 3 dBA (CNEL) in areas where County noise levels are exceeded under existing conditions (cumulative impact). [Source: Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942]

4.14.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
Two characteristic noise sources are typically identified with land use intensification such as that planned for the TTM No. 31194 project site. Initially, construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. Such impacts may be important if there is phased development and one phase is under construction adjacent to an already completed and occupied phase. Because portions of the project site are underlain with hard rock deposits (undifferentiated Granitic Bedrock), 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 Riverside County 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 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 are thus minimized by time restrictions placed on grading permits. In compliance with County Ordinance No. 457.84, these time limits would create a less than significant temporary noise impact during construction activities. ‰ Rock Blasting and Crushing
As discussed in greater detail in EIR Section 4.7, Geology and Slope Stability, project construction may require blasting of hard rock in portions of the project site to create fracturing that will allow the TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-148
rock to be excavated to create flat building pads. Whereas dozers and scrapers are highly mobile and will affect any individual receiver for only a brief period of time, drill rigs for placing explosive charges operate in a small area for an extended amount of time. Crushers or hydraulic rams may also operate in a semi-stationary location.

The blast itself is designed to remain subsurface and only generate shock waves to fracture the rock in the immediate vicinity of the charge without ejecting the material from the ground surface.

Controlled blasting performed according to County standards thus has only a dull "thump." Perceptible vibration effects occur less than 200 feet from the blast center, and when they are in very close proximity to the site perimeter, most people are not even aware that a fracturing blast has occurred. The rock drills used to place the charge and the warning horns used to clear the blast site are often noisier than the blast itself.

The steady-state reference noise level from rock crushing is typically 89 dBA at 50 feet from the activity, which corresponds to an estimated noise level of approximately 65 dBA (exterior noise standard) at a distance of 800 feet from the source, and 45 dBA (interior noise standard) at a distance of approximately 3,500 feet from the source. Therefore, if on-site rock crushing is conducted within 800 feet of occupied homes, a significant temporary noise impact would occur and a noise barrier (topography, piles of material, etc.) would be needed for mitigation. ‰ Grading Activities
Field measurements indicate that construction noise levels generated by commonly used grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders, and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the ranges depicted on Table 4-16, Construction Equipment Noise Levels. For the purpose of this analysis, an overall grading noise level of 89 dBA at 50 feet represents the worst-case maximum exterior noise level. Using a drop-off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise levels at 100 feet are estimated at 83 dBA and at 200 feet are estimated at 77 dBA. Noise levels generated during the grading activity will affect the nearest residents located south of Wickerd Road and west of the proposed project site. Given that construction noise would result in a substantial short-term increase greater than 5 dBA over ambient noise levels, construction noise impacts are noticeable and are considered significant throughout the duration of the grading activities. However, construction noise is short-term and will not present any long-term impacts on the project site or the surrounding area.

B. LONG - TERM POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS
Upon completion of the project, project-related traffic will 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.

Development projects in the County are 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. The "design capacity" is the LOS C capacity at which traffic moves most freely and creates the greatest amount of noise.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-149
‰ Off-Site Noise Impacts
The offsite analysis shows that based upon the future traffic noise impact projections for the opening year 2005 conditions, the proposed project will contribute up to 2.3 dBA CNEL to the adjacent roadways and up to 7.5 dBA on project access roadways (Wickerd Road west of Haun Road). For the Future Year (2025) conditions, the proposed project will contribute up to 1.5 dBA CNEL. With the extension of Wickerd Road from Haun to Evans Road, project related noise impacts during future year conditions will remain below 3 dBA CNEL. For the adjacent area roadways, an increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL is considered insignificant in terms of community noise exposure. The complete off-site impact analysis is included in the noise impact analysis contained in Appendix G to this EIR. ‰ On-Site Noise Impacts
The noise analysis indicates that the primary source of noise impacts will be traffic noise from Wickerd Road and Evans Road. These roadways are described in further detail in Section 4.12, Circulation and Traffic. Table 4-19, Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs, indicates the average daily traffic (ADT) associated with each of these roadways for buildout of the land uses envisioned by the General Plan. Additional noise impacts may result from the internal project roadways, however, due to the distance, topography, and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment.

Table 4-19: TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
ROADWAY LANES CLASSIFICATION1 BUILDOUT
(ADT)2
SPEED
(MPH)
SITE

CONDITIONS
Wickerd Road 4 Major 27,300 40 Hard
Evans Road 2 Secondary 20,700 40 Hard
1 Road classification based upon the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. 2 ADT based on the Riverside County General Plan Level of Service “C’ Roadway Design Capacity Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc., June 29, 2004.

As depicted in Table 4-19, the design capacities for Wickerd Road and Evans Road are 27,300 20,700 vehicles per day, respectively. Actual build-out volumes may be higher, but capacity constraints will reduce speeds and associated traffic noise when the ADT threshold is exceeded. The County "default" standards also assume a rural truck mix with considerable nocturnal trucking activity, which inflates the design noise level for determining mitigation requirements.

Table 4-20, Hourly Traffic Flow Distribution, indicates the hourly traffic flow distribution (vehicle mix) for the study area. Section 4.12, Circulation and Traffic, defines roadway parameters for project roadways.

Based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model, the future unmitigated exterior noise levels will range from 67.9 to 75.2 dBA Ldn. The preliminary grading plan was used to predict the future on-site noise environment, including the relationship between the roadway centerline elevation, the pad elevation and the centerline distance to the noise barrier, the backyard observer, and the building façade. The exterior noise levels were determined based on an observer location ten feet from the lot boundary. Table 4-21, Future Exterior Noise Levels, indicates the anticipated future exterior noise levels on the proposed project site, the type of noise TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-150
Table 4-20: HOURLY TRAFFIC FLOW DISTRIBUTION

MOTOR VEHICLE
TYPE
DAY
(7AM-7PM)

EVENING
(7AM-7PM)
NIGHT
(10 PM TO 7 AM)

TOTAL TRAFFIC
FLOW
Urban Arterial, Arterial, Major
Automobiles 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92%
Medium Trucks 48% 2% 50% 3%
Heavy Trucks 48% 2% 50% 5%
Secondary Roadways
Automobiles 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%
Medium Trucks 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% .74%
Source: Urban Crossroads, June 29, 2004.

Table 4-21: FUTURE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (DBA LDN)

LOT NUMBER ROADWAY

NOISE LEVEL

WITHOUT

MITIGATION
(dBA)

NOISE LEVEL
WITH

MITIGATION
(DBA)

MINIMUM

BARRIER
HEIGHT 1
68 Wickerd 73.7 63.7 7.0
85 Wickerd 73.5 63.0 7.0
162 Wickerd 74.3 64.8 7.0
227 Wickerd 75.2 64.8 7.5
303 Wickerd 74.8 63.3 7.0
319 Wickerd 74.5 64.9 7.0
392 Evans 68.6 64.5 5.0
400 Evans 67.9 63.8 5.0 1 Barrier height in feet above pad or roadway elevation, whichever is greater to achieve 65 dBA Ldn.

Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc., June 29, 2004.
attenuation required, and the anticipated noise levels after mitigation.

As indicated above in Table 4-21, the future unmitigated exterior noise levels will range from 67.9 to

75.2 dBA Ldn. This means that residences located on the perimeter of the proposed development may be exposed to exterior noise volumes in excess of 65 dBA CNEL, which represents a violation of the County’s exterior noise standards. This is regarded as a significant impact and noise attenuation, in the form of physical barriers (i.e., landscaped berms, solid block walls, etc.), will be required. Figure 4-29, Noise Attenuation Requirements, indicates the location and height of the recommended noise attenuation barriers depicted in Table 4-21. ‰ Interior Noise Assessment
The interior noise exposure is the difference between the projected exterior dBA Ldn exposure at the structure’s façade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide approximately 12 dBA noise reduction with “windows open” condition, and a minimum 20 dBA noise reduction with “windows closed” condition.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-151
Table 4-22, Interior Noise Impacts, depicts the anticipated first and second floor interior noise levels.

In order to meet the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard, an interior noise level reduction ranging from 17.9 to 29.5 dBA Ldn is required. The required interior noise level may be accomplished with a “windows closed” condition, requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning) for all homes facing Wickerd Road and Evans Road, and upgraded windows for all homes facing Wickerd Road. By incorporating these design features, the future interior noise levels will be below the County of Riverside 45 Ldn interior noise level standard.

However, until precise grading plans and plot plans have been created, an accurate analysis of impacts to the interior noise environment of exterior homes is not possible. A final noise study will be required prior to the issuance of building permits in order to accurately evaluate the mitigation requirements for individual homes.

Table 4-22: INTERIOR NOISE IMPACTS (DBA CNEL)

NOISE IMPACTS AT INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL FOR WINDOWS
FACADE OPEN1 CLOSED2

REQUIRED

INTERIOR NOISE

REDUCTION
LOT
NUMBER
1st
Floor
2nd
Floor
1st
Floor
2nd
Floor
1st
Floor
2nd
Floor
1st
Floor
2nd
Floor
68 66.3 73.2 54.3 61.2 41.3 48.2 21.3 28.2
85 65.4 73.0 53.4 61.0 40.4 48.0 20.4 28.0
162 67.5 73.7 55.5 61.7 42.5 48.7 22.5 28.7
227 67.3 74.5 55.3 62.5 42.3 49.5 22.3 29.5
303 66.8 74.2 54.8 62.2 41.8 49.2 21.8 29.2
319 67.5 74.0 55.5 62.0 42.5 49.0 22.5 29.0
392 63.4 67.8 51.4 55.8 38.4 42.8 18.4 22.8
400 62.9 67.2 50.9 55.2 37.9 42.2 17.9 22.2 1 A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows open condition. 2 A minimum of 25dBA noise reduction is assumed with a windows closed condition.

Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc., June 29, 2004.

4.14.4MITIGATION 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 noise from these activities to an exterior noise level of 65 dB(A) or less at the nearest residential lot line. 4-152
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Noise Attenuation Requirements

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com no
t to scal
e
Fig. 4-29
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-153

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 (see 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.

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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-154

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.

4.14.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-155

4.15 OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND RECREATION

4.15.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
Riverside County contains a wide variety of parks, open spaces, and active and passive recreational opportunities. The Sun City/Menifee Valley area is served by several large recreational facilities that offer a wide range of activities for public use. These facilities include Kabian and Double Butte Regional Parks, five (5) community parks, the recreational areas around Lake Elsinore, Lake Skinner, and Lake Perris, numerous public and private golf courses, and other smaller parks and facilities. The Santa Rosa Ecological Preserve, the Harford Springs Wildlife Reserve, the Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests, and the San Jacinto Wilderness area also are within the region. ‰ Kabian Park. Approximately 5 miles northwest of the proposed project site is Kabian Park.

Kabian Park is approximately 640 acres in size and is jointly owned by the County of Riverside and the Bureau of Land Management. This park is intended to serve as a nature park with a focus on wildlife management and with recreation facilities such as equestrian trails, hiking trails, and picnic tables.
‰ Double Butte Park. This regional park is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the proposed project site. Double Butte Park is approximately 600 acres in size and offers passive recreational opportunities, such as hiking and biking. ‰ Community Parks. Several community parks are located near the project site. These include, but are not limited to, Wheatfield Sports Park, Bradley Road Park, and Lazy Creek Recreational Center.
‰ Lake Oriented Recreation Areas. Lake Sinner is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the proposed project site and features approximately 6,040 acres of parkland. Lake Perris is located about 15 miles to the northeast and contains over 88,000 acres including a 2,000-acre lake. Lake Elsinore is located approximately 6 miles to the west, encompassing about 6,000 acres.
‰ Golf Courses. Public and private golf courses located in the project vicinity include, but are not limited to, Cherry Hills Golf Club, Canyon Lake Country Club, Menifee Lakes Country Club, and Bear Creek Golf and Country Club.
‰ Harford Springs Wildlife Reserve. Located in the Gavilan Valley area off of Gavilan Road, approximately 12 miles northwest of the proposed project site, the Harford Springs Wildlife Reserve occupies 325 acres. Limited recreational opportunities are provided by the Harford Spring Reserve, including equestrian trails and hiking opportunities. ‰ Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. The Reserve is 8,300 acres located at the southern portion of the Santa Ana Mountains near the City of Murrieta, approximately 10 miles southwest of the proposed project site. Activities in the Reserve include hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and interpretive programs.
‰ National Forests. The Cleveland National Forest, which includes the Santa Ana Mountains, are located approximately 8 to 10 miles west of the proposed project site, and a portion of the TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-156
San Bernardino National Forest is located approximately 10 miles to the east. These two forests provide activities that include equestrian, camping, and hiking. ‰ San Jacinto Wilderness Area. This are includes over 32,000 acres and is split by the Mount San Jacinto State Park and Wilderness. Sixteen trails provide access to the area and the Pacific Crest Trail crosses the area for approximately 23 miles north-south.

Riverside County standards require one (1) acres of developed regional parkland per 1,000 persons, and 25 acres of natural open space parkland for every 1,000 persons. Additionally, a minimum of five (5) acres of neighborhood/community parkland should be provided per every 1,000 people. The Development Mitigation Fee regulates these parkland requirements, and is authorized under the State Quimby Act. The State of California's Quimby Act was established by the California Legislature for the purpose of preserving open space and providing park facilities for California's growing communities. The Quimby Act allows local agencies to establish ordinances requiring residential subdivisions to provide land or “in-lieu of” fees for park and recreation purposes.

4.15.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:
a. Not provide adequate parkland or open space in conformance with County of Riverside standards and the State Quimby Act. [Source: Riverside County General Plan, 2003]

4.15.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed open space and recreation plan for TTM No.31194 provides for approximately 50.8

51.1 acres (25 percent) of the project site to be set aside for natural open space. Additionally, 6.8 6.4 acres are allocated to neighborhood parks. Overall, approximately 59.8 60.7 acres (29% of the entire project site) would be devoted to open space and recreational uses.

Riverside County standards of one acre per 1,000 population for regional parkland are not typically met by individual development projects. It is anticipated that already existing regional recreational facilities such as the regional parks and state recreation areas, will provide ample regional recreational uses for residents in the TTM No. 31194 project area. The Riverside County General Plan includes numerous policies to ensure the dedication and preservation of parks and recreational facilities on a regional scale. The project site is identified by the General Plan for residential use and is not designated to meet regional parkland needs.

Typically, the County requires 5.0 acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents to satisfy Quimby Act standards, as expressed in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35. The required parkland for TTM No. 31194 is calculated as follows. According to the population calculations derived from the Development Mitigation Fees as outlined in the County of Riverside Comprehensive Mitigation Fee Review, approximately 3.01 persons are generated per single-family residential dwelling unit.

Accordingly, the construction of 486 483 single-family dwelling units within the TTM No. 31194 project would generate approximately 1,463 1,454 persons. Based on Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35, and State Quimby Act requirements, 36.57 36.35 acres of open space and 7.3 acres of neighborhood/community parkland would be required to support residents of the proposed project. The project proposes 59.8 54.3 acres of open space and 6.8 6.4 acres of parkland to meet TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-157
these requirements. Also, passive walking trails are proposed along the project’s central drainage area to further increase recreational opportunities on the site. Still, the proposed 6.8 6.4 acres of neighborhood park space is 0.51 0.9 acres less than that required, resulting in a significant impact.

4.15.4MITIGATION MEASURES

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.

4.15.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-158

4.16 FIRE SERVICES

4.16.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fire protection service to the project site is provided by the Riverside County Fire Department. The Riverside County Fire Department provides a full range of fire services within the County and contracting cities, pursuant to response times, travel distance, and staffing workload levels established in the Riverside County Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Aid Plan. The Fire Protection Master Plan contains four fire response categories that are utilized to determine the response times/travel distances for primary and secondary fire stations. The response categories are based on the amount of community build-out presumed in the Master Fire Plan. The Fire Department assumes in any given region that three or more fire engines respond to any reported fire.

County fire stations within an approximate 10-mile radius of the project site are shown in Figure 4- 30, Fire Stations Location Map. As shown on the exhibit and in Table 4-23, Fire Stations Servicing TTM 31194, listed in order of response, are Stations 68, 76, and 7. Station 68 is the primary station responsible for fire protection to TTM 31194.

Table 4-23: FIRE STATIONS SERVICING TTM 31194
FIRE STATION Equipment/Number Of Staff
Station 68
26020 Wickerd Road, Menifee
1 Type I Engine with 1 Fire Officer and 2 Firefighters
(paid staff) 1 Type III Engine with 1 squad of volunteers Station 76
29950 Menifee Road, Menifee Lakes
1 Type I Engine with 1 Fire Officer and 2 Firefighters
1 Ladder Truck with 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 2 Firefighters Station 7
27680 Bradley Road, Sun City
1 Type I Engine with 1 Fire Officer and 2 Firefighters
1 Type I Engine and 1 squad of volunteers
Source: Riverside County Fire Department, Jorge Rodriguez; August 13, 2003.

Fire Station 68 is located at 26020 Wickerd Road, approximately 2.75 miles south of the project site.

Station 76 is located at 29950 Menifee Road, approximately 5 miles northeast of the project site.

Fire Station 7 is located at 27860 Bradley Road, approximately 7 miles northwest of the project site.

The project area is classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as State Responsibility Area (SRA), having a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, the SCMAVP indicates that the project site is not located within a Wildfire Susceptibility Area.

4.16.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to fire services if the project would:
a. Be located in an area outside of the County of Riverside’s existing or planned fire protection service area.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-159
b. Result in the need to construct new fire protection facilities to adequately meet demand, which would result in physical environmental effects. c. Not be in compliance with the County’s fuel modification standards. [Source: Riverside County Fire Department]

4.16.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
The development of 486 housing units on the project site would place additional demand on the County Fire Department and would cumulatively impact the Department’s ability to service the planned population. The project area now receives a Rural-Category III level of service because the project area is within 5 roadway miles from a fire station and can be reached by a full first alarm assignment within 20 minutes. Because an existing fire station is 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 project (Urban-Category III level of service). With buildout of the proposed project, however, a significant cumulative impact on fire services is identified due to the additional demand being placed on fire protection services in the project area. The project would comply with the provisions identified in the Uniform Fire Code and Riverside County Code Chapter

8.32, Fire Protection Regulations, which would reduce cumulative impacts, but not to below a level of significance.

4.16.4MITIGATION MEASURES
In order to mitigate the project's cumulative contribution to fire protection service impacts, the following measures are required.

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 fire hydrants shall be constructed in accordance with Ordinance 460.

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

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 funding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

4.16.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.
4-160
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Fire Stations Location Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-30
TTM No.
31194
*
*
Station No. 76
Station No. 68
*
Station No. 7
*
Fire Stations (10 Mile Radius)
LEGEND
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-161

4.17 SHERIFF SERVICES
The information provided in this section is based on correspondence with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Southwest County Station, and the Riverside County General Plan.

4.17.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department provides community policing for the project area. Other services provided by the Sheriff’s Department include, but are not limited to, operating of the emergency 911 system, operating correctional facilities, performing traffic control, and providing crime prevention education. Nine sheriff substations are located throughout the County. Law enforcement services to the TTM No. 31194 area are primarily provided from the Southwest County Station, which is located at 30755-A Auld Road in the City of Murrieta. Riverside County has set a minimum standard of one deputy per 1,000 people. This standard was adopted as part of the “Commitment to Public Safety and Citizens’ Option for Public Safety,” by the Board of Supervisors on September 17, 1996.

The TTM 31194 project site is located within Southwest Station District 543B. Figure 4-31, Sheriff Stations Location Map, shows the location of the Southwest sheriff station in relation to the proposed project. Currently, one deputy is assigned to the area of TTM No. 31194 and surrounding community on a 24-hour basis. Response times vary depending upon the nature of the call; a summary of average response times to the proposed project site are provided in Table 4-24, Southwest Sheriff Station Response Times.

Table 4-24: SOUTHWEST SHERIFF STATION RESPONSE TIMES
Priority Level Response Time
Priority 1 N/A
Priority 1A 14.8 Minutes
Priority 2 14.5 Minutes
Priority 3 12.8 Minutes
Priority 4 19.5 Minutes
Source: Southwest Sheriff Station, Chris Davis, September 24, 2003.

As depicted in Table 4-24, response times to the project site currently vary from 14.8 minutes to

19.56 minutes. Response times vary depending upon a number of factors, such as weather conditions, presence of traffic, time of day, patrol unit distance from location, and unit availability.

Emergency calls involving life-threatening events take priority assignment. At the present time, the proposed project site is vacant and calls to the site for sheriff services are low.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department has implemented a program entitled Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). COPPS evaluates who is responsible for public safety and redefines the roles and relationships between the police and the community in order to require shared ownership, shared decision-making and shared accountability. COPPS shifts the focus of police work from a solely reactive mode by supplementing traditional law enforcement methods with proactive problem-solving approaches that involve the community as well as the police. COPPS also establishes new public expectations and measurement standards for police 4-162
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Sheriff Stations Location Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-31
TTM No.
31194
*
Southwest Station
30755-A Auld Road
Murrietta, CA 92563
*
Sheriff Stations
LEGEND
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-163
effectiveness.

4.17.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in significant impacts to sheriff services if it would:
a. Create a demand for sheriff services beyond that which existing law enforcement services can provide, requiring the construction of additional or expanded law enforcement facilities, which would have a physical environmental effect. b. Not be in compliance with the applicable Sheriff Services provisions set forth in the Riverside County General Plan.
[Source: Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942 and Riverside County General Plan].

4.17.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
The TTM 31194 project would result in an approximate population increase of 1,463 persons (486 residential units x 3.01 persons per household = 1,463 residents). The proposed 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 not a 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 needs are required to meet the increased demand. The proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for services beyond the current capabilities of the Riverside Sheriff’s Department. To obtain a desirable level of service, utilizing the criteria of one deputy per 1,000 residents, ultimate development of the TTM No 31194 project could generate a need for approximately 1 additional deputy in order to provide adequate protection to the project site. Staff necessary to support the additional deputies would include an appropriate level of civilian, investigation, and supervisory personnel. This impact would not be regarded as significant on a direct level, but cumulative impacts are regarded as significant due to the increased demand being placed on law enforcement services due to increasing urbanization of the general area.

4.17.4MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in population and urban development requiring law enforcement services. In order to mitigate the project's cumulative contribution to the overall need to expand the provision of law enforcement, the following measures are recommended:

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.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-164

4.17.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-165

4.18 SOLID WASTE
The information provided in this section is based on correspondence with the Riverside County Waste Management Department. A copy of this correspondence is located in Appendix K to this EIR.

4.18.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
USA Waste of California is currently the franchise waste hauler for the project area. Accordingly, the waste management company would deliver the project’s solid waste to any one of three active landfills in Western Riverside County: the El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Landfill, or the Lamb Canyon Land Fill. All three landfills are Class III sanitary landfills for municipal solid waste. El Sobrante is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, and is likely to be the disposal facility for the waste collected from the project site.
‰ El Sobrante Landfill: The El Sobrante Landfill is located east of Interstate 15 and Temescal Canyon Road to the south of the City of Corona and Cajalco Road at 10919 Dawson Canyon Road. The existing landfill encompasses 1,322 acres, of which 645 acres are permitted for landfilling. The El Sobrante Landfill is currently permitted to receive 10,000 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which 4,000 tpd is reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County.

The landfill has a total capacity of approximately 109 million tons, or 184.93 million cubic yards, of which approximately 68 million tons are reserved for in-County waste. As of June 30, 2003, the landfill had approximately 11 million tons of waste in place and a remaining capacity of approximately 98 million tons. From July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, the El Sobrante Landfill accepted a total of approximately 2.125 million tons of waste, of which approximately 800,000 tons were generated within Riverside County. The landfill is expected to have a remaining life of approximately 30 years. ‰ Lamb Canyon Landfill: The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and the City of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road (State Route 79), with Interstate 10 to the north and Highway 74 to the south. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. The landfill encompasses approximately 1,088 acres, of which 178 acres are permitted landfill acreage. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 1,900 tons per day of trash for disposal and has a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 5.2 million tons, as of January 1, 2003. During the year 2002, the landfill received a total tonnage of 178,509.18 tons, or approximately 560 tons per day.

A proposal to expand the Lamb Canyon Landfill’s current refuse footprint to encompass 144.6 acres and increase its maximum daily disposal capacity to 3,000 tons is currently under review. The expansion proposal would result in a total landfill capacity of 16.2 million tons, which is estimated to be reached in approximately 2023. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site.
‰ Badlands Landfill: The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue and is accessed from State Highway 60 at Theodore Avenue.

The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. The existing landfill encompasses 1,093 acres, of which 150 acres are permitted for landfilling and another 70 acres are permitted for excavation and stockpiling cover material and other ancillary activities. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tons per day and has an overall remaining TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-166
disposal capacity of approximately 9.8 million tons, as of January 1, 2003. During the year 2002, the landfill received a total of 469,705.38 tons of municipal solid waste for disposal, resulting in a daily average of 1,520 tons. The Badlands Landfill is projected to reach capacity between 2018 and 2020. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site.

4.18.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would result in a significant impact if the project would:
a. Generate solid waste that exceeds present or planned landfill capacity. b. Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the County Integrated Waste Management Plan). [Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No.38942].

4.18.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
Ultimate project development, as well as the construction phase of the proposed project, would increase the amount of solid waste generated in the area; in turn, shortening the life span of the affected landfills, as well as increasing the demand upon waste haulers. Table 4-25, Estimated Solid Waste Generation, provides an estimate of the amount of solid waste which would be generated by construction of the project and at project build-out based on information from the County of Riverside and waste generation factors obtained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).

Table 4-25: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board; http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/default.htm The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) was approved in 1989 due to the trend of an increased waste stream and decrease in landfill capacity. As a result of AB 939, the CIWMB was established and a reporting program was instituted. AB 939 mandates a reduction of waste being disposed.

Implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the proposed project can assist Riverside County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction, recycling, and composting. In order to assist Riverside County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, the project applicant would work with future contract refuse haulers to implement recycling and waste reduction programs for residential and school wastes.

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a phased implementation of curbside recycling on March 27, 1990. Haulers that are authorized to operate within the unincorporated Riverside

LAND USE DEVELOPMENT GENERATION

INTENSITY

GENERATION
RATE Tons/Yr Tons/Day
Residential 486 du
(1,463 persons)

0.41 tons per
capita per year
599.83 1.6
TOTAL TONNAGE: 599.83 1.6
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-167
County permit areas are required to implement curbside recycling collection. As of January 1996 and continuing today, 100 percent of the qualifying residential customers are involved in a curbside recycling program. Items that are typically collected by the program include newsprint, glass, plastic (PET), and aluminum beverage containers. Used motor oil is also collected from all participating customers. It is anticipated that the TTM 31194 project applicant would work with its refuse hauler(s) to proceed with curbside collection of recyclable products on a regular schedule.

The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes programs to reduce the quantities of waste being sent to landfills. These programs include source reduction, separation of recoverables, composting, and high technology resources recovery. The County encourages the general public, schools, and businesses to learn and utilize information regarding recycling and the use of recycled materials. The implementation of these programs can reduce the increase in solid waste generation associated with new development, which in turn will aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites. With project participation in a recycling program, direct impacts to landfill capacity would not be significant. However, the project’s cumulative contribution to daily or total landfill capacity reduction is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact.

4.18.4MITIGATION MEASURES
Through implementation of the standard conditions presented below, impacts associated with solid waste are considered less than significant:

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 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.

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.

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 where solid waste is collected and loaded in a location which serves five or more units.