Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025

Initial Study
CEQA Lead Agency:

City of Murrieta
Development Services Department – Planning Division
1 Town Square
Murrieta, CA 92562
Project Applicant:

Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
2618 San Miguel Dr. Ste 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CEQA Consultant:

T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
July 2024
Oakcrest Townhome Project
O
akcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number/Title Page
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page i

1.0 Project Information ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1. Project Title and Case Number ......................................................................................... 1-1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ....................................................................................... 1-1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................. 1-1

4. Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1-1

5. Project Applicant ............................................................................................................... 1-1

6. General Plan Designation: Multiple-Family Residential (10.1-30 du/acre) ...................... 1-1

7. Zoning: Multiple Family 2 Residential (MF-2) ................................................................... 1-5

8. Environmental Setting of the Project Site ........................................................................ 1-5

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................................................................ 1-11

10. Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1-12

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ...................................................... 1-21

12. Have Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.2.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? ..... 1-22

13. Environmental Documentation ...................................................................................... 1-22

14. Streamlining of Environmental Review .......................................................................... 1-25

2.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................... 2-11

2.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 2-14

Oakcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Number/Title Page

Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page ii

2.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 2-29

2.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 2-48

2.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 2-55

2.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 2-59

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 2-66

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 2-70

Oakcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Number/Title Page

Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page iii

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 2-76

2.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 2-88

2.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 2-90

2.13 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 2-92

2.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................... 2-103

2.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................. 2-105

2.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 2-111

Oakcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Number/Title Page

Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page iv

2.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 2-114

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 2-118

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................... 2-120

2.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 2-128

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 2-135

3.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Preparers ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1

O
akcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number/Title Page
Figure 1-1 Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1-3 General Plan Land Use Map ......................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-4 Zoning Map ................................................................................................................. 1-6 Figure 1-5 Aerial Photograph ....................................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 1-6 USGS Topographic Map ............................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 1-7 Site Photographs – Views 1 through 3 ......................................................................... 1-9 Figure 1-8 Site Photographs – Views 4 and 5 .............................................................................. 1-10 Figure 1-9 Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................. 1-13 Figure 1-10 Building Elevations .................................................................................................... 1- 14 Figure 1-11 Conceptual Landscape Plan ....................................................................................... 1-15 Figure 1-12 Conceptual Grading Plan ........................................................................................... 1- 18 Figure 1-13 Conceptual Utility Plan .............................................................................................. 1-19 Figure 1-14 Tentative Tract Map No. 38579 ................................................................................. 1-20 Figure 2-1 Sensitive Receptor Locations ..................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-2 Corps/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Impact Map................................................ 2-43 Figure 2-3 CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impact Map .............. 2-44 Figure 2-4 Existing Condition Hydrology Map ............................................................................. 2- 85 Figure 2-5 Proposed Condition Hydrology Map .......................................................................... 2-86 Figure 2-6 Noise Measurement Locations .................................................................................. 2-96

LIST OF TABLES
Table Number/Title Page
Ta
ble 1-1 Surrounding Land Use Information ............................................................................ 1- 12 Table 1-2 City of Murrieta Approvals/Permits ........................................................................... 1-12 Table 1-3 Estimated Construction Schedule .............................................................................. 1-21 Table 1-4 Project-Related Agency Approvals/Permits ................................................................ 1-22 Table 2-1 Applicable Development Code Standards .................................................................... 2-8 O
akcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page vi
Table 2-2 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds ......................................................... 2-21 Table 2-3 Overall Regional Construction Emissions Summary .................................................... 2- 21 Table 2-4 Total Project Regional Operational Emissions ............................................................ 2-22 Table 2-5 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds ........................................................ 2-23 Table 2-6 Project Localized Construction Impacts...................................................................... 2-25 Table 2-7 Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types ................................................................... 2-32 Table 2-8 Summary of Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities ............................................. 2-41 Table 2-9 Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas ............................................................... 2-45 Table 2-10 City of Murrieta CAP Update Consistency Summary................................................... 2-69 Table 2-11 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements ............................................................ 2-97 Table 2-12 Significance Criteria Summary ................................................................................... 2-97 Table 2-13 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance ............................................................ 2-98 Table 2-14 Existing (Year 2022) With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases .................................. 2-99 Table 2-15 Opening Year Cumulative (Year 2024) with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ..... 2-100 Table 2-16 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................. 2-101 Table 2-17 Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases ........................................................... 2- 101 Table 2-18 Typical Project Construction Vibration Levels .......................................................... 2-102 O
akcrest Townhome Project Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page vii

LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES
T
he documents identified below are included within the Technical Appendices to this document and are hereby incorporated by reference in this document purs uant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15150.

A. Ge
neral Plan EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B1. Air Quality & Energy Analysis Assessment
B2. Construction Health Risk Assessment
C1. Biological Resources Technical Report
C2. Oak Tree Survey & Arborist Report
C3. Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation D. Cultural Resources Assessment
E. Geotechnical Evaluation
F. Greenhouse Gas (Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist) Assessment G. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
H1. Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan
H2. Hydrology Study
I. Noise Impact Analysis
J. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
K Fire Protection Plan
O
akcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-1

1.0 Project Information

1. Project Title and Case Number
Oakcrest Tow nhome Project Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38579/MAP-2023-00014, Development Plan (DP)-2023-00014

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Murrieta
C
ommunity Development Department
1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Chris Tracy, AICP Senior Planner
(
951) 461-6046
Email: c [email protected]

4. Project Location
The Project site consists of approximately 17.26 acres in the northeastern portion of the City of Murrieta.

F
rom a regional perspective, the Project site is located 0.26 mile west of the French Valley area of unincorporated Riverside County. Interstate 215 (I-215) is located 0.6 mile west of the Project site.

Specifically, the Project site is located east of Whitewood Road, north of Clinton Keith Road. The Project site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 392-330-003, -007, -020, and -021. Refer to Figure 1- 1, Regional Map, and Figure 1 -2, Vicinity Map, which show the Project location at a regional and local level.

5. Project Applicant
Sancerra Co mmunities – Whitewood, LLC
2618 San Miguel Dr. Ste 1223
Newport Beach, CA 92660

6. General Plan Designation: Multiple-Family Residential (10.1-30 du/acre) The Project site has one l and use designation under the City’s current General Plan, which is further discussed in Section 13.0, Environmental Documentation, below. In summary, the current General Plan consists of the General Plan 2035 approved in 2011, and amended by the General Plan Update in 2020.

The current General Plan is referred to herein as the “General Plan Update.” Figure 1-3, General Plan Land Use Map, depicts the General Plan land use designation for the Project site and surrounding areas . As depicted on Figure 1 -3, the Project site has a “ Multiple-Family Residential (MFR)” land use designation.

The base density for this land use designation is 10.1 – 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). (City of Murrieta, 2020a)

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-5
As stated in the General Plan (City of Murrieta, 2020a):

Multiple-Family Residential provides for attached and detached apartments and condominiums.

Typical development consists of townhomes, condominiums, apartments, senior housing, and stacked flats. This designation encourages the development of integrated projects that provide complementary open spaces and amenities on-site.

7. Zoning: Multiple Family 2 Residential (MF-2)
Refer to Figure 1-4, Zoning Map, which depicts the existing zoning for the Project site and surrounding areas. As depicted on Figure 1 -4, the Project site has a “Multi ple Family 2 Residential (MF -2)” zoning district.

The MF-2 zoning district is applied to parcels appropriate for high density multi -family development, in which attached or detached dwelling units may be air-space condominiums, or rented as apartments under single ownership. Senior housing, congregate care or group facilities are allowed, with commonly maintained recreational facilities and open space required. The allowable density range is from 15.1 – 18 du/ac. The MF-2 zoning district is consistent with the Multiple-Family Residential land use designation of the General Plan.

8. Environmental Setting of the Project Site
As shown in Figure 1-1, the City is in the southwest portion of Riverside County and is bordered to the north by the City of Menifee, the City of Wildomar, and unincorporated Riverside County; to the east by unincorporated Riverside County; to the south by the City of Temecula and unincorporated Riverside County; and to the west by unincorporated Riverside County. As shown in Figure 1 -2, the Project site is bordered to the north by Greenberg Place, to the west by Whitewood Road, to the south by Clinton Keith Road, and to the east by Arendt Lane. Regional access to the Project site is provided by I-215 via Clinton Keith Road. The Project is approximately 3.55 miles northeast of I -15, 0.6 mile east of I -215, and approximately 2.53 miles west of SR-79. Local access to the Project site is currently provided via Arendt Lane and Whitewood Road via unimproved driveways.

Figure 1-5, Aerial Photograph, depicts the existing conditions at the Project site and surrounding areas.

The Project site contains two existing residences in the eastern half of the site and the western half of the site is undeveloped. Elevations range between approximately 1,385 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the southeast corner to 1,480 feet amsl along the western boundary. Figure 1-6, USGS Topographic Map generally depicts the topography of the Project site and surrounding areas. The existing aesthetic conditions of the Project are illustrated on site photographs presented on Figure 1 -7 through Figure 1-8 which show views of the undeveloped Project site from Clinton Keith Road and Whitewood Road.

As further discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources , of this document, the Project site is within the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Project site is not in a criteria area for the MSHCP ( i.e., not within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, habitat core or linkage). The

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-11
Project site contains riparian and riverine areas as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSCHP; therefore, a MSHCP Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required as 100 percent avoidance of on-site riparian/riverine areas cannot be met with the Project.

The Project site is north of Criteria Cell 5673 and Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) conserved lands “Calvary Chapel of Murrieta,” but is separated from preserved lands by a 29- acre site to be developed with a multi -family residential project and Clinton Keith Road, a six -lane, 130- foot-wide highway. In addition, the preserved area is separated from the Project and highway by an approximately 25-foot-high road cut built as a part of the construction of Clinton Keith Road.

Eight vegetation land cover types were observed within the Project site: developed, disturbed/ruderal, coastal sage scrub, chamise chaparral, coast live oak woodland, emergent wetland, streams, mulefat scrub, and southern willow scrub . Additionally, the following sensitive plant and wildlife species are supported on-site: Intermediate mariposa lily ( Calochortus weedii var. intermedius ), Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), Long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), San Diego tarweed (Deinandra paniculate), Southern California rufous crowned sparrow ( Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow ( Artemisiospiza belli belli), Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax ) Orange-throated whiptail ( Aspidoscelis hyperythra), and Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). Wetlands and non- wetland waters considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) occur onsite totaling

0.55 acre and 754 linear feet. Riparian, riverine, and streambeds considered jurisdictional by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the MSHCP were also observed on-site that total 0.94 acres and 754 linear feet.

The existing drainage pattern on-site consists of two separate major drainage areas. The majority of the site drainages from the southwest corner to the north including two off-site drainage facilities that outlet within the Project boundary. A smaller portion of the site drains from west to east. The two existing storm drain systems that currently surface outlet within the property have a combined projected 100-year flow of 158 cubic feet per second (cfs).

As further discussed in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of this document , there are two previously unrecorded cultural resources identified on the Project site. Additionally, as a result of AB 52 consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luise ño Indians, three potential cultural reburial sites were identified within the Project boundary. Project design would include 0.62-acre of coast live oak preservation, r elocation (if feasible) and/or replanting of elderberry shrub(s) , and the three cultural reburial sites.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
As shown on Figure 1-5, and summarized in Table 1-1, Surrounding Land Use Information, the area to the west of the Project site is an existing residential development. North and east of the Project site are several existing homes. South of the Project site is undeveloped land designated for multiple -family residential land uses.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-12
Table 1-1 Surrounding Land Use Information
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Project
Site
Two Existing Residences and
Vacant Land
Multiple-Family Residential
(10.1-30 du/acre)
MF-2 (Multi-Family
Residential 2)
North Several Residences Multiple-Family Residential MF-2 East Several Residences Multiple-Family Residential MF-2 South Undeveloped Land Multiple-Family Residential MF-2 West Residential Development Multiple-Family Residential MF-2

10. Project Description
A list of primary actions related to the Project under City jurisdiction is provided in Table 1 -2, City of Murrieta Approvals/Permits. The current entitlement applications for the Project are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at the Murrieta Development Services Department located at 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562.

Table 1-2 City of Murrieta Approvals/Permits
City of Murrieta Approvals and Decisions
Proposed City of Murrieta Discretionary Approvals
City of Murrieta Planning Commission • Approve the Notice of Exemption and finding of no additional environmental review because the Project is consistent with the Murrieta General Plan and would not result in any impacts peculiar to the Project site pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. • Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 38579 (MAP-2023-00014))
• Development Plan Permit (DP-2023-00014)

Development Permit No. 2023-00014

The Project includes a proposed Development Plan Permit (DP) No. 2022-2737 to provide for development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (Refer to Figure 1-9, Conceptual Site Plan). The Project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with an approximately 900 s.f. restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot, and 65,120 s.f. of total common open space areas throughout the site. The proposed 2 43 dwelling units comprise 2 - and 3 -story townhomes. Figure 1-10, Building Elevations, depicts the building elevations for the proposed buildings.

The Project also includes construction of several retaining walls along the southeastern boundary of the Project site, eastern boundary of the Project site, segments of the northern Project boundary, and the western portion of the Project sit e that would be preserved as open space. Figure 1 -11, Conceptual Landscape Plan, depicts the Project’s conceptual landscape plan. A total of 629 parking spaces would be provided with 10% of spaces designated as electric vehicle (EV) spaces. Grading proposed by the Project would result in 16.64 acres of disturbance to the Project site. Access to the Project would be provided by two (2) full access driveways, one located on Arendt Lane, and the other located on Whitewood Road.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-16
Product 1 (2-Story Townhome)
Plan Type Program Unit Size Unit Count Total
Plan 1 2 BD/2.5 BA 1,588 SF 43 68,284 SF
Plan 2 3 BD/2.5 BA 1,676 SF 46 77,096 SF
Plan 3 3+LOFT/BD-4BD/2.5 1,875 SF 46 86,250 SF
Total 135 233,630 SF

Product 2 (3-Story Townhome)
Plan Type Program Unit Size Unit Count Total
Plan 1 2 BD/2.5 BA 1,351 SF 36 48,636 SF
Plan 2 3 BD/2.5 BA 1,704 SF 36 61,344 SF
Plan 2X 3 BD/2.5 BA 1,807 SF 36 65,052 SF
Total 108 175,032 SF
The following roadways would provide access to the Project site:
• Whitewood Road – full access
• Arendt Lane Road – full access

Tentative Tract Map No. 38579

The Project also includes approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38579 (refer to Figure 1-14, Tentative Tract Map No. 38579), to establish 42 numbered lots (Lots 1 through 42) for the development of residential buildings allowed pursuant to the existing General Plan and zoning designations; and 24 letter lots (Lots A through X) for internal roadways.

Grading Plan and Utility Infrastructure

The proposed grading plan is shown on Figure 1- 12, Conceptual Grading Plan . Based on the proposed grading plan, it is estimated that proposed earthwork and grading activities would result in approximately 96,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut material and 96,000 cy of fill materials with a max imum cut of 34 feet , resulting in a balanced site with no import or export of soil required. As illustrated on Figure 1 -13, Conceptual Utility Plan, water, sewer, and storm drain systems are proposed onsite. The onsite utility infrastructure would connect to existing water, storm drain, and sewer infrastructure along the roadways adjacent to the Project site. The Project would construct an approximately 12 -foot offsite Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sewer line within Arendt Lane, continuing easterly within Clinton Keith Road and terminating near the northwest corner of Clinton Keith Road and Menifee Road. The Project would require annexation into EMWD and Metropolitan Water District (Metropolitan) for water service.

The Project also includes a temporary sewer lift station in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The location of the temporary lift station is shown on Figure 1-6. The design of the temporary sewer lift station is conceptual. Final design of the temporary lift station would be determined as part of final engineering.

The Project would also connect to the existing dry utility infrastructure (electric, natural gas, and telecommunications) within the surrounding roadways.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-17
The Project would utilize five major systems for collecting on-site drainage. Drainage Management Area (DMA) A, which comprises 9.9 acres, would collect runoff from the north and west portions of the Project site and would outlet at the streambed discharge point near the northern Project boundary. DMA B, which comprises 7.9 acres, would collect the runoff from the south and east portions of the Project site and would outlet at the low point at the east side of the Project site. Within the DMAs, several drainage lines would convey stormwater flows. Proposed Line ‘A’ would be an extension of the existing 60-inch Line ‘D’ and would transport the off -site drainage through the P roject. Proposed Line ‘B’ is an extension of the existing Line ‘B’ and would join the existing system at the southwest corner of the Project site and would ultimately connect to Line ‘A’. Line ‘C’ would collect the remaining portion of drainage from DMA A . An underground detention basin is proposed at the downstream end of Line ‘C’ to mitigate any additional flows expected from the proposed improvements within DMA A. Line ‘D’ would collect the drainage from the entry portion of Street C and Arendt Lane to ultimately discharge at the natural outlet point along the eastern edge of the Project site. Line ‘E’ would collect the drainage from the west and south portions of the Project and would ultimately connect to Line ‘D’ near the outlet location. Prior to connecting to Line ‘D’, a detention basin is proposed at the downstream end of Line ‘E’.

Brush Management

Figure 1 -11 depicts the Project’s conceptual landscape plan. As shown, the Project would include landscaping throughout the proposed development area. As further discussed in Section 2.20, Wildfire , the structures along the northern portion of the Project site cannot achieve the required 100 feet of fuel modification zones (FMZ) due to lot constraints and Project boundary limitations. Therefore, alternative compliance brush management and construction methods would be required. A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was prepared for the Project by Dudek (Dudek, 2024) to evaluate and identify the potential fire risk associated with the Project’s land uses and is included as Technical Appendix K of this document. The FPP identifies the following Project design features in order to mitigate potential fire risks:

• Application of Cha pter 7A of the California Building Code, ignition resistant requirements along with applicable sections of the 2022 CRC, including Section R302, subsection 302.2.2.

• Minimum 1-hour rated exterior walls and doors.

• Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or be tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12 -7A-2. For structures located along the northern edge of the property unable to achieve the full 100 feet of FMZs, dual pane dual tempered glass windows will be installed on exposed sides of residential structures.

• Ember resistant vents (recommend BrandGuard or similar vents).

• Installation of an NFPA 13D, automatic residential interior fire sprinkler system within each individual townhouse unit to code for occupancy type.

• Low home ignitability, including construction materials and 10 meters of vegetation modification.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-21
• Non-combustible, heat-deflecting wall 6 feet in height along the northern Project boundary.

Refer to the Project-specific FPP (Appendix K) for a detailed discussion on proposed FMZs.

Construction Activities

The Project would include on -site construction as well as off- site utility connections in Ardent Lane, Whitewood Road, and Clinton Keith Road. The Project also includes roadway improvements for site access on Whitewood Road, Clinton Keith Road, and Ardent Lane. All of the proposed utility connections and roadway improvements would occur within the existing right -of-way. The Project’s anticipated construction schedule and estimated durations for purposes of analysis in this document are identified in Table 1 -3, Estimated Construction Schedule . As shown, construction activities are anticipated to commence in 2024. As time passes, air quality emission factors for construction decrease because emission regulations become more stringent as the analysis year increases. Thus, this construction schedule provides a “worst-case” assessment of potential construction related impacts.

Construction activities would require the use of common construction equipment, and construction equipment is conservatively expected to operate on the Project site up to eight hours per day.

Table 1-3 Estimated Construction Schedule
Phase Name Start Date End Date Days
Demolition 1/01/2024 1/19/2024 15
Site Preparation 1/22/2024 1/31/2024 8
Grading 2/01/2024 3/01/2024 22
Building Construction 3/04/2024 12/30/2024 216
Paving 12/09/2024 12/30/2024 16
Architectural Coating 11/01/2024 12/30/2024 42

The maximum depth of excavation is approximately 20 feet for utility installation; however, the maximum depth of over-excavation for grading is approximately 30 feet deep.

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
This document covers all federal, State, local government, and quasi -government approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project whether they are explicitly listed in Table 1-4 below or elsewhere in this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-22
Table 1-4 Project-Related Agency Approvals/Permits
US Army Corps of Engineers • Section 404 permit for any impacts to areas determined to be under the jurisdiction of the Corps
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
• Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code for any impacts to areas determined to be under the jurisdiction of the CDFW.

San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
• Issuance of a Construction Activity General Construction Permit. • Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• Issuance of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for any impacts to areas determined to be under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB.

Southern California Edison (SCE) • First Release Letter ]
Eastern Municipal Water District • Approval of an annexation into the water district. • Administrative approvals for the design of on and offsite sewer and water infrastructure.
• Will-Serve” Request Letter
Metropolitan Water District
(Metropolitan)
• Approval of an annexation into the water district.
• Administrative approvals for the design of on and offsite water infrastructure.

Other Utility Agencies • Permits and associated approvals, as necessary for the installation of new utility infrastructure or connections to existing facilities.

12. Have Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.2.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
As discussed in Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this document , the Pechanga Band of Indians requested consultation with the City pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.2.1. The Pechanga Band of Indians requested to participate in the environmental review process and the development of appropriate Project conditions of approval (PCOAs). P otential impacts to tribal cultural resources have been determined to be less than significant with incorporation of PCOAs agreed to between the City and the Pechanga Band of Indians.

13. Environmental Documentation
In conjunction with its adoption of the City’s General Plan 2035, the City has previously certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Murrieta General Plan 2035 (SCH No. 20 10111084), certified July 2011 (2011 EIR). With its adoption of the General Plan Update, the City certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Murrieta General Plan 2035 (SCH No. 2010111084) in June 2020 (2020 SEIR). These environmental impact reports (EIRs), which are incorporated by reference into thi s environmental document, are collectively referred to herein as the “General Plan EIRs.”

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-23

Specifically, in July 2011, the City certified the 2011 EIR for the Murrieta General Plan 2035 (referred to herein as the “General Plan 2035”) as a program level EIR to guide the physical development of the City; the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was ad opted concurrently with the General Plan 2035. General Plan 2035 was a comprehensive update to the City’s 1994 General Plan and included updates to the elements that were included in the 1994 General Plan and the addition of two new elements. The General Plan 2035 included the following elements: Land Use, Economic Development, Circulation, Infrastructure, Healthy Community, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Air Quality, Noise, Safety, and Housing. The General Plan 2035 evaluated in the 2011 EIR anti cipated development of the North Murrieta Business Corridor Focus Area, which includes the Project site, wit h a mix of Office and Research Park and Commercial uses. The 2011 EIR addressed all the environmental topics included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines at the time the 2011 EIR was prepared. The 2011 EIR concluded that most of the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan 2035 would be less than significant or reduced to a level that is considered less than significant with the adoption of mitigation measures (MMs).

However, air quality impacts (short -term construction emissions and long -term mobile and stationary emissions), noise impacts (cumulative operational noise impacts), transportation impacts (deficient roadway segment and intersection Level of Service [LOS]), and recreation impacts (inadequate availability of parkland, trails, etc.) were identified as significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment resulting from the General Plan 2035 in the 2011 EIR. For those environmental topics, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC).

In July of 2020, the City certified the 2020 SEIR and approved an update to the General Plan 2035 (this update and the resulting General Plan are referred to herein as the “General Plan Update”). In conjunction with the General Plan Update, the City also approved a CAP Update and Zone Change/Zone Code Amendment. Major components of the General Plan Update evaluated in the 2020 SEIR included the following:

• Additions, deletions, or modifications to the General Plan 2035 goals, policies, exhibits and implementation to address changes in State law enacted since the adoption of the General Plan 2035.
• Update of General Plan 2035 development projections to the year 2035. • Update of the General Plan 2035 Land Use Policy Map in six key areas. • Update of the Land Use Element with a new land use designation (Innovation) and a revised mix and location of land use designations in six key areas. • Revisions to the General Plan 2035 Focus Areas exhibits, text and policies. • Creation of one new zoning district (Innovation) with a zone change and revisions to the City’s Development Code to address the new zone with a Zone Code Amendment. • Update of emissions inventory, projections, targets, and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction strategies and measures for the CAP Update.
• Update of the existing Zoning Map so that it is consistent with the proposed General Plan Update Land Use Policy Map as shown on the proposed Zoning Map.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-24

The General Plan Update addressed in the 2020 SEIR anticipated development of the Project site with Multiple-Family Residential uses (refer to Figure 1-3, General Plan Land Use Map).

The 2020 SEIR augmented the 2011 EIR and addressed a limited scope which included the following topical issues: Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Wildfire. The 2020 SEIR identified new significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment related to air quality (short -term construction, long-term mobile and stationary source, and cumulative long-term mobile and station source emissions), and transportation (project and cumulative roadway segment and intersection LOS impacts), and adopted a SOC for these impacts. The 2020 SEIR also reviewed environmental impacts and mitigation measures for each subject area addressed in the 2011 EIR to determine if the General Plan Update would result in significant changes and/or new impacts not previously addressed. The reasons the remaining topical issues were found not to be significant in the 2020 SEIR were described in Section 5.0, Subject Areas Not Discussed in Detail, of the 2020 SEIR, and are summarized in this environmental document.

The 2011 EIR identifies its intended use as a Program EIR or “first tier EIR” and cites PRC Section 21068.5, which defines “tiering” as:

“the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environmental in the prior environmental impact report.”

The 2011 EIR established that “subsequent development projects proposed within the City must be reviewed in the context of this Program EIR to determine if additional environmental documentation is required. If the subsequent project would have environmental effects not addressed in the Program EIR, additional environmental review will be required.” It further stated:

“Where no new effects and no new mitigation measures are involved, the subsequent project can be approved without additional environmental documentation. Where an EIR is required for a subsequent project, the EIR should implement the applicable mitigation measures developed in the Program EIR, and focus its analysis on site specific issues not previously addressed.”

The 2020 SEIR reaffirms this approach and states that it is “intended for use by the City in streamlining environmental documentation for future development projects that could consider tiering from this document.”

The 2011 EIR also identifies that it is considered a second-tier EIR for the topic of biological resources and that “the analysis in this [2011] EIR has: 1) incorporated by reference the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan F inal EIR . . . certified for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) in June 2003. The Final EIR/EIS analyzed the impacts associated with adopting the MSCHP, including the issuance of “Take” permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2800 et seq. of the California

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-25
Fish and Game Code. The MSCHP was previously described in Section 2.7, Incorporation by Reference, as were the five CEQA/NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) topical areas reviewed in the Final EIR/EIS.

The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Hab itat Conservation Plan Final EIR/EIS is considered a first-tier EIR.”

In conjunction with certification of the 2020 SEIR the City also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (refer to herein as the “General Plan EIR MMRP”), which incorporates mitigation measures from the 2011 EIR and is included in Appendix A to this document. The MMRP contained in the 2020 SEIR incorporated all of the 2011 EIR mitigation measures. The General Plan EIR MMRP ensures that identified mitigation measures are properly implemented. Projects implementing the General Plan Update , such as the Project, are required to incorporate applicable mitigation measures included in the General Plan EIR MMRP. Therefore, all relevant mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and would be implemented during construction and future operations. Applicable mitigation measures are listed in the introduction to the analysis for each topical issue in Section 2, Analysis, of this document. In addition to the General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures relevant t o the Project, this document identifies and proposes for adoption certain Project - specific conditions of approval based on applicable general development policies, including general plan policies, or standards adopted by the City with respect to impacts to biological resources, impacts to cultural and tribal resources, and noise impacts.

14. Streamlining of Environmental Review
CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(h) identifies a series of methods, in addition to tiering, that lead agencies may use to streamline the environmental review process and, where multiple methods may apply, provides discretion to a lead agency as to which to choose. Other methods identified include “(7) Projects consistent with community plan, general plan, or zoning (Section 15183)”.

Tiering

As indicated in Section 13 above, tiering is appropriate and encouraged when a project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city, and no further environmental documentation is required if (a) all potential impacts of the Project have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior EIR and adopted findings in connection with that prior EIR, and (b) all potential impacts have been examined at a sufficient detail in the prior EIR to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site -specific revisions. 1 The
City’s SEIR also seeks to address impacts identified in the General Plan EIRs as significant and unavoidable and does not require further analysis if such measures cannot be mitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite the project proponent’s willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures, if and the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another EIR would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to the effects.

1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 allows for further analysis pursuant to an EIR or negative declaration but also establishes that future environmental documents must be limited to effects not adequately addressed in the initial EIR and sets forth standards for when significant effects have been adequately addressed.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-26
Exemption

Pursuant to PRC Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and based on the analysis presented in this Initial Study, the City may rely upon the analysis in the certified General Plan EIRs and determine that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review. PRC Sections 21083.3(a) and (b) provide additional requirements for streamlining in the following circumstances, which are further described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183:

(a) If a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of this division to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.

(b) If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.

An effect of a project upon the environment “ shall not be considered peculiar to the parcel or to the project, for purposes of this section, with a finding based upon substantial evidence, which need not include an environmental impact report, that the development policies or standards will substanti ally mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.” PRC Section 21083.3(d).

The Project meets the requirements of each of PRC Section 21083.3(a) and (b) in that it is consistent with the density of development and other elements of the General Plan Update and an EIR was certified with respect to the General Plan Update. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15183(b), the environmental analysis of the Project is limited to environmental effects that (a) are peculiar to the Project or Project Site, (b) were not analyzed as significant effects in the General Plan EIRs, (c) have pot ential significant off-site impacts and cumulative impact which were not discussed in the General Plan EIRs, or (d) have previously identified significant effects which as a result of substantial new information not known at the time the SIER was certified, have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs.

PRC Section 21083.3(c) indicates that “all public agencies with authority to mitigate the significant effects shall undertake or require the undertaking of any feasible mitigation measures specified in the prior environmental impact report relevant to a significant effect wh ich the project will have on the

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-27
environment or, if not, then the provisions of this section shall have no application to that effect. The lead agency shall make a finding, at a public hearing, as to whether those mitigation measures will be undertaken.”

As demonstrated by the analysis presented in Section 2.0 below, all potentially significant impacts of the Project are mitigated with the incorporation of the applicable mitigation measures set forth in the General Plan EIRs and certain uniformly applied development policies, including General Plan policies, or standards that have been previously adopted by the city or incorporated into the General Plan EIRs. Accordingly, there are no environment al effects peculiar to the Project site or Project . In addition, as demonstrated below, there are no environmental effects that were not addressed as significant effects in General Plan EIRs and no potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impact which were not discussed in the General Plan EIRs and there is no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that could result in the Project having a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs.

Therefore, this environmental document is also prepared pursuant to the provisions of the PRC Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Conclusion
Because the General Plan EIRs analyzed anticipated growth in Murrieta, including development of the Project site with residential uses, the General Plan EIR s are intended to assist the City in streamlining environmental documentation, and the Project would be developed with uses consistent with the City’s General Plan Update and in compliance with the City’s applicable Development Code Standards, the City has determined that in evaluating whether further environmental review is required, it is appropriate t o consider whether, under PRC Section 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and/or the CEQA tiering provisions, there are any peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, any significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been "adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs or any new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

This environmental analysis demonstrates that under either the exemption or tiering approaches authorized by CEQA as described above and analyzed in this environmental document, the Project would not result in any peculiar or new significant impacts that are not examined in the General Plan EIRs and there is no significant increase in the previously identified impacts.

With respect to tiering, the environmental analysis in this document demonstrates that all potential impacts of the Project have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the General Plan EIRs and adopted findings in connection with the General Plan EIRs, have been examined at a sufficient detail in the General Plan EIRs to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site -specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means with the approval of the later project; and, with respect to impacts on parks and recreation, which were determined in the General Plan EIRs to be significant and unavoidable, cannot be mitigated to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts despite the project proponent’s willingness to accept all feasible mitigation measures, and the only purpose of including analysis of such

Oakcrest Townhome Project 1.0 Project Information
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 1-28
effects in another EIR would be to put the agency in a position to adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to the effects.

Alternatively, with respect to PRC Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183,the analysis in Section 2.0 below demonstrates that after taking into account the analysis in the General Plan EIRs and with application to the Project of uniformly applied development policies, including General Plan policies, or standards that substantially mitigate any environmental effect of the Project, there are no environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the Project site, or that were not analyzed as significant effects in the General Plan EIRs or for which substantial new information which was not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified shows the Project would have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs. Thus, applying Section 21083(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the City may rely upon the analysis in the certified General Plan EIRs and the application of project conditions of approval applied pursuant to uniformly applied development policies, including General Plan policies, and conclude that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review.

As set forth below, all feasible mitigation measures specified in the prior environmental impact report relevant to a significant effect which the project will have on the environment and additional conditions of approval incorporating uniformly applied development policies , including general plan policies, or standards previously adopted by the city or county, have been incorporated into the Project.

Accordingly, the City has determined that reliance on the environmental analysis in the General Plan EIRs is appropriate and that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review or alternatively, that no further evaluation of environmental impacts after application of the tiering requirements.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-1

2.0 Environmental Analysis
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Applying Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to this Project:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answer must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate is there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” is utilized for purposes of this analysis where the application of development policies or standards or incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Where an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, it is appropriate to consider whether, under PRC Section 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, there are any peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, any significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been "adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs or any new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and if no such effects or new information apply to identify the project as exempt from CEQA.

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the environmental factor checklist were within the scope of and adequacy analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-2
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigations which were incorporated or refined from the earlier documentation and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a referenc e to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

9. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

10. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that would require mitigation, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance

•• ■ D Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE □ DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not □ be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL □ IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless □ mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment no further fZI review under CEQA is required because (a) the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to PRC Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and/or uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county and will substantially mitigate the environmental effect of the project, or alternatively (b) applying PRC Section 21068.5,all potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, there are no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been "adequately addressed" in the General Plan El Rs and there is no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project's effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.
c=� Submitted by: Chris Tracy, A �r
7/11/2024
Date
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-3

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-4

2.1 Aesthetics

2.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of aesthetic impacts for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section 5.3, Aesthetics, of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would have less than significant impacts on scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, long -term visual quality, and views affected by light and glare, and no mitigation was required. The 2011 EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would require incorporation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM AES- 1 through MM AES -3 to reduce potentially significant impacts on short - term visual impacts during construction to less than significant levels. The 2011 EIR also identified that future development under the General Plan 2035 would be subject to compliance with the regulations, guidelines, and development review process set forth in the City’s development code as well as goals and policies identified in the General Plan 2035 and provided that future development within the City would be evaluated on a project -by-project basis in order to verify compliance with the provisions of the Murrieta Municipal Code (MDC). Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MMs AES -1 through AES-3.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in new or substantially greater aesthetic impacts than identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR and imposed no new mitigation measures relating to aesthetics.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.1.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

AES-1 For future development located in or immediately adjacent to residentially zoned properties, construction documents shall include language that requires all construction contractors to strictly control the staging of construction equipment and the cleanli ness of construction equipment stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. Construction equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site, as distant from the residential use, as reasonably possible. Staging areas shal l be screened from view from residential properties.

AES-2 Construction documents shall include language requiring that construction vehicles be kept clean and free of mud and dust prior to leaving the development site. Streets surrounding the development site shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris.

AES-3 Construction worker parking may be located offsite with prior approval by the City. On - street parking of construction worker vehicles on residential streets shall be prohibited.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-5

2.1.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views the
site and its surroundings
(Public views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The City’s General Plan Update identifies prominent views of the San Jacinto Mountains, Santa Ana Mountains (and Santa Rosa Plateau), Santa Margarita and Tibia ranges, hillsides, and ridges as scenic vistas. The Project site is within a relatively flat valley floor approximately 28 miles southwest of the San Jacinto Mountains, approximately 12 miles east of the Santa Ana Mountains, and 13 miles north of the Santa Margarita and Tibia ranges. Currently, distant views of the San Jacinto Mountains are available along Whitewood Road (looking northeast) and Clinton Keith Road (looking northeast) . The Project site is not within proximity to any hillsides or ridges within the City.

Construction activities would include the presence of construction equipment, fencing/signage, vehicles, and soil stockpiles ; however, views to the San Jacinto Mountains would be maintained . The proposed

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-6
construction activities would not substantially obstruct views of the San Jacinto Mountains and surrounding roadways.

The Project site contains two existing residences in the eastern half of the site and the western half of the site is undeveloped. As shown in the photographs provided in Figure 1 -7 and Figure 1 -8, the site photographs were taken primarily from public vantage points adjacent to the Project site and are representative of public views from adjacent roadways (Whitewood Road and Clinton Keith Road). There are a limited number of viewers from these public vantage points. Prominent visual features in the viewsheds that include the Project site are the hillsides to the south and distant mountain views from vantage points looking east. The Project includes a Development Permit that identifies the architectural style and building elevations for the Project. Buildings would have a maximum height of 40 feet and would partially obstruct views along Whitewood Road and Clinton Keith Road. However, the building’s height would not fully obstruct views to hillsides and distant mountain views. Additionally, partial and unobstructed views would be provided from Whitewood Road and Clinton Keith Road. Furthermore, the Project would not block any designated scenic vista.

Therefore, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, impacts to scenic vistas identified in the City’s General Plan would be less than significant, there are no peculiar effects with respect to scenic vistas not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. There are no officially designated State scenic highways in proximity to the Project site . The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is a portion of SR -74 beginning from Blackburn Road and terminating at Highway 111 (Caltrans, 2023) . The Project site is located approximately 21 miles southwest of this portion of SR -74, and there are no views of the Project site from this scenic highway .

According to the City’s General Plan, I-15 and I-215 are recognized as possessing scenic qualities. I-215 is located 0.6 mile west of the Project site. I-15, which is located approximately 3.55 miles northeast of the Project site, is also identified by Caltrans as an eligible State scenic highway but is not officially designated.

Due to distance and intervening development, there are no views of the Project site from I-15 and I-215.

The Project site contains oak trees , which are clustered at the northwestern corner and northern boundary of the Project site. The Project’s proposed site plan has been designed to avoid the majority of existing oak trees. Due to Project design, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic resources, such as trees, on site. The Project site does not have any additional scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Implementation of the Project would not impact scenic resources within a State scenic highway.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-7
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. As identified by the United States Census Bureau (USCB), the Project site is within an urbanized area2 (USCB, 2010). Therefore, the potential impacts of the Project under this threshold are assessed based on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As previously discussed, Project site is zoned MF-2.

The General Plan EIRs identify potential visual impacts associated with construction activities in the City, such as placement of materials in storage areas, construction debris piles on site, or exposed trenches, roadway bedding, spoils/debris piles, and steel plates that could be visible during construction of street and utility infrastructure improvements and imposes General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM AES-1 through AES -3 to mitigate these potential impacts. The Project’s construction phase s would be temporary in nature and all construction equipment would be removed from the Project site following completion of the Project’s construction activities. Temporary construction-related changes to local visual character would not substantially degrade the visual quality or character of the area; construction activity is common throughout develop ing areas of the City of Murrieta. The proposed construction activities would not impact prominent hills or ridgelines, and the proposed grading plan protects th e natural drainages onsite within designated open space areas. Additionally, during construction activities associated with the Project, General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MMs AES-1 through AES-3 from the General Plan EIRs would be implemented to ensure that short -term construction-related aesthetic impacts remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs. There are no peculiar effects with respect to aesthetic impacts from construction not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Development would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use and zoning designation and is subject to the City’s design review process. The Project would not degrade the existing visual character/quality of the site and the surrounding area, which is planned for development. During design review, details including architectural massing, elevations, finished color, landscaping, and branding for the proposed development were reviewed by the City of Murrieta . The Project would be designed in accordance with the development standards established in the Murrieta Development Code (MDC) for the MF-2 zoning districts (Sections 16.08.020 and 16.08.040). Standards that relate to scenic quality are provided below in Table 2-1, Applicable Development Code Standards. With adherence to the applicable development standards, and implementation of development consistent with applicable General Plan Update goals addressing visual character/quality, residential development at the Project site would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its

2 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, an urbanized area means a central city or group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 per square mile. A Lead Agency shall determine whether a particular area meets the criteria in this section either by examining the area or by referring to a map prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census which designates the area as urbanized.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-8
surroundings, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Table 2-1 Applicable Development Code Standards
Applicable Development Standards Project Consistent?
Residential – MF-2 Standards
Setbacks
• Street – 10 feet
• Interior – 10 feet
Yes
Maximum Parcel Coverage
• 35%
Yes
Maximum Height Limit
• 50 feet
Yes
Minimum Onsite Landscaping
• 10 percent of the site area
Yes
Building Placement
• Buildings shall be placed with varying setbacks and/or orientation to the street to provide visual interest.
• Minimum distances between buildings shall be in
compliance with Section 16.18.130 of the City’s
Municipal Code.
• Residential structures on the same lot shall maintain a minimum separation of at least 10 feet for one -story
structures, 15 feet for two-story structures, and 20 feet for three-story structures.

Yes
Parking Areas
• Parking areas shall be treated as “landscape plazas,” with attention to landscape surfaces, softened edges,
shade, and pedestrian circulation.

Yes
Miscellaneous Subjects
• Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage Areas
o Solid waste and recyclable materials storage
areas shall be enclosed and screened in
compliance with Section 16.18.150 of the
City’s Municipal Code.
o Enclosures shall be finished using materials
compatible with the surrounding architecture.

Gates shall be solid metal painted to match
adjacent buildings.
• Storage areas that can be overlooked from above shall incorporate roof structures to screen the contents of
the enclosure from view.

Yes
Screening of Equipment
• All mechanical equipment, whether mounted on the
roof or ground, shall be screened from view in
compliance with Section 16.18.120 of the City’s
Municipal Code . All screening devices shall be
Yes

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-9
Applicable Development Standards Project Consistent?
compatible with the architecture and color of the
adjacent buildings.
• Gutters and downspouts shall be concealed unless
designed as a particular architectural feature.
• Solar panels shall be integrated into the roof design, flush with the roof slope . Frames shall be colored to
match roof colors . Any support equipment shall be
enclosed and screened from view.

Building Architecture
• Exterior elevations shall be appropriately articulated and detailed to avoid flat, monotonous wall planes and
uninteresting barracks-like structures
• The maximum number of attached units in a particular
structure shall be eight within a single elevation unless variations in the elevations are provided.
• All accessory structures shall be consistent in
architectural design with the rest of the complex.

Yes
Building Materials
• The building and its elements shall be unified in
textures, colors, and materials to provide and order and coherence within the project.
• The composition of materials shall avoid giving the
impression of thinness. Veneers should turn corners,
avoiding exposed edges.
• The use of artificial materials is not allowed.
• Materials shall be very durable, require low
maintenance, and relate a sense of permanence.
• Frequent changes in materials shall be avoided.
• Columns, trellises, porches, colonnades, and similar
element shall use materials and colors that are
compatible with adjacent building
• The use of wood fencing along a project boundary or
adjacent to street shall not be allowed.

Yes
Roofs
• Roofs shall reflect a residential appearance through
pitch and use of materials.
• Tile roofing materials shall reflect the color of native earthen clay which were used in their manufacture .

Blue, green, and other artificially colored tiles are not allowed.

Yes
Color
• The predominant color of structures shall be muted
tones that are found in the natural environment by use
of at least one of the following design features:
o Neutral or light -colored walls should be
contrasted with a darker, more intense trim
color, while dark -
colored walls should be
contrasted with light colored accents and
details.
o Materials such as brick, stone, copper, etc.
should be left in their natural colors.

Yes

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-10
Applicable Development Standards Project Consistent?
Walls
• Walls adjacent to streets shall not run in a continuous plane for more than 48 -feet without incorporating at
least two of the following design features:
o A minimum 2-foot change in plane for at least
10 feet;
o A minimum 18 inch raised planter for at least
10 feet;
o Use of pilasters at 48 -foot intervals and at
changes in wall planes and height or;
o A section of open grillwork a minimum 4 feet
in height for at least 10 feet.

Yes
Tree Preservation
• Section 16.42 Tree Preservation of the City’s Municipal Code provides regulations for the protection,
preservation, and maintenance of significant tree
resources and to establish minimum mitigation
measures for trees removed as a result of new
development.

Yes

d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site is in a developing portion of the City , where existing development contributes to artificial lighting . Existing sources of lighting in the immediate vicinity of the Project site include streetlight s and lighting from residential development.

Project construction would occur during daytime hours, during which time no artificial lighting would be required. Any incidental lighting during construction would be for security purposes and would be directed to the Project site, which would avoid unnecessary spill onto adjacent properties. There would be no construction activities that would create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Therefore, lighting impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

As anticipated, development of residential uses at the Project site would introduce new sources of light from street lighting, interior and exterior building lighting including for safety purposes, vehicle headlights, illuminated signage, and new sources of glare such as reflective building materials, roofing materials, and windows. All lighting installed with the proposed development would be subject to compliance with the provisions of MDC Section 16.18.100, Lighting, which requires that exterior lighting be directed downward and shielded so that glare is confined within the boundaries of the subject parcel , among other requirements. Additionally, light sources would be shielded to direct light rays onto the Project site only, pursuant to MDC Section 16.18.100.C, Shielded Lighting. Additionally, proposed development would be subject to compliance with MDC architectural design standards for Residential Districts relative to building materials and colors, in order to reduce glare effects (refer to MDC Chapter 16.08).

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-11
The purpose of MDC Section 16.18.110, Mount Palomar Lighting Standards, is to restrict the use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays that have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research. To this end, all future development within the Dark Sky Zone (the circular area 30 miles in radius centered on the Palomar Observatory) , which includes the Project site (approximately 24.5 miles northwest of the Palomar Observatory) would be subject to compliance wit h the general, lamp source, and shielding requirements established by MDC Section 16.18.110.

Compliance with the MDC provisions in the lighting of proposed development onsite would ensure proper design, installation, and operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects, light spillover onto adjacent properties, or conflicts with the Palomar Observatory. As such, consistency with the MDC would ensure that potential impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs and there are no peculiar effects with respect to lighting or glare not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

2.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of agriculture and forestry resources impacts for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section

5.11, Agricultural Resources, of the 2011 EIR. At the time the 2011 EIR was prepared, the Project site was identified as Other Land and Grazing Land and the Project site was not under a Williamson Act Contract.

The 2011 EIR concluded that future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 would result in no impact or less than significant impacts to agricultural resources. Specifically, no Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is within the Focus Areas targeted in the General Plan 2035. The Project site is one of the Focus Areas in the General Plan 2035 to which future development efforts are directed (the North Murrieta Business Corridor). In addition, all development pursuant to the General Plan 2035, including development within the North Murrieta Business Corridor, would be required to be in substantial conformance with goals and policies of the Conservation and Land Use Elements of t he General Plan 2035, which support the protection of the continued potential for agricultural uses in rural residential areas and encourage additional, small -scale urban agricultural opportunities. Cumulative impacts on agriculture and forestry resources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update, which includes development in the North Murrieta Business Corridor consistent with the General Plan 2035, would not result in new or substantially greater agricultural impacts than identified in the 201 1 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant or no impact) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. The 2020 SEIR imposed no new mitigation measures relating to agricultural resources.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-12

2.2.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
contract?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-13
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) current farmland mapping, the Project site contains Other Land and Grazing Land (CDC, 2018). The Project site does not contain Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ). The Project site is not in agricultural production. Additionally, there are no lands in proximity to the Project site that are currently in agricultural production. Therefore, the Project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Project site is zoned as MF-2 and is not currently used for agricultural purposes; there are no properties surrounding the Project site that are zoned for agricultural use (City of Murrieta, 2020c) .

Additionally, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and there are no lands under a Williamson Act contract in proximity to the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract . Therefore, no impact would occur.

c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact . The City does not have an exclusive zone classification for forestland, timberland or Timberland Production. The Project site is not zoned for forestland, timberland, or Timberland Production and the Project site is not located in proximity to lands zoned for these purposes. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site does not contain forest land; thus, the implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As discussed above , there is no Farmland (i.e., Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Important, and Unique Farmland) on the Project site. The Project site is mapped as Other Land and Grazing Land. The Project site is not in agricultural production and the eastern portion of the site is developed with two residential units. Additionally, there are no lands in proximity to the Project site that are currently

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-14
in agricultural production. Therefore, development at the Project site pursuant to existing General Plan and zoning designations would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural uses .

Additionally, the City does not contain forestland, and implementation of the Project would not result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

2.3 Air Quality

2.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of air quality impacts for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section 5.5, Air Quality, of the 2011 EIR. The 2020 SEIR provided an analysis of air quality impacts for the General Plan Update in Section

4.3, Air Quality. The information and analysis provided in the 2020 SEIR was organized in accordance with the Checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines and current State and local guidance.

The 2020 SEIR determined that although the implementation of the General Plan Update would change land uses upon which the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) were based, the General Plan Update would create jobs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes several updated goals and policies within the Circulation, Land Use, Air Quality, Conservation, and Safety Elements that are consistent with SCAG’s RTP goals.

The 2020 SEIR determined that the General Plan Update would result in an additional 1,572 residential units, beyond those considered in the 2011 EIR, which would result in a net increase in construction emissions beyond those analyzed in the 2011 EIR. As with the General Plan 2035, the General Plan Update would incorporate goal and policies identified in the 2011 EIR to reduce air pollutants and precursors; however, there is a potential for construction projects related to the General Plan Update to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) construction thresholds. Consistent with the determination of the 2011 EIR, the 2020 SEIR determined that construction -related impacts would be potentially significant. The 2020 SEIR concluded that with adherence to the goals and policies from the General Plan Update in conjunction with mitigation measures (MM AQ-1 through AQ-7), the General Plan Update would not result in any new or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact; however, construction -related air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The 2020 SEIR also identified with respect to construction related air quality impacts that “[a]s was the case with the 2011 General Plan, the proposed Project is program -level in nature and therefore, specific information about individual land use developments, and the duration, frequency, and intensity of construction, and potential overlap bet ween construction activities is not available at this time. Therefore, construction -related emissions due to the implementation of the proposed Project cannot be accurately quantified, and such an analysis would be considered speculative.” Therefore, this document analyzes the construction impacts of the Project.

With respect to operational emissions, the 2011 EIR concluded “with respect to operational emissions, mobile source emissions are the largest emissions source in the City [and that the] goals and policies identified within the proposed General Plan 2035 would reduce mobile source emissions.” The 2020 SEIR further concluded that operational emissions of the General Plan Update would be lower as compared to the General Plan 2035 analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Moreover, future development pursuant to the General

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-15
Plan Update would be subject to compliance with the applicable goals and policies that would reduce air quality impacts. The 2020 SEIR concluded that impacts related to compliance with applicable regional plans would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR determined that the operation of the 1,572 additional residential units would result in the generation of long-term operational emissions of criteria pollutants and the 2,405,601 square feet of non- residential development excluded from the General Plan Update would avoid the generation of long-term operational emissions. Project -level operational details were not provided for the plan -level analysis provided in the 2020 SEIR; thus, operational emissions were not able to be analyzed at the level of detail needed to determine whether they would contribute to an air quality violation. The 2020 SEIR identified that the General Plan Update would decrease overall Citywide operational emissions as compared to the development under the General Plan 2035; however, the reduction in emissions would not reduce overall operations emissions to below SCAQMD’s significance threshold. Consistent with the 2011 EIR, the 2020 SEIR determined that the General Plan Update would result in potentially significant opera tional-related air quality impacts. The 2020 SEIR concluded that with adherence to the goals and policies from the General Plan Update in conjunction with mitigation measures (MM AQ-8 through MM AQ-24), the General Plan Update would not result in any new or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact; operational-related air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The 2020 SEIR determined that construction-related activities associated with the implementation of the General Plan Update would result in intermittent emission of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and that operation of the new land uses proposed by the General Plan Update could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs). However, with adherence to the goals and policies included in the General Plan Update, and SCAQMD’s permit requirement for stationary sources, in conjunction with the reduction i n VMT relative to the 2011 EIR, the General Plan Update would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in any new or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact; impacts to sensitive receptors would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR determined that the land uses proposed under the General Plan Update are not significant odor generators that would adversely affect sensitive receptors during operation. All land uses would consist of uses that are common in the surrounding areas. The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in any new or a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant impact; impacts related to odors would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in any intersection capacity or roadway that would exceed 100,000 vehicles per day and result in a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot. Thus, the 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in any new or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact; impacts related to CO hotspots would remain less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that cumulative impacts related to air quality would be consistent with the cumulative impact conclusions in the 2011 EIR; significant and unavoidable impacts for regional

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-16
construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions; less than significant for localized air quality impacts and impacts to sensitive receptors; and odor impacts. The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact previously identified. No new mitigation measures were identified.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.3.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

Construction-Related Measures
AQ-1 Require the use of Tier 4 emissions standards or better for off- road diesel -powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or greater. To ensure that Tier 4 construction equipment or better will be used during the proposed Project’s construction, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff recommends that the Lead Agency include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts.

Successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground disturbing and construction activities.

A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and California Air Resources Board (CARB) or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

Additionally, the Lead Agency should require periodic reporting and provision of written construction documents by construction contractor(s) to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance.

AQ-2 Require zero -emissions or near -zero emission on -road haul trucks such as heavy -duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional N Ox emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. At a minimum, require that construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators commit to using 2010 model year trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) that meet CARB’s 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp -hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards, and make the records available for inspection. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance.

AQ-3 Suspend all onsite construction activities when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-17
AQ-4 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).

AQ-5 Enter into applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts to notify all construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators that vehicle and construction equipment idling time will be limited to no longer than five minutes, consistent with the CARB’s policy. For any idling that is expected to take longer than five minutes, the engine should be shut off. Notify construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators of these idling requirements at the time that the purchase o rder is issued and again when vehicles enter the proposed Project site. To further ensure that drivers understand the vehicle idling requirement, post signs at the proposed Project site, where appropriate, stating that idling longer than five minutes is not permitted.

AQ-6 Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas.

AQ-7 Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the proposed Project to levels analyzed in the CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the proposed Project through the CEQA process prior to allowing this land use or higher activity level.

Operations-Related Measures

General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM AQ -9 applies to projects that generate significant regional emissions, and is therefore not applicable to the Project, which result in less than significant air quality impacts. General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MMs AQ-8, AQ-10 through AQ -24 are related to non-residential projects and thus do not apply to the Project, as these types of uses are not allowed in the MF-2 zone.

2.3.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-18
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section is based on the Project-specific Air Quality & Energy Assessment (AQ & EA Assessment) and Construction Health Risk Assessment (Construction HRA), both prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and are included as Technical Appendix B.1 and Technical Appendix B.2, respectively, to this document (Urban Crossroads, 2024a) (Urban Crossroads, 2023a).

The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) . The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square-mile area consisting of the four- county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what used to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O
3) (precursor emissions include NOX and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O
3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-19
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair- share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project’s c onsistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below , and consistency with the 2020 General Plan S upplemental EIR. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The Project’s consistency with these criteria is discussed below.

Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed p roject will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded . As noted above, SCAQMD had adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards and regularly updates the AQMP to reduce emissions more effectively . The regional significance thresholds ensure that proposed development projects are consistent with the AQMP and do not cause or contribute violations that would delay the reduction of emissions as specified in the AQMP.

As evaluated under Threshold b, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1 during construction or operation.

C
onsistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build
-o
ut phase.

Th
e 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Murrieta General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-20
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the si te to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

The City of Murrieta General Plan designates the Project site as “Multiple -Family Residential 2” (MF -2) uses. The MF-2 designation allows for up to 10.1 – 30 du/ac dwelling units per acre. This land use allows for attached and detached apartments and condominiums. Allowed development includes townhomes, condominiums, apartment senior housing, and stacked flats.

The Project includes development of 1 35 2-story residential dwelling units and 1 08 3-story residential dwelling units for a total of 243 units at a density of15.1 du/ac. The Project’s proposed uses and density are consistent with the site’s land use designations, and a general plan amendment will not be required.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

In summary, the Project is consistent with the 2022 AQMP, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with conclusion of the General Plan EIRs and there are no peculiar effects with respect to air quality plan consistency not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for regulated pollutants, as summarized in Table 2-2. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having a cumulatively-considerable net increase of the respective criteria pollutant.

Projects have the potential to affect air quality through construction -source and operational -source emissions. In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate cons truction-source and operational -source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NO
X, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Detailed information regarding modeling assumptions and output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in the AQ & EA Assessment included in Technical Appendix B of this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-21
Table 2-2 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOX 100 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
VOC 75 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
PM10 150 lbs./day 150 lbs./day
PM2.5 55 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
SOX 150 lbs./day 150 lbs./day
CO 550 lbs./day 550 lbs./day
lbs./day = Pounds Per Day
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024a, Table 1)

Regional Construction Impacts

As previously discussed, for purposes of analysis in this document , it is estimated that construction activities associated with the Project would occur over a 12-month period from January 2024 to December 2024. This includes demolition, site preparation, and grading. The Project Applicant would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules during construction, including Rule 403, which address fugitive dust emissions. The Project’s estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized in Table 2 -3, Overall Regional Construction Emissions Summary . As shown, regional construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD threshold during the summer or the winter seasons.

Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of the criteria pollutants during construction and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, on a direct or cumulatively-considerable basis . Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for Project -related regional construction-source emissions.

Table 2-3 Overall Regional Construction Emissions Summary Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 2.28 13.90 30.20 0.03 3.21 1.14
Winter
2024 69.60 42.60 41.30 0.06 8.15 4.81
Maximum Daily Emissions 69.60 42.60 41.30 0.06 8.15 4.81 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024a, Table 3)

Regional Operational Impacts

Operational activities associated with the proposed residential uses at the Project site would also result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be associated with the following primary sources: area sources, energy sources and mobile sources. Operational emissions for summer and winter scenarios are provided in Table 2-4, Total Project Regional Operational Emissions. As shown, the Project’s operational activities would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-22
these pollutants during long -t erm operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, on a direct or cumulatively-considerable basis. There are no peculiar effects with respect to regional air quality not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Table 2-4 Total Project Regional Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 9.17 8.64 77.80 0.18 6.01 1.17
Area Source 11.30 4.06 16.50 0.03 0.32 0.32
Energy Source 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 0.10
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 20.54 13.95 94.83 0.22 6.43 1.59 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 8.50 9.27 65.40 0.17 6.01 1.17
Area Source 9.95 3.91 1.66 0.02 0.32 0.32
Energy Source 0.07 1.25 0.53 0.01 0.10 0.10
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 18.52 14.43 67.59 0.20 6.43 1.59 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024a, Table 4)

c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects.

These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre -existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as “sensitive receptors ”. These structures typically include residences, hotels, hospitals, etc. as they are also known to be locations where an individual can remain for 24 hours. This section discusses criteria pollutants from onsite construction and operation, CO hotspots, and toxic air contaminants.

Localized Impacts from Criteria Pollutants

The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS).

Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I -41. LSTs represent the maximum emis sions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. Table 2 -5,

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-23
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds , presents the thresholds for localized construction emissions.

Table 2-5 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds
Construction Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM10
Demolition 162 lbs/day 750 lbs/day 4 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Site Preparation 303 lbs/day 1,533 lbs/day 10 lbs/day 6 lbs/day Grading 324 lbs/day 1,677 lbs/day 11 lbs/day 7 lbs/day
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024a, Table 2)

Sensitive receptors in the Project study area are described below and are shown on Figure 2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations. The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing residence at 35960 Lindstrand Avenue, approximately 130 feet west of the Project site. Receptor R1 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) adjacent to Whitewood Road facing the Project site.

R2: Location R2 represents an existing residence at 35842 Meadowlark Lane, approximately 59 feet north of the Project site. Receptor R2 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard).

R3: Location R3 represents an existing residence at 35815 Arendt Lane, approximately 64 feet north of the Project site. Receptor R3 is placed near private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing residence at 35820 Arendt Lane , approximately 114 feet northeast of the Project site. Receptor R4 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing residence at 35960 Arendt Lane, approximately 122 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R5 is placed near the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site.

R6: Location R6 represents the Vista Murrieta High School at 28251 Clinton Keith Road, approximately 551 feet southwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receptor R6 is placed at the building façade.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site where an individual could remain for 24 hours is Location R2. The LST methodology indicates a 25-meter receptor distance appropriate for evaluation of localized PM
10, PM2.5, NOx, and CO. The method for the LST analysis is detailed in the AQ & EA Assessment included in Technical Appendix B of this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-25
Table 2-6, Project Localized Construction Impacts, identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criterial pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project -related construction -source emissions and no mitigation is required.

Table 2-6 Project Localized Construction Impacts
Construction Activity On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.90 21.70 1.26 1.01
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 162 750 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.50 35.30 7.91 4.76
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 303 1,533 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 37.60 31.40 4.44 2.61
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 325 1,677 11 7
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024a, Table 5)

According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The Project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no LST analysis is needed for operations.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessments

Construction activities for the Project have the potential to result in diesel particulate matter (DPM) , which is a listed carcinogen and toxic air contaminant (TAC) in the State of California. Projects that generate/attract diesel trucks during operation would also emit DPM. The proposed residential uses are not known emitters of substantial TAC concentrations that would potentially affect sensitive receptors during operation.

To assess potential health risks from DPM during construction of the Project, a construction health risk assessment has been prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads and is included in Technical Appendix B.2 of this document. The HRA was prepared in accordance with the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and is comprised of all relevant and appropriate procedures presented by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California EPA and the SCAQMD. The Lakes AERMOD View (Version 11.2.0)

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-26
was used to calculate annual average particulate concentrations associated with site construction operations. Lakes AERMOD View was utilized to incorporate the U.S. EPA’s latest AERMOD Version 22112.

Vehicle DPM emissions in the Mobile Source HRA were calculated using emission factors for PM 10 generated with the 2021 version of the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) developed by the CARB.

Additional information about the methods and assumptions for preparing the HRA is provided in the Technical Appendix B.2.

Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of ten (10) persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to TAC exposure from a project su ch as the Project. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development -specific and cumulatively considerable impact. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs.

Non-carcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur . A hazard index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. In the Project Construction HRA, non - carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant. Both the cancer risk and non- carcinogenic risk thresholds are applied to the nearest sensitive receptors described previously.

Construction-Related

Based on the results of the Construction HRA, the Project’s construction activities would not cause a significant human health risk to residents or school children, as summarized below. The referenced receptor locations are shown on Figure 2-1.

• Individual Exposure Scenario: The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source DPM emissions is Location R3 which is located approximately 64 feet north of the Project site at an existing residence located at 35842 Meadowlark Lane. R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction -source DPM emissions is estimated at 4.08 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million.

At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. While Location R3 is not the nearest receptor to the Project site, it would experience the highest concentrations of DPM during Project construction due to meteorological conditions at the site. Because all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during Project construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein.

As such, the Project w ould not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction act ivity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.

• School Child Exposure Scenario: The nearest school is Vista Murrieta High School, located approximately 551 feet southwest of the Project site. At the maximally exposed individual school

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-27
child (MEISC), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to Project construction activity is calculated to be 0.04 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to Project construction activity were calculated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0.

As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby school children and would not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.

CO “Hot Spot” Analysis

An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the State one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. To establish a record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted by the SCAQMD in 2003 for four busy intersection is Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods.

The busiest intersection evaluated for morning traffic volumes was at Wilshire Boulevard and Vet eran Avenue, which has a morning traffic volume of approximately 8,062 vehicles per hour (vph). The highest 1-hour CO concentration level for this intersection during the peak morning period was calculated to be

4.6 ppm. This indicates that, should the hourly traffic volume increase four times to 32,250 vehicles per hour, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4 = 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm). The intersection of Whitewood Rd. & Clinton Keith Rd. would have the highest AM traffic volumes of 5,840 vph. Additionally, the I -215 NB Ramps & Clinton Keith Rd. would have the highest PM traffic volumes of 7,451 vph. As such, Project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot”. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobil e-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

Potential Health Impacts

If a project in the SCAB exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the SCAB until such time the attainment standard s are met. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart att acks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and incre ased respiratory symptoms. Because of the relatively small amount of emissions from the Project relative to regional-wide emissions, it would be speculative to assess whether or the extent to which the Project would contribute to adverse health effects. Even though SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, SCAQMD has not provided methodology, and modeling does not currently exist, to assess the specific corr elation between mass emissions generated, cumulative increases from individual projects, and the effect on health or even to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds by small amounts would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment. SCAQMD staff has not and does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify O
3-related health impacts caused by NO X or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Similarly, CARB methodology has

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-28
reported that a PM 2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. For these reasons, m ass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. In contrast, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the Project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activ ity, specifically 6,620 lbs./day of NOX and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3.

The Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOX or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC emissions.

The Project would generate up to 42.60 lbs/day of NO X during construction and 14.43 lbs/day of NO X during operations (1.38 percent and 0.59 percent of 6,620 lbs/day, respectively). Additionally, the Project would also generate a maximum of 69.60 lbs/day of VOC emissions during construction and 18.52 lbs/day of VOC emissions during operations (0.04 percent and 0.06 percent of 89,190 lbs/day, respectively).

Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978, the California
Supreme Court found that the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch project failed to adequately analyze the project’s air quality impacts on human health where project -related mass emissions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regional significance thresholds . The Court found that EIRs for projects must not only identify impacts to human health, but also provide an “analysis o f the correlation between the p roject's emissions and human health impacts” related to each criteria air pollutant that exceeds the regional significance thresholds or explain why it could not make such a connection. The EIR failed to do either and therefore did not comply with CEQA. As stated above, it is not possible to determine a direct correlation between the small amount by which the Project exceeds thresholds of significance for VOCs, NO
X, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 and health effects that are generally linked to these emissions. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground - level ozone concentrations in relation to the National AAQS and California AAQS, and the absence of modeling that allows for specific health-emissions correlations for an air basin from small projects such as the proposed Project, it is not feasible to link health risks to the magnitude of any emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis , sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project construction or operation . Impacts would be less than significant consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs. T here are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-29
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Objectionable odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard and the ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is subjective . Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include: agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment places, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.

Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors, or emissions that may lead to odors, associated with the Project’s construction activities and operations would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, and there are no peculiar effects with respect to odors or other emissions not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs .

2.4 Biological Resources

2.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of biological resources impacts for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section 5.10, Biological Resources, of the 2011 EIR. At the time the 2011 EIR was prepared, the Project site was undeveloped and disturbed except for the two on-site residential units, similar to existing conditions.

The 2011 EIR concluded that future development within the City pursuant to the General Plan 2035 would result in less than significant impacts to special status species (listed); sensitive vegetation communities, including riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands; wildlife corridors; conflicts with local policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources; and conflicts with the MSHCP. Future development under the General Plan 2035 would be subject to compliance with the City’s MSHCP Implementation Policy, the MSHCP, and General Plan 2035 goals and policies to address potential impacts to biological resources.

Additionally, the 2011 EIR indicated that on site assessments of potential impacts to biological resources would be conducted and, if necessary, project-specific mitigation would be recommended, in addition to MMRP and MSHCP measures, to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Cumulative impacts on biological resources were also determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-30
The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan would not result in new or substantially greater biological impacts than identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No ne w mitigation measures relating to biological resources were required in the 2020 SEIR.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.4.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on State or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption,
or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-31
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or
migratory wildlife
corridors, or impeded the
use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section is based on the Project-specific Biological Resources Technical Report (WRA, 2024) prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (WRA). This report is included as Technical Appendix C to this document. Preparation of the Biological Resources Report included:

• Delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands and riparian habitat) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools policy; • Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project site; • Performance of habitat assessments, and site-specific biological surveys, to evaluate the presence/absence of special-status species in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the MSHCP;
• Performance of focused surveys for rare plants; and
• Performance of focused surveys for burrowing owl.

A detailed discussion of the methods used to identify biological resources and assess potential impacts resulting from the Project is provided in the Biological Technical Report.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-32
The Project site contains a mixture of disturbed/developed areas in the form of unpaved access roads, two small single-family homes, as well as blocks of disturbed and undisturbed native habitat types. The Project’s Study Area includes approximately 17.26 acres and includes all of the impact areas on the Project site. Eight land cover types were observed within the Study Area: developed, disturbed/ruderal, coastal sage scrub, chamise chaparral, coast live oak woodland, emergent wetland, streams, mulefat scrub, and southern willow scrub . Table 2 -7 provides a summary of the vegetation/land use types and their corresponding acreage.

Table 2-7 Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types
Vegetation/Land Use Type Project Site
(acres)
Developed Area 1.24
Disturbed/Ruderal Area 6.94
Coastal Sage Scrub 1.18
Chamise Chaparral 7.25
Coast Live Oak Woodland 0.35
Mulefat Scrub 0.04
Unvegetated Streambed 0.05
Emergent Marsh 0.01
Southern Willow Scrub 0.53
Total 17.26
Source: (WRA, 2024)
• Developed Area (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: None. Approximately 1.2 4 acres of the Study Area is developed area. In these areas, vegetation is minimal and is primarily bare ground (i.e., dirt roads and driveways) or structures. What vegetation is present is composed of scattered annual weeds such as short -pod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana) or ornamental trees such as Eucalyptus sp. This community is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory entity; however, the trees could be used by migratory birds.

• Disturbed/Ruderal Area (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: None. Developed/ruderal areas total 6.94 acres within the Study Area. These areas intergrade with areas of mature chamise chaparral and are potentially managed as defensible space or for fuels management reasons.

Vegetation is varied in terms of dominance across the Study Area but typically include one or more of the following species: California buckwheat, deerweed, paniculate tarplant, short -pod mustard, and yellow annual sweet clover. Additional species that are found within these areas include tocalote, red brome, rattail sixweeks grass, and common sand aster. This community is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory agency.

• Coastal Sage Scrub (restored). G5/S5. CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Approximately 1.18 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (restored) were observed within the Study Area. The Diegan coastal sage scrub is associated with the cut slope facing Clinton Keith Road along the southern boundary of the survey area. Given the standard plant palette, evidence of irrigation, and land use history, this vegetation type is likely planted as a part of a native plant erosion control/habitat restoration program. This community is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory agency.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-33
• Chamise Chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance). G5/S5. CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Chamise chaparral totals 7.2 5 acres of the Study Area with the largest stands of the vegetation community located in the far eastern and central sections of the Study Area. Chamise chaparral occurs throughout cismontane California from lower mountain slopes to coastal bluffs.

Chamise chaparral stands in the Study Area is dominated by chamise with other shrubs such as deerweed, California buckwheat, and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) providing less than five percent cover. Annual groundcover is sparse within the community and include common annual species found across the Study Area such as red brome, tocalote, short -pod mustard, and Cryptantha sp. This commu nity is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory agency.

• Coast Live Oak Woodland (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance). G5/S4. CDWF Rank:

Not sensitive. Coast live oak woodland total 0.35 acres in the northwest corner of the Study Area.

Coast live oak woodland occurs along cismontane coastal foothills and valleys from San Diego County to southern Mendocino County. Coast live oak is the dominant species of the upper canopy for this alliance with red willow ( Salix laevigata), blue elderberry ( Sambucus nigra ssp.

Caerulea), and poison oak ( Toxicodendron div ersilobum) forming a mixed, woody mid canopy.

Herbaceous groundcover is sparse and primarily composed of ripgut brome ( Bromus diandrus) and iris -leaved rush ( Juncus xiphioides). This community is not considered sensitive; however, within the Study Area the community is associated with a stream, which may be considered riparian habitat and sensitive by CDFW as riparian habitat.

• Mulefat Scrub (Baccharis salicifolia shrubland alliance). G4/S4, CDFW Rank: Not sensitive.

Mulefat scrub total 0.04 acres in the southwest corner of the Study Area and is associated with a culvert at the intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Whitewood Road. The culvert drains a natural stream course beneath Clinton Keith Road. As such, the mulefat should be considered natural and not exempt from Federal, State, or local regulation. The mulefat shrubland alliance occurs throughout the state except for the southeast deserts, high elevations of the Sierra Nevada range, and in the far northeast of the state. The alliance is commonly found in canyon bottoms, floodplains, and stream margins. This community is not considered sensitive; however, within the Study Area the community is associated with a stream, which may be considered riparian habitat and sensitive by CDFW and the MSHC.

• Unvegetated Streambed. (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: Sensitive. Approximately 0.05 acres of unvegetated streambed habitat was observed within the Project area. Stream bed habitat is composed of small, linear unvegetated features caused by the flow of water.

• Emergent Marsh. (Juncus xiphioides Provisional Herbaceous Alliance). G2/S2 CDFW Rank:

Sensitive. Emergent marsh totals 0.01 acre and includes areas dominated by herbaceous, low - growing hydrophytic vegetation often rooted in shallow water adjacent to a larger waterbody such as a stream or lake. Emergent marsh within the Study Area is associated with a northeast trending drainage. The dominant vegetation within the emergent marsh is iris -leaved rush, and included annual beard grass ( Polypogon monspeliensis ), seep monkeyflower ( Erythranthe guttata), poison hemlock ( Conium maculatum ), and curly dock ( Rumex crispus ). Emergent marshlands are sensitive biological communities.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-34
• Southern Willow Scrub. (Salix gooddingii - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance). G4/S3.

CDFW Rank: Sensitive. Southern willow scrub totals 0.53 acres located in the northwest quarter of the Study Area. The forest and woodland alliance occurs throughout the state except for high elevation in the Sierra Nevada range and in the far northeast of the state. The alliance is commonly found along large rivers and canyon terraces, lake edges, seeps, springs, and stream floodplains.

The dominant vegetation with in the southern willow scrub is red willow ( Salix laevigata) in the tree canopy with Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and coast live oak also present. Shrub cover within the alliance included coyote bush ( Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak. Herbaceous cover was light and included iris-leaved rush, annual beard grass, annual yellow sweet clover, and poison hemlock. Southern willow scrub are sensitive biological communities.

The biological resources study area is within the Southwest Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The biological resources study area is not located within a Criteria Cell. Approximately 70% of the study area is included in the MSHCP Burrowing owl survey area and approximately 70% is included in this MSHCP narrow endemic survey area.

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, e ither directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Table 8 of the Biological Resources Report provides a list of permanent impacts to sensitive species which include Intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius ), Parry’s spineflower ( Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), Long-spined spineflower ( Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), San Diego tarweed ( Deinandra paniculate ), Southern California rufous crowned sparrow ( Aimophila ruficeps canescens ), Bell’s sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse ( Chaetodipus fallax fallax ) Orange- throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), and Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). All observed sensitive plants populations and sensitive wildlife habitat w ould be permanently impacted by P roject activities.

There are no anticipated temporary impacts to sensitive species associated with the Project. A total of four (4) special status plant species w ould be permanently impacted by P roject activities including Intermediate mariposa lily, Parry’s spineflower, long -spined spineflower, and paniculate tarplant . In addition, a total of five (5) special-status wildlife species have potential to occur in the immediate vicinity of or in portions of the Study Area: southern California rufous -crowned sparrow ( Aimophila ruf iceps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow ( Artemisiospiza belli belli ), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax ), orange -throated whiptail ( Aspidoscelis hyperythra ), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and may be impacted by P roject activities, resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to implementation of Project conditions of approval . PCOA-BIO-1 requires nesting bird clearance surveys for habitat-disturbing activities, PCOA-BIO-2 requires bat roost assessments prior to the removal of on-site structures, and PCOA-BIO-3 requires spring rare plant surveys. PCOA-BIO-5 requires exclusionary fencing on the project site, PCOA -BIO-6 requires removal permits for all protected trees, PCOA-BIO-7 requires compliance with Urban Wildlife Interface Guidelines, PCOA -BIO-8 requires the

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-35
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction, and PCOA-BIO-9 requires the removal of all trash on site.

Approximately 70% of the Project site is located within the MSHCP Burrowing owl survey area and requires preparation of a burrowing owl habitat assessment. No burrowing owls, burrowing owl signs, or potential burrows were observed within the Study Area, and the Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Flatter, open areas with more scattered perennial vegetation do exist on site, but those areas generally did not have friable soils and appear to be at least semi -regularly mowed as defensible space.

However, out of an abundance of caution, PCOA-BIO-4 requires a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl prior to commencement of grading activities in an area containing suitable burrowing owl habitat.

With implementation of PCOAs BIO-1 through BIO-9 and required payment of MSHCP mitigation fees, there are no peculiar effects with respect to regulated species not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Project Conditions of Approval

Although the following Project conditions of approval (PCOAs) pertaining to pre -construction burrowing owl and nesting bird surveys were not included in the General Plan EIR MMRP, the General Plan EIRs acknowledge that burrowing owl , nesting birds, and sensitive wildlife species occur in the City, and the General Plan Update includes various goals and policies to ensure the protection of biological resources in the City and adherence to regulations protecting biological resources. The City routinely requires such pre-construction surveys and construction measures for any new development within the City on properties that contain suitable habitat. As such, the following PCOAs comprise uniformly applied development policies that are routinely applied by the City to new development projects to ensure compliance with local, State, and federal regulations.

PCOA-BIO-1 To maintain compliance with the MBTA and CFG Code. if ground —disturbing and/or vegetation clearance activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (typically December IN through August 31). a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Surveys shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of activity.

If an active nest is detected during the nesting bird survey. avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topo graphy, ambient conditions. species, nest location. and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-36
biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest.

PCOA-BIO-2 The removal of structures, trees, and snags should be performed outside of the bat maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 15). For structures and trees greater than 16 inches in diameter at breast height that may be disturbed by future activitie s on the site, irrespective of the time of year, a bat roost assessment shall be conducted to assess the suitability of these areas for day roosting and maternity roosting bats. This assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to disturbance.

If any of these areas are found to be suitable for roosting bats or show signs of bat use, roost exclusion should occur prior to disturbance. If a maternity roost is discovered or special-status bats are observed, avoidance and minimization measures should be developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Irrespective of the time of year, felled trees and snags shall lay undisturbed for one night to allow any day roosting bats to leave the tree or snag before chipping, grinding, or off-hauling.

PCOA-BIO-3 A rare plant survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the site in the spring to confirm the lack of potential for narrow endemic plant species to occur.

PCOA-BIO-4 A pre-construction survey for resident burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities within those portions of the Project site containing suitable burrowing owl habita t. The pre-construction survey shall include suitable habitat up to 656 feet (200 meters) from proposed activities and be conducted prior to the start of staging and construction, regardless of the time of year. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival. If burrowing owl is detected within the disturbance area during the non -nesting season and the burrow cannot be avoided, burrowing owl exclusion shall be implemented. At least 1 week will be allowed to accomplish this and allow the owls to acclimate to alternate burrows. If burrowing owl is detected outside the disturbance area but within the Project Area during the non-nesting season, vehicle traffic and construction noise and visual disturbance shall be minimized to reduce the potential for flushing overwintering owls from protective burrows. The results of all preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be provided in a written report to the City of Murrieta Planning Department and other agencies when required by applicable permits and survey protocols.

PCOA-BIO-5 Prior to ground disturbing activities, exclusion barriers and/or fencing shall be installed to exclude sensitive wildlife from areas of active construction. The design of the exclusion barriers and fencing will be approved by a qualified biologist and shal l be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence will be made of a material that does not allow sensitive reptiles and mammals to pass through, and the bottom will be buried

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-37
to a depth of a minimum of four inches so that these species cannot crawl under the fence.

All support for the exclusion fencing will be placed on the inside of the Project footprint.

A qualified biological monitor will be present during wildlife exclusion fence installation and removal, and during all vegetation clearing, grubbing, and initial ground disturbance.

The monitor will have demonstrated experience in biological construction monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the special -status species that may be found in the Study Area., The monitor(s) will have the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if noncompliance actions occur. The biologist will conduct weekly site ch ecks to provide guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions.

PCOA-BIO-6 No protected tree shall be removed, cut down, or otherwise destroyed unless a tree removal permit has been approved by the Director. Notwithstanding the above, a tree removal permit shall not be required in the event that the removal or relocation of a protected tree is proposed as part of a discretionary permit application. While a tree removal permit is not required, all other provisions of this chapter shall still apply to the discretionary permit.

The design of each project shall recognize the desirability of preserving protected trees to the greatest extent feasible. The design of the grading and other improvements shall reflect consideration of the following safeguards.

a. Provision of sufficient growing areas as required oy individual species;

b. No disruption or removal of structural or feeder roots;

c. Fencing of trees at or beyond their drip lines during grading and construction activities;

d. No filling cutting, development, or compaction of soils within the drip line;

e. Preservation of oak leaf litter below the drip line; and

f. Other measures required by the particular species of tree(s) to be preserved as recommended fly the consulting arborist, horticulturist, or landscape architect.

It is recognized that the preservation of all healthy trees on a development site may sometimes conflict with reasonable land developmental considerations (e.g., adequate drainage, grading, circulation, safety, and provision of utilities.) However, the design of the proposed development shall address preservation of the most desirable and significant of the healthy trees and the developer is encouraged to utilize creative land planning techniques to achieve this goal.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-38
The review authority shall consider each development proposal and determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed plan to preserve and maintain protected trees. Grading and landscaping plans shall implement an approved tree preservation program. The locations of all protected trees shall be indicated on the plans by the number of the trees as described in the tree report. Notes shall identify which trees are to be preserved, and which may be removed. Plans shall be consistent with the required tr ee protection mitigation measures included in the project application, initial study, mitigated negative declaration environmental impact report and monitoring plan, and the conditions of the development approval. Plans shall be approved by the director an d the city engineer. Prior to use inauguration, the preserved trees shall he trimmed for healthy balance, structural integrity and ornamental appearance as recommended in the tree report for the project.

The precise vertical and horizontal locations (plus or minus one foot) of all protected trees shall be shown on the site plan as part of the initial application unless the project does not involve exterior alterations or construction activities.

PCOA-BIO-7 The Owner/Permittee shall implement the following Urban Wildlife Interface Guidelines (Western Riverside County MSHCP Section 6.1.4) to minimize and avoid indirect effects from development adjacent to MCHCP Conservation Areas, where applicable:

The project applicant shall implement the following Urban Wildlife Interface Guidelines (Western Riverside County MSHCP Section 6.1.4) to minimize and avoid indirect effects from development adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas, where applicable.

a. Drainage: proposed developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the NISHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This can be accomplished using variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems

b. Toxins. Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals to generate byproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-39
Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.

PCOA-BIO-8 The following Best Management Practices (BMPs), as applicable, shall be implemented for the duration of construction.

a. A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan {MSHCP), the need to adhere to the provisions of the ES A and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the ESA. the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.

b. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.

i. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible.

Access to the site shall be pre -existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.

ii. The upstream and downstream limits of project disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either of the of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to the initiation of work.

iii. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel banks, bars. and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.

iv. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment car personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding areas of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.

v. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream . Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-40
vi. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risk of drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project -related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to, the applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB, and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.

vii. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.

viii. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.

ix. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre - existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.

x. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.

xi. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern. the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items should be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site.

xii. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities.

Employees shall be instructed t hat their activities are restricted to the construction areas.

xiii. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these best management practices

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-41
PCOA-BIO-9 During construction of the Project, food -related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each work day to eliminate an attraction to predators of li sted sensitive species identified on the Project site.

b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site contains riparian and riverine areas as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSCHP; therefore, a MSHCP Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required as 100 percent avoidance of on -site riparian/riverine areas cannot be met with the proposed Project. The Project- specific DBESP is included as Technical Appendix C.3 to this EIR. Table 2-8, Summary of Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities , presents a list of permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities. Approximately 0. 11 acre of coast live oak woodland, 0.41 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.04 acre of mulefat scrub, 0.01 acre or emergent marsh, and 0.0 2 acre of unvegetated streambed would be impacted by Project activities. All sensitive natural communities present within and adjacent to the Project footprint are wetlands and other areas subject to Section 404/401, CD FW 1602, County MSHCP Riparian/Riverine jurisdiction . Impacts to wetlands are discussed separately under threshold “c” below . Native vegetation communities impacted by the Project would be mitigated with mandatory payment of MSCHP fees and implementation of PCOA BIO-6, which requires the Project to obtain Wildlife Agency permits . Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to identified riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Table 2-8 Summary of Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities Vegetation/Land Use Type Project Site
(acres)
Coast Live Oak Woodland 0.11
Southern Willow Scrub 0.41
Mulefat Scrub 0.04
Emergent Marsh 0.01
Unvegetated Streambed 0.02
Source: (WRA, 2024)
Project Conditions of Approval

Although the following PCOA pertaining to regulatory agency permits were not included in the General Plan EIR MMRP, the General Plan EIRs acknowledge that jurisdictional features occur in the City, and the General Plan Update includes various goals and pol icies to ensure the protection of biological resources in the City and adherence to regulations protecting biological resources. The City routinely requires obtaining Wildlife Agency permits and payment of mitigation credits for any new development within the

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-42
City on properties that contain jurisdictional features. As such, the following PCOA comprises a uniformly applied development policy that is routinely applied by the City to new development projects to ensure compliance with local, State, and federal regulations.

PCOA-BIO-10 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits/approvals from the regulatory agencies, including a Corps Section 404 permit, RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification, CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts to jurisdictional areas, and RCA review/approval of impacts to MSHCP riverine resources. As part of the permitting process, it is expected that the regulatory agencies shall require compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to

0.59-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian and riverine resources located within the two drainages located on the Project site, including 0.57 -acre of MSHCP riparian resources, and 0.02-acre of MSHCP riverine resources.

a. The applicant’s complete mitigation proposal includes the following options:

b. The purchase of 0.88 acre of re -establishment mitigation credits from the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank; and

c. The purchase of 4.13 acres of preservation credits at the Barry Jones Skunk Hollow Mitigation Bank; and

d. The planting of 100, 1 gallon oak trees within preserved areas on -site and within a City owned and managed open space parcel (Los Alamos Sports Park, Phase II).

Or

e. The use of an off-site PRM project with equivalent or superior natural resources to be added to the MSHCP preserve system.

c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Table 2-9, Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas , presents a list of permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. Potentially impacted wetlands and non -wetland waters considered jurisdictional by the USACE and RWQCB were observed onsite totaling 0.44 acre and 607 linear feet. Riparian, Riverine, and Streambeds considered jurisdictional by CDFW and MSHCP were also observed and total 0.59 acres and 607 linear feet.

The boundaries of UCACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional waters are depicted on Figure 2 -2, Corps/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Impact Map, and Figure 2-3, CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impact Map, respectively.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-45
Table 2-9 Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Vegetation/Land Use Type Regulatory Permit Acres Linear Feet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA 404 Permit 0.44 607
Regional Water Quality Control Board
401 Water Quality
Certification

0. 607
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
1602 Streambed
Alteration
Agreement

0.59 607
County of Riverside
MSHCP
Riparian/Riverine

0.59 607
Source: (WRA, 2024)
Potentially significant impacts to wetlands jurisdictional to USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the MSHCP are anticipated as a result of P roject activities. With implementation of PCOA BIO-10 which requires the Project obtain the appropriate Wildlife Agency permits and mitigate impacts to sensitive habitats, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federal protected wetlands through dirt removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects wi th respect to State or federally protected wetlands not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The biological resources study area lacks migratory wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites and does not occur within MSHCP Cores or Linkages. The Project is surrounded by Whitewood Road and residential development to the west, semi- developed areas to the north and east, and Clinton Keith Road and open space to the south. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the Migratory B ird Treaty Act (MBDA) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code. To avoid impacts to nesting birds the Project Applicant would implement PCOA BIO-1, which requires vegetation be cleared between September 1 and February 14 or the conduct of a survey to verify that no nesting birds are present. The Project would not interfere or impact (1) the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, (2) established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or (3) impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites . Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to migratory wildlife corridors and wildlife nursery sites not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-46
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Section 16.42, Tree Preservation, of the Murrieta Municipal Code provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of significant tree resources and to establish minimum measures for trees removed as a result of new development. Section 16.42 of Murrieta Municipal Code defines Protected trees as mature native oak trees, mature native trees, mature trees, a historically significant tree, or any tree required to be planted or preserved as environmental mitigation, or condition of approval for a discretionary permit. A Tree Survey and Arborist Report was prepared for the Project by CalPacific Services and is included as Technical Appendix D to this document. The Tree Survey and Arborist Report assessed 116 total trees on-site and determined 111 of the trees are considered Protected. Section 16.42 of Murrieta Municipal Code establishes tree replacement standards, including requirements for replacement size, oak tree replacements, requirement to replace mature trees with drought tolerant and non-invasive species. The Project would require the removal of a total of 106 trees qualified as protected and covered by the Murrieta Muni cipal Code. As such, the Project Applicant would be required to replace the impacted trees or pay an in -lieu fee in compliance with the Murrieta Municipal Code. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation plan, or other approved local, or state habitat conservation plan? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project is located in an area that is covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP and, as such, is subject to the policies of the MSHCP.

Following is an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements, MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), MSHCP Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and MSHCP Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures).

Project Relationship to Reserve Assembly

The Project site is not within a criteria area for the MSHCP (not within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, habitat core or linkage). The Project is north of criteria cell 5673 and RCA conserved lands “Calvary Chapel of Murrietta,” but is separated from preserve d lands by Clinton Keith Road, a six lane, 130 -foot-wide roadway. In addition, the preserved area is separated from the Project and roadway by an approximately 25-foot-high road cut built as a part of the road construction. Due to the extensive transportat ion infrastructure (and its associated light, noise, and drainage sources) as well as topographical boundaries separating the Project from nearby preserved areas, the Project has little potential of contributing indirect impacts to nearby preserves. Impacts would be less than significant.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-47
Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools

As discussed under Threshold b, MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources occur within the biological resources study area and all but 0. 57 acre of riparian resources and 0.02 acre of riverine resources would be permanently avoided. A DBESP was required for the Project and has been prepared. The approved DBESP is included in Technical Appendix B.2 of this document.

As identified in Project condition of approval PCOA BIO-10, impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources would be mitigated at an approved mitigation bank and/or in-lieu fee program. To ensure that inadvertent encroachment into the area to be avoided does not occur during construction, Project condition of approval PCOA-BIO-5 requires that fencing be placed to demarcate the limits of disturbance. Placement of the fencing would be overseen by a biological monitor and all preliminary vegetation removal and initial grading would be monitored by a biologist. With i mplementation of PCOA-BIO-5 and BIO-10, impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine areas would be less than significant.

The Project would not impact habitat with the potential to support riparian birds, including the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or the western yellow- billed cuckoo. No vernal or seasonal pools occur within the biological resources s tudy area and the Project would not impact vernal pool species, including listed fairy shrimp.

Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species

Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP provides that within identified NEPSSA, site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plant Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present. The majority of the biological resources st udy area is located within the MSHCP NEPSSA designated survey area 4 which targets the following species ’ Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, many -stemmed dudleya, spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, and W right's trichocoronis. The biological resources st udy did not identify any narrow endemic plant species during sensitive species surveys. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

Additional Survey Need and Procedures

Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP states that in addition to the Narrow Endemic Plant Species addressed in Volume I, Section 6.1.3, additional surveys may be needed for other certain plant and animal species in conjunction with MSHCP implementation in o rder to achieve full coverage for these species .

Within areas of suitable habitat, focused surveys are required for additional plant species if a Project site occurs within a designated CAPSSA. In addition, focused surveys are also required (within suitable habitat) for seven animal species as identified by the corresponding survey area.

The Project site is located within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. As discussed previously, focused burrowing owl surveys were performed and burrowing owls were not detected within the biological resources study area. However, pre- construction surveys are required no more than 30 days prior to construction to confirm the absence of owls (refer to PCOA -BIO-4). With the performance of pre - construction surveys, the Project would be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-48
The Project site is not located within the MSHCP mammal or amphibian survey area.

In summary, the Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP; specifically pertaining to the Project’s relationship to reserve assembly, Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Po ols), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures). Additionally, Project conditions of approval PCOA BIO-5 through BIO-10, which document actions to take to ensure compliance with the MSCHP, would be implemented. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation plan, or other approved local, or state habitat conservation plan.

Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to conflict with local or regional conservation plans not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

2.5 Cultural Resources

2.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Potential impacts on cultural resources, including cultural resources of Tribal concern, were addressed in Section 5.9 the 2011 EIR, which determined that future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 had the potential to result in significant impac ts on cultural resources and resources of Tribal concern through the development of vacant and underutilized land. Future development would be subject to compliance with the applicable goals and policies identified in the Conservation and Land Use Elements and would be required to implement General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM CR-1 through MM CR-3.

Additionally, the 2011 EIR determined that ground -disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, have the potential to disturb unidentified human remains. However, following compliance with State regulations and with applicable General Plan 2035 policies and the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MMs CR -1 through MM CR -3, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. The 2011 EIR concluded that impacts, including cumulative impacts, would be less than significant with the incorporation of these mitigation measures.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the potential impacts or mitigation measures related to cultural resources and resources of Tribal concern was not affected by the General Plan Update as future development pursuant to the General Plan Update could result in the development of the same vacant and underutilized land as analyzed in the 2011 EIR and impacts of future development projects would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, relevant General Plan goals and policies, and mitigation measures. Therefore, the 2020 SEIR concluded that no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the General Plan Update when compared to those identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-49
than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR and no new mitigation measures were applied.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.5.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

CR-1 Future development projects shall continue to be evaluated for cultural resources by the City of Murrieta through review by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) and notification of and consultation with the local tribes for new entitlement projects. The pr ojects shall be evaluated for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and where feasible, avoidance of cultural resources. If, following review by the EIC and/or tribal consultation, it is determined that there is a potential f or impacts to cultural resources, further cultural resources analysis by a qualified professional(s), as defined in Mitigation Measure CR-2, may be required by the City.

CR-2 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological and historical) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall cease all earth -disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. If not already retained due to conditions present pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR -1, the project proponent shall retain a qualified professional (i.e., archaeologist, Native American Tribal monitor), subject to approval by the City of Murrieta to evaluate the significance of the find and appropriate course of action (refer to Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3). If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

CR-3 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Co mmission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-50

2.5.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to
Section15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to
Section15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
A Cultural Resources Survey Report was prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (Recon) in July 20, 2023 (Recon, 2024), which details the results of the cultural resources survey for the Project. The Cultural Resources Report is provided in Technical Appendix D of this document. Relevant information from the Cultural Resources Survey Report related to Tribal Cultural Resources is provided in Section 2.18 of this document.

a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains two residential structures. Construction of the two existing residences occurred between 1978 and 1996 along with significant grading around the northern dwelling. (Recon, 2024)

The Cultural Resources Survey Report included a records search for the Project site and an intensive survey of the Project site. The search entailed the review of all previously -recorded historic sites on or within a one-mile radius of the Project site. The records search did not identify any previously -recorded historic resources within the Project boundaries. As part of the field survey, two previously unrecorded cultural resources (10041-ISO-01 and 10041.1NDY -01) were identified on -site. Resource 10041-ISO-01 was identified to be a cultural isolate flake. Cultural isolates are not considered significant historical resources because they generally lack characteristics that would qualify them for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CHRR). Therefore, 10041-ISO-01 (isolated flake) is not a historic property under the NRHP or a historical resource under the CRHR or the City’s historic development code. Resource 10041.1-NDY-01 was identified to be a bedrock milling feature, which does not qualify as a historic resource because the bedrock milling feature could not be associated with a significant event or a significant person, and it does not possess a unique construction

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-51
method. Thus, the previously undiscovered resources on-site would not be considered historic resources.

Therefore, the Project does not contain any historic resources and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to historical resources not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation is required.

b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. A Recon archaeologist performed the cultural resources survey of the northwestern, northeastern, and southeastern parcels on January 13, 2022, and of the southwestern parcel on September 29, 2022. Prior to the survey, a records search with a one -mile radius buffer of the 17.26- acre Area of Potential Effect was requested from the Eastern Information Center. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the P roject area.

Recon identified two previously unrecorded cultural resources (10041-ISO-01 and 10041.1NDY-01) within the 17.26-acre Project area during the field survey . Additionally, as a result of AB 52 tribal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, three potential cultural reburial sites were identified near the northern boundary of the Project site, in the event cultural resources are discovered during construction.

Resource 10041-ISO-01 was identified to be a cultural isolate flake. Cultural isolates are not considered significant cultural resources based on City guidelines. Resource 10041.1-NDY-01 was identified to be a bedrock milling feature. Resource 10041.1-NDY-01 is not associated with any surface artifacts but may possess a subsurface component that may yield additional prehistoric data. The Project archeologist recommended a Phase 2 testing program to determine if the resource has subsurface deposits; however, in connection with engaging with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for the required Tribal consultation, and to discuss the engagement of a Native American monitor during the excavation, the Tribe requested that no Phase 2 excavation be completed as part of the environmental review . Thus, no further investigation of the bedrock milling feature was undertaken. In order to prevent significant impacts to the potentially significant subsurface component of the bedrock milling feature, PCOA CUL-1 would require controlled grading around the bedrock milling feature.

At the request of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, the potential cultural reburial sites located on the Project site would be avoided by Project development and preserved as part of Project site design, as required by PCOA CUL -10. Furthermore, as required by PCOA CUL -9, the Project would be required to comply with all requirements for the avoidance and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources and incorporate the utilization of controlled grading techniques and relocation of resources as provided under Confidential Exhibits, Figure 1, “Relocation Area,” and Figure 2, “Control Grading Area.”

In addition to known archeological resources, there is a potential that previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be encountered during excavation activities in native soils, resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to implementation of Project conditions of approval. General Plan EIR

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-52
MMRP MM-CR-2 identifies actions to take in the event previously unknown archaeological resources are encountered during construction (cease construction within a 100- foot radius of the area of discovery , evaluation of the significance of the find and appropriate course of action , salvage, etc.). Furthermore, PCOA-CUL-1 requires controlled grading lead by an a rcheological and Native American monitor, PCOA- CUL-2 requires verification from an archeological and Native American monitor prior to grading, and PCOA-CUL-3 requires archaeologist consultation if cultural resources are encountered. PCOA-CUL-4 sets requirements in the event that human remains are found, and PCOA-CUL-5 sets requirements in the event that cultural resources are found on-site. PCOA-CUL-6 requires the development of a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. PCOA-CUL-7 requires subsurface cultural resources to be evaluated by an archeological monitor, PCOA-CUL-8 requires on-site preservation and reburial, and PCOA -CUL-9 requires compliance with all grading techniques and cultural resources avoidance. PCOA CUL-10 requires 0.62-acre of the Project site would be preserved for coast live oak habitat and as an area for potential cultu ral reburial sites, should cultural materials be unearthed during construction , as required by PCOA -CUL-10.With implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP MM CR-1 through MM CR-3, and PCOA-CUL-1 through PCOA- CUL-10, there are no peculiar effects with respect to archaeological resources not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR wa s certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation is required.

Project Conditions of Approval

Although the following PCOAs pertaining to controlled grading around the on-site bedrock milling feature and construction monitoring w ere not included in the General Plan EIR MMRP, the General Plan EIRs acknowledge that future development projects would need to be evaluated for cultural resources and that further cultural resources analysis by a qualified professional(s) may be required. The City routinely requires further analysis of cultural resources for any new development within the City. As such, the following PCOA s comprise conditions of approval that are routinely applied by the City to new development projects to ensure compliance General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2.

PCOA-CUL-1 During grading activities surrounding the prehistoric cultural resource 10041.1 NDY 01, controlled grading shall be required. Controlled grading shall be directed by an archeological monitor in concert with a Native American monitor.

PCOA-CUL-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide written verification that a certified archaeologist and Native American monitor have been retained to monitor all ground disturbance activities in the western half and the ungraded southeast corner of the Project site. This verification shall be presented in a letter from the Project Archaeologist.

PCOA-CUL-3 If cultural resources are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1997) must be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-53
to be significant under CEQA or Section 106, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted.

PCOA-CUL-4 If human remains are found during ground -disturbing activities, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native A merican Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

PCOA-CUL-5 If earthwork and ground-disturbing activities, unique cultural resources, as that term is defined in PRC para. 21083,2(g), or an historic resource, as that term is defined in PRC para. 21084.1, are discovered and the resources were not assessed or addressed b y the prior archaeological investigations or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be implemented:

a. All earthwork and ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet (“buffer area”) of the discovery will be halted while the Project Archaeologist makes an initial assessment of the significance of the discovery.

b. Once the Project Archaeologist makes the initial assessment, the City Planner will convene a meeting with the Project Applicant, Project Archaeologist, and tribe(s) to discuss the significance of the discovery and what mitigation measures are feasible in accordance with examples in PRC para. 21083.2(b). If the parties cannot reach agreement on a feasible mitigation measure, the City Planner with the assistance of a third -party archaeologist will make a final determination on the appropriate mitigation and treatment of the resources; if there are disagreements with the determination, a Project Issue Resolution (PIR) meeting will be facilitated.

c. Earthwork and ground -disturbing will not resume within the buffer area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation and treatment of the resources. Earthwork and ground disturbing activities will be a llowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by archaeological and tribal monitors.

d. Treatment and avoidance of any newly discovered resources will be consistent with these mitigation measures and the Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan as required by MM CUL-1.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-54
PCOA-CUL-6 At least thirty (30) days prior to submittal of the final grading plans to the City, the Project Applicant, Project Archaeologist, City planner and tribe(s) will meet and develop a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan (“CRMP) for the treatment and mitigation of Native American cultural resources discovered during Project development. Treatment of the newly discovered resource(s) will be consistent with the terms and provisions of the CRMP and may be amended by the parties as agreed upon. Prior to its finalization, the Project Archaeologist will circulate the draft CRMP to the City Planner and any tribe(s) requesting monitoring of the Project for review and comment. The final document will include information provided by the tribe(s) concerning tribal methods and practices and other appropriate issues that may be relevant to culturally appropriate treatment of the resources. The involved parties will make good -faith efforts to incorporate the Tribe’s comments. The City Planner will have final review and approval authority for the CRMP.

If there are disagreements with the approval, a Project Issue Resolution (PIR) meeting will be facilitated. All parties are required to withhold public disclosure of information related to the treatment and mitigation of cultural resource(s) pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in CGC para. 6254(r).

PCOA-CUL-7 Should any subsurface cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving, or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified ar chaeo- logist. Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City's onsite inspector. The archaeological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Measures in accordance with SC CUL -3 and SC CUL-4 shall be followed if the accidentally exposed cultural material is also a Tribal Cultural Resource.

PCOA-CUL-8 On- - Site Preservation/Reburial Location for Sensitive Native American Resources. All Native American sensitive resources including, without limitation, ceremonial items, sacred items, and grave goods as those same are identified by the tribe(s) during Project earthwork and ground-disturbing activities, will be reburied on the Project property. At least thirty (30) days prior to submittal of final grading plans to the City, the Project Applicant, Project Archaeologist, City Planner, and the tribe(s) will meet to identify the location(s) for on-site reburial (the “Preservation Site(s)”). During the meeting, the group will develop a confidential exhibit depicting and describing the Preservation Site(s), which exhibit will be kept by the City Planner under confidential cover and not subject to a Public Records Act request.

The Preservation Site(s) will be located within the Project site development envelope of the Project, outside of any known and identified cultural resource sites. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the applicable tract or phase that includes a Preservation Site location, the Project Applicant will record a restrictive covenant over the Preservation Site with the intent to ensure the site remains in an undisturbed state in perpetuity.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-55
Any Preservation Site that includes relocated/ reburied Native American cultural resources will be capped by first placing a layer of geomat fabric over the reburied resources, and then filling the site with clean, sterile soil and contouring the site to appear in a natural state. Once a Preservation Site has been filled and contoured, no earthwork or ground -disturbing activities or subsurface facilities will be permitted in the Preservation Site, with the exception of those activities and requirements that may be required pursuant to the Fire Protection Technical Report.

PCOA-CUL-9 The project shall comply with all requirements for the avoidance and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources and incorporate the utilization of controlled grading techniques and relocation of resources as provided under Confidential Exhibits, Figure 1 “Relocati on Area", and Figure 2 “Control Grading Area.” The relocation (if feasible) and/or replanting of elderberry shrub(s) shall be implemented at an agreeable onsite location(s) consistent with the Planning Division with the future submittal of the project’s landscaping plans.

PCOA-CUL-10 Prior to vegetation clearance and issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence that on-site preservation of 0.62-acre of coast live oak habitat and area for potential cultural reburial sites, should cultural materials be unearthed du ring construction, has occurred.

c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the Project site. However, as a result of AB 52 consultations, three potential cultural reburial sites, in the event cultural resources are discovered during construction, were identified along the northern boundary of the Project site by the Pechanga Band of Luise ño Indians. Additionally, there is a possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the Project, such as trenching and grading, could damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. If human remains were found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws ( refer to General Plan EIR MMRP MM CR -3). Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered ( refer to General Plan EIR MMRP MM CR-3), potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to disturbance of human remains not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation is required.

2.6 Energy

2.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Although Energy was added in December 2018 as a topic in the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, analysis of a project’s potential to result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources is not a new requirement. This issue is addressed in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. Energy consumption is addressed in Section 5.22, Electricity and

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-56
Natural Gas, and Section 7.4, Other California Environmental Quality Act Considerations, of the 2011 EIR.

Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emission, of the 2011 EIR discusses the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is also relevant to energy conservation.

The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 could facilitate development of various commercial, office and research park, business park, industrial, and civic/institutional uses; however, these uses would not result in any unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that is less energy -efficient than at comparable construction sites. Additionally, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by future development within the City w ould not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other cities in the region. The General Plan 2035 includes policies to prioritize energy conservation, green building, and the generation of energy from renewable sources, as part of an overall strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, the City’s CAP includes GHG emission reduction strategies related to green building, energy efficiency, renewable energy options, and land use changes that reduce to dependence on motor vehicle travel (and associated transportation-related energy demand). The 2011 EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 and CAP would result in less than significant impacts related to energy. Cumulative impacts related to energy were deter mined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required.

The City determined in the 2020 SEIR that the General Plan Update would not result in new or substantially greater energy impacts than identified in the 2011 EIR and would result in a less than significant energy impact. No new mitigation measures relating to energy were identified in the 2020 SEIR.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.6.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
State or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-57
Information provided in this section was obtained from the AQ & EA Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project (Urban Crossroads, 2024a), which is included as Technical Appendix B to this document.

a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation.

Construction Impacts

The construction activities associated with the Project would consume energy through the operation of heavy off-road equipment, trucks, and worker traffic. Construction energy consumption would largely occur from fuel consumption by heavy equipment during grading activities associated with road and building site clearance, trucks transporting construction materials and fill to the site, and worker trips to and from the Project site. Energy consumption during construction related activities would vary depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment and the number of personnel.

B
ased upon the length of construction period, c onstruction equipment used by the Project would result in single event consumption of approximately 38,750 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy -i ntensive, and Project construction
equipment would conform to applicable regulatory requirements, including California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies.

B
ased upon the length of construction period, construction worker trips for full construction of the Project would result in the estimated fuel consumption of 29,779 gallons of fuel. Additionally, fuel consumption from construction vendor and hauling trips would total approximately 7,722 gallons. Diesel fuel would be supplied by regional commercial vendors. Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved using bulk purchases, transport and use of construction materials.

Additionally, increasingly stringent State and federal regulations on engine efficiency combined with local, State and federal regulations limiting engine idling times and recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during Project construction. Considering these factors, the Project would not result in the wasteful and inefficient use of energy resources during construction and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts

Energy consumption in support of or related to operations associated with future residential development at the Project site would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-58
Transportation Energy Demands

The Project would result in 6,686,638 annual vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 284,258 gallons of fuel.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT in the future . Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. Furthermore, on-site EV parking would reduce associated energy consumption. Therefore, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Facilities Energy Demands

The Project proposes conventional residential uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other residential land use projects of similar scale and configuration. The Project w ould be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the C ALGreen Building Standards Code to provide solar ready roofs on the Project’s residential structures. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. T he Project operational energy demands are estimated to result in a 4,950,657 kBTU/year of natural gas; and 1,952,724 kWh/year of electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by Southern California Gas; electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison.

Conclusion

As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operation would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to energy resources not addressed in the general Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation is required.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-59
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The Project would not conflict with any applicable state or local plans. The Project proposes conventional residential uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs . The Project’s proposed structures would utilize energy for uses typical of a residential development, including heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; lighting; and on -site equipment and appliances. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other residential land use projects of similar scale and configuration. The Project would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. The existing buildings on-site use electricity for uses including heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; lighting; and on -site equipment and appliances. The Project would comply with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards, including the requirement for solar ready roofs. Thus, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for energy efficiency.

Therefore, there are no peculiar effects with respect to energy resources not addressed in the General
Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Proj ect’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation is required.

2.7 Geology and Soils

2.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to geology and soil were addressed in Section 5.8, Geology and Seismic Hazards, of the 2011 EIR.

The 2011 EIR determined that several surficial deposits and/or bedrock units are located beneath the City.

Hazards related to seismic activity were identified based on the City’s proximity to known active fault zones, specifically the Elsinore Fault Zone, San Jacinto Fault Zone, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and the San Andreas Fault Zone. The 2011 EIR determined that future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 had the potential to result in significant impacts related to seismic, geologic, and soil conditions due to increased exposure of people and structures to potential seismic and geologic hazards. Future development would be subject to compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), Murrieta Municipal Code (MMC), and NPDES requirements as well as the applicable policies identified in the General Plan Update and the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2.

Additionally, potential impacts associated with future development would be evaluated on a project-by- project basis in accordance with General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM GEO -1. In the event a specific site is determined to create a significant impact that could not be feasibly mitigated, the site would not be appropriate for development. This process in conjunction with federal and State laws, local building

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-60
codes, public safety standards and the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would result in less than significant impacts related geology and soils.

The 2011 EIR determined that construction activities associated with future development projects within the City have the potential to result in soil erosion. However, each development project would be required to comply with requirements of the Municipal NPDES Construction General Permit and would be required to comply with City grading permit regulations that include compliance with erosion control measures, including grading and dust control measures. Additionally, future development projects would be required to implement erosion control plans and Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plans (SWPPP).

Furthermore, construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust. Compliance with applicable polices, goals, and regulations related to sedimentation and erosion would ensure that impacts related to soil during development project construction phases would be less than significant.

Paleontological resources impacts were addressed in Section 5.9, Cultural Resources, of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR determined that the City has a high potential for containing significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. As such, future development associated with the implementation of the General Plan 2035 could result in impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources through remediation, demolition, or construction activities. Future improvements and development within the City will be subject to compliance with applicable Conservation Element policies and implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM CR-1 and CR-2 (included in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources), to ensure impacts on paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels.

Cumulative impacts related to geology and soils and paleontological resources were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The City determined in the 2020 SEIR that no further evaluation of environmental impacts related to geology and soils, including impacts to paleontological resources, was required in connection with adoption of the General Plan Update and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures relating to geology and soils were identified in the 2020 SEIR.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.7.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project The onsite soils have a low paleontological sensitivity and the bedrock underlying the Project site does not yield paleontological resources (refer to Threshold “f” below); therefore, General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM CR -1 and MM CR -2 are not ap plicable under this environmental topic. The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for each future development project, a registered geologist or soils engineer shall prepare an area- specific Geologic Study, which shall be submitted to the Public Works or Building and Safety Department for approval. The

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-61
Geologic Study shall specify the measures necessary to mitigate impacts related to fault rupture, groundshaking, landslides, liquefaction or dynamic settling, expansive or collapsible soils, lateral spreading, and other geologic and seismic hazards, if any . All recommendations in the Geologic Study shall be implemented during area preparation, grading, and construction.

GEO-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, project applicants of future development projects shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Geotechnical Study, and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to adequately mitigate potent ial seismic and geotechnical hazards.

2.7.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State
Geologist for the area
or based on other
substantial evidence
of a known fault?
Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including liquefaction?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-62
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project and potentially
result in on- or offsite
landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or
property?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste
water?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section was obtained in part from the Geotechnical Evaluation (Geotechnical Investigation) prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc (Leighton), (Technical Appendix E) and the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared by RECON, (Technical Appendix D).

a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-63
a.i) No Impact. As noted in the 2011 EIR, the City is in proximity to known fault zones (i.e., Elsinore Fault Zone, San Jacinto Fault Zone, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and the San Andreas Fault Zone). According to the Project’s Geotechnical Evaluation, the Project site is not included within an Earthquake Fault Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act or Riverside County Fault Hazard Zones. The nearest recognized active faults, are the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, measured to be 3.6 miles (5.8 km) generally southwest of the site and the San Jacinto Valley Segment of the San Jacinto Fault Zone, approximately

16.0 miles (25.8km) northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact would result.

a.ii) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. As with all Projects in southern California, the Project site has the potential to experience seismic ground shaking during an earthquake event. The intensity of ground shaking would vary with the distance and magnitude of the earthquake causing the ground shaking. As required by General Plan EIR MMRP MM GEO -1, the proposed grading activities associated with the Project would be conducted in accordance with the recommendations from the Geo technical Evaluation included in Technical Appendix E of this document , including recommendations related to: existing fill, general earthwork and grading, removals and overexcavation, earthwork shrinkage and subsidence, earthwork recommendations, excavation characteristics and rock disposal, seismic design parameters, subdrains, fill and cut slopes, temp orary slopes and excavations, import soils, corrosion potential, utility trench backfill, geotechnical observation and testing during rough grading, and post-grading geotechnical observation and testing (including during fine or precise grading).

Additionally, in compliance with General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM GEO -1 and MM GEO- 2, geologic studies shall be prepared for development onsite, which would also be designed in accordance with the recommendations identified in the geologic studies, and applicable local and state building codes in effect at the time building permits are issued. Adherence to the recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation and building code requirements would minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic shaking , and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore , consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, with implementation of MM GEO-1 and GEO-2, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

a.iii) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Ground shaking can induce “secondary” seismic hazards such as liquefaction, dynamic densification in loose and/or wet granular soil, and differential subsidence along ground fissures, seiches and tsunamis. The potential for differential subsidence along ground fissures, seiches and tsunamis is also considered non-existent on this site. Based on the soil types and groundwater depth on-site, liquefaction potential is considered to be low. Assuming that loose, near -surface soils w ould be removed and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation in the areas of development, the potential for liquefaction or dynamic settlement due to the design earthquake event to affect structures at this site is considered negligible. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-64
a.iv) No Impact. The Project site is relatively flat and there are no records of landslides occurring within or in the vicinity of the Project site (USGS, n.d.). Therefore, landslid es at the Project site is unlikely to occur. No impact would occur.

b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The proposed construction activities associated with the Project would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. As with all develop ment implementing the General Plan, t he Project would be subject to local and State codes and erosion control and grading requirements . Construction activities would disturb one or more acres; thus, as further discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project must adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit provisions . Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other soil disturbances . The NPDES Construction General Permit requires implement ation of a SWPPP, including temporary Project construction features (i.e., Best Management Practices [BMPs]) designed to prevent erosion and protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment-control BMPs may include stabilized construction entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on existing inlets, of the equivalent. Additionally, grading activities would be required to conform to the most current version of the California Building Code, the City Code, the approved grading plans, and standard engineering good practices. The Project would be required to comply with SCAQ MD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts . Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques to be implemented to prevent dust and soil erosion from creating a nuisance offsite . Rule 403 requires control measures to reduce fugitive dust from active operations, storage piles, or disturbed surfaces, with a goal to omit visibility beyond the property line or avoid exceedance of 20% opacity. Compliance with applicable federal, regional, and local requirements would ensure potential erosion impacts are less than significant during grading.

Upon completion of construction activities, ground surfaces associated with the proposed development onsite would be stabilized by structures, paving, and landscaping. The Project-specific WQMP, prepared by Wilson Mikami Corporation (Wilson) (included in Technical Appendix H1 of this Initial Study) identifies an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from stormwater and non -stormwater discharges.

Compliance with the Project -specific WQMP would be required as a condition of Project approval and long-term maintenance of on- site water quality features is required. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil during long-term operation. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-65
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on -or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . As previously discussed, the Project site is relatively flat and there is no evidence of landslides occurring within or in proximity to the Project site. There is no potential for the Project to result in on- or off-side landslides.

Earth materials within the Project site include : undocumented fill, topsoil/ colluvial, surficial materials (topsoil/residual soils/alluvial deposits), and cretaceous-age granitic rock (Kgr).

Subsidence is the gradual or sudden sinking of ground due to removal or displacement of subsurface earth materials. According to Figure 5.8-2, Subsidence Susceptibility Map, of the 2011 City of Murrieta General Plan EIR, the Project site is not within an area that is susceptible to or has active subsidence. Furthermore, based on the soil types and groundwater depth on-site, liquefaction potential is considered to be low. The Geotechnical Evaluation concluded that the potential for differential subsidence along ground fissures, seiches and tsunamis is considered non-existent on this site.

Therefore, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, with implementation of MM GEO-2,, the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Geotechnical Evaluation recommendations related to: existing fill, general earthwork and grading, removals and overexcavation, earthwork shrinkage and subsidence, earthwork recommendations, excavation characteristics and rock disposal, seismic design parameters, subdrains, fill and cut slopes, temporary slopes and excavations, import soils, corrosion potential, utility trench backfill, geotechnical observation and testing during rough grading, and post-grading geotechnical observation and testing (including during fine or precise grading).

Thus, impacts related to location on an unstable geologic unit or soil would be less than significant.

Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation is required.

d. Would the p roject be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Native deposits of topsoil/residual soils and alluvial deposits are anticipated at the ground surface and localized topographic depressions/drainages and may extend to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface. The materials generally consist of relatively loose silty to clayey sands and sandy clay with variable amounts of gravel and cobbles (and potential boulders). Based on laboratory testing conducted for the Geotechnical E valuation, these materials possess very low to low expansion potential. As discussed previously, the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the site -specific Geotechnical Evaluation, including the recommendations in the event expansion is observed in subgrade soils. In addition, compliance with the California Building Code and local regulations would further reduce the possibility of risk associated with expansive soil. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-66
of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The Project site is within an area that is served by Eastern Municipal Water District ( EMWD) for wastewater services. The Project would connect to the existing sewer system and would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. . A paleontological record search from a nearby project that included the APE did not identify any known paleontological localities. T he APE is underlain by gabbro and monzogranite, both dating to the Cretaceous period. Per the paleontological record search study, these geological units have a low paleontological sensitivity because of the high heat involved in the formation of these units. According to the County of Riverside paleontological sensitivity map, the APE lies within a low paleont ological sensitivity area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that paleontological resources be discovered during the Project’s construction phase (Recon, 2024) .

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gases of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR determined that development proposed under the General Plan 2035 would implement GHG reduction strategies and measures in the CAP that would allow the General Plan 2035 to achieve its GHG reduction target of 15 percent below 2009 by 2020; impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable GHG plans, policies, or regulations were determined to be less than significant. The 2011 EIR concluded that GHG emission associated with the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would be less than significant with the adherence to and/or compliance with CAP strategies, goals, and measures; no significant and unavoidable or cumulatively considerable impacts would result from the General Plan 2035.

The 2020 SEIR provided an analysis of greenhouse gas impacts for the General Plan Update in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The 2020 SEIR determined that the emissions generated by the development proposed under the General Plan Update are inconsistent with Statewide GHG emission goals and CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, which is a potentially significant impact. The 2020 SEIR concluded that with the

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-67
implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM GHG- 1, which would ensure the approved Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update provides measures to meet Statewide climate goals, emissions generated by the proposed development under the General Plan Update would be reduced to less than significant levels; impacts would be less than significant.

The issue of global climate change is inherently a cumulative issue; thus, impacts are addressed only as a cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM GHG-1.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(g), compliance with the CAP is included as a specific example of a uniformly applied development policy or standard under PRC Section 21083.3.

2.8.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM GHG -1 requires the City to prepare a CAP and is not applicable to the Project; however, the Project’s consistency with the CAP is discussed under Threshold b, below.

2.8.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section was obtained from the Greenhouse Gas (CAP Consistency Checklist) Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project (Urban Crossroads, 2023c) , which is included as Technical Appendix F of this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-68
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. W ould the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . For a project located within a jurisdiction that has adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5), GHG emissions would be less than significant if the project is anticipated by the plan and fully consistent with th e plan. As discussed below, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update), which is a “qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, thereby affording streamlined environmental review benefits to future development projects.

Therefore, evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the CAP is the method used to determine the significance of the Project’s GHG impacts.

The City’s CAP recommends GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the State of California and presents a number of strategies that will make it possible for the City of Murrieta to meet the recommended targets. As part of the CAP developm ent the City of Murrieta developed a project level checklist for CEQA purposes. The City prepared a CAP Update in 2020 which provides a framework for reducing GHG emissions and managing resources to best prepared for a changing climate.

Based on the requirements of the CAP Update all “applicable” Checklist questions must be answered “Yes” and documentation provided, where necessary, that substantiates how compliance would be achieved as requested by the City of Murrieta. For measures for which a “Yes” is indicated, the features must be demonstrated as part of the project’s design and described. All applicable requirements in the Checklist will be included in the conditions of approval. Further, if any questions are marked with a “No” the project cannot be determined to be consistent with the CAP Update, and project specific GHG analysis would be required as part of the CEQA process. If any questions are marked “N/A” (meaning “not applicable”), a statement describing why the question is not applicable shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division or building official, as requested. The CAP Update also suggests best practices for implementation and makes recommendations for measuring progress. As indicated in Table 1, the Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, the CAP Update.

The CAP Update checklist has been completed for the Project and is included in Table 2 -10, City of Murrieta CAP Update Consistency Summary . As indicated in Table 2-10, the proposed residential uses would comply with applicable CAP Update c hecklist items; therefore, the Project is consistent with the CAP Update . Projects compliant with the City’s CAP are determined to have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-69
Table 2-10 City of Murrieta CAP Update Consistency Summary Checklist Items Yes No n/a
Step 1: Land Use Consistency

1. Are the proposed land uses in the project consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations? X If “Yes”, questions 2 below is not applicable and the project shall proceed to Step 2 of the checklist. If “No”, proceed to Question 2 below.

2. If the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan land use or zoning designations, does the project include a land use plan and/or zoning designation amendment that would result in an equivalent or less GHG- intensive project when compared to the existing designations?
X
If “Yes”, attach to this checklist the estimated project emissions under both existing and proposed designation(s) for comparison. Compare the maximum buildout of the existing designation and the maximum buildout of the proposed designation. If the proposed project is determined to result in an equivalent or less GHG-intensive project when compared to the existing designations, proceed to Step 2 of the checklist.

If “No”, the applicant must conduct a full GHG impact analysis for the project as part of the CEQA process. The project shall incorporate each of the applicable measures identified in Step 2 to mitigate cumulative GHG emissions impacts.

Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency

1. Zero Net Energy Standards (Measure BE-3)
a) For residential projects, would the project or a portion of the project be subject to building permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or after January 1, 2023? X
b) For commercial projects or commercial portions of mixed-use projects, would the project or a portion of the project be subject to building permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or after January 1, 2025? X
c) For industrial projects, would the project or a portion of the project be subject to building permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or after January 1, 2025? X
If “Yes” to either a, b, or c, proceed to question d of this checklist requirement. d) Would the project or portions of the project permitted after January 1, 2023 for residential projects and after January 1, 2025 for nonresidential projects be designed and constructed to comply with the Zero Net Energy standard2? X

2. Construction Waste Diversion (Measure SW-2)
a) For residential projects, recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3 or 4.408.4 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24? X b) For nonresidential projects, recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24? X

3. Transportation Demand Management Program (Measure T-7) a) For the construction of nonresidential projects that would include 50 or more employees, would the project include a transportation demand management plan that meets requirements of Section 16.40 “Transportation Demand Management” of the City’s Municipal Code and has been reviewed and approved by the City of Murrieta Public Works Department?
X
Check “N/A” if the project is a residential project or if it would include 49 or fewer employees.

4. Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) (Measure T-2)3 Checklist Requirement by Project Type:
a) One- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages: Would the required parking serving each new dwelling include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the resident(s)? X b) Multi-Family Residential Projects: Would 6% of the total parking spaces required, or a minimum of two spaces, whichever is greater, include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the resident(s)? X c) Non-residential projects: Would 3% of the total parking spaces required, or a minimum of two spaces, whichever is greater, include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by the occupant(s)? X

5. Tree Planting (Measure LU-2)
a) For residential and non-residential projects, would the project include the planting of new trees where required by Section

16.26 “Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient Landscaping” of the City’s Municipal Code? X Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024b)

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-70

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section

5.14, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2011 EIR and the analysis of wildland fire impacts for the General Plan 2035 is provided in Section 5.17, Fire Protection, to the 2011 EIR. The 2020 SEIR provided analysis of wildfire impacts for the General Plan Update in Section 4.5, Wildfire. Potential impacts related to wildfire are discussed in Section 2.20 of this document.

The 2011 EIR determined that future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 could result in potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials due to an increase in population, which may increase demand on public health and safety service s in the City. Additionally, non -residential development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 may consist of additional facilities that use, store, produce, or transport hazardous wastes; therefore, utilizing the City and County health and safety services and increase exposure to residents or employees. Nonetheless the 2011 SEIR determined that compliance with measures established by federal, State, and local regulatory agencies is adequate to offset the negative effects related to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials in the City. Additionally, future development would be subject to a requirement to be in substantial conformance with applicable goals and policies identified in the Safety and Land Use Elements, as well as the recommended mitigation measures (General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM HHM -1 through MM HHM- 3) to further reduce hazardous materials impacts to less than significant levels.

The 2011 EIR determined that structures and individuals within the flight pattern of the French Valley Airport could be subjected to the potential of off -airport accidents and additional noise. The land use restrictions for each compatibility zone provide the necessary limitations to reduce the potential impacts of off-airport accidents to persons and property on the ground while building heights are implemented to reduce impacts of aircraft overflight (General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM HHM -4) to a less than significant level.

The 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR identified two areas of the City within high fire hazard zones: generally, the northwestern portion of the City, and the escarpments along the western boundary of the City. The 2011 EIR identified that no new development or inten sification of development is proposed for the areas identified as high fire hazard; no new homes or businesses would be susceptible to wildland fire hazards.

Additionally, development in proximity to wildlands would be required, as part of a project’s cond itions of approval, to install Class A roofing, noncombustible siding, and/or 100-foot fuel buffer zones to protect communities from wildland/urban interface fires. According to the Safety Element, WUI are areas where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. The Safety Element includes policies to address wildland fires (City of Murrieta, 2011) . Moreover, future development projects would be required to implement General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM FP-1 through FP-4 included in Initial Study Section 2.15, Public Services, which among other things require the preparation of fuel modification plans and sufficient water supply during construction, to reduce wildland fire impacts to a less than significant level.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-71
Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM HHM-1 through MM HHM-4.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in new or substantially greater hazards and hazardous materials impacts than identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures relating to hazards or hazardous materials were identified.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.9.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM HHM -4 is not applicable to the Project because the Project site is not within a French Valley Airport compatibility zone. The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project. Additionally, General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MMs FP -1 through FP- 4 included in Section 2.15, Public Services, of this document, would also apply.

HHM-1 The Community Development Department, in cooperation with the Murrieta Fire Department and the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Materials Management Division, shall provide information to businesses on viable alternatives to hazardous materials. Create an informational pamphlet with existing hazardous material substitutions and retailers that sell the materials. Offer the information to applicable business owners who are required to file as a hazardous waste handler in the City.

HHM-2 The Community Development Department, in cooperation with the Murrieta Fire Department and the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Materials Management Division, shall provide information on viable alternatives to household hazardous materials on the City’s website so households may use alternatives. Information will also educate the public to the health, safety, and environmental benefits of using non - hazardous substitutions.

HHM-3 Prior to development approval on a project -by-project basis, the project applicant shall confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials pertaining to the release of hazardous materials into the soil, surface water, and/or groundwater. If necessary, development shall undergo site characterization and remediation on a project-by-project basis, per applicable Federal, State, and/or local stan dards and guidelines set by the applicable regulatory agency.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-72

2.9.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
which complied pursuant
to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-73
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
e) For a project within an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing
or working in the project
area?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
g) Expose people or
structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. W ould the project 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?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project would involve construction activities and long -term operation of residential uses on the Project site. In the event any hazards or hazardous materials were to be present on the Project site or any hazardous materials were to be used or stored on the Project site during construction or long-term operation, the Project would have the potential to expose workers onsite, the public, and/or the environment to a substantial hazard.

Existing Conditions

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Phase I ESA) w as prepared for the Project site by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) (Leighton, 2022), and is included as Technical Appendix G of this document. Leighton conducted a site visit on May 22, 2022, to examine the Project site for recognized

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-74
environmental conditions (REC)3, controlled RECs (CRECs) 4, and historic RECs (HRECs) 5. According to the Phase I ESA, Leighton did not identify any RECs, CRECs, or HRECs on the Project site during the site visit. (Leighton, 2022)

Construction Activities

According to the Phase I ESA, there is no evidence of RECs, CRECs, or HRECs in connection with the Project site. As such, the Project would not create a need to export or remediate any known onsite hazardous materials. Moreover, imported fill would be required to be clean certified , and would be sampled and reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to import to the site, as required by the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation related to: existing fill, general earthwork and grading, removals and over -excavation, earthwork shrinkage and subsidence, earthwork recommendations, excavation characteristics and rock disposal, seismic design parameters, subdrains, fill and cut slopes, temporary slopes and excavations, import soils, corrosion potential, utility trench backfill, geotechnical observation and testing during rough grading, and post-grading geotechnical observation and testing (including during fine or precise grading).

Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors, etc.) would be operated on the Project site during construction. This heavy equipment would likely be fueled and maintained by petroleum -based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled . In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment . This is a standard risk on all construction sites , however, c onstruction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction-related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCAQMD, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or RCDEH. Compliance with these regulatory requirements by construction contractors is mandatory; thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Operations

Operations would occur following the completion of construction and once and residents move in and occupy the proposed structures on a day -to-day basis. The Project would involve the use of household hazardous materials common to all residential development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleansers; petroleum products; and pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape maintenance

3 RECs refer to the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum in, on, or at a property. 4 CRECs refer to a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that were addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.
5 HRECs refer to a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that occurred in connection with the property and were addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-75
materials). The Project would not utilize, store, or generate hazardous materials or waste in quantities that may pose a significant hazard to the public.

With mandatory regulatory compliance and implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures HHM -1 and HHM -2, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could r esult in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts on the public with respect to hazardous impacts would be less than significant and there are no peculiar effects with respect to hazardous materials not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The nearest existing school to the Project site is Vista Murrieta High School located at 28251 Clinton Keith Road, which is 0.06 mile southwest of the Project site. The Project is a residential development and would not emit or handle hazardous materials other than standard construction materials which are handled under State and/or federal regulations and common household hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, the Project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site nor is the Project in proximity to a hazardous materials site (DTSC, 2023). Additionally, as part of the Phase I ESA, Leighton conducted a regulatory records review to identify records regarding hazardous substance use, storage, or releases, or the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with the Project site . The regulatory records review did not identify the Project site on any list of hazardous materials sites. (Leighton, 2022) No impact would occur.

e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the French Valley Airport. In addition, b ased on review of Map FV -1, Compatibility Map , of the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), t he Project is not within the Airport Influence Area for the French Valley Airport (ALUC, 2012). Therefore, development of the Project site would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-76
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The City of Murrieta Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was adopted June 2017 and is the City’s current emergency response plan (City of Murrieta, 2017). The Project does not propose any changes to the adopted City of Murrieta Emergency Operations Plan. Additionally, the Project site is not identified as an emergency facility n or does it serve as an emergency evacuation route . The City has no defined evacuation routes; however, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) identifies I-15 and I-215 as evacuation routes within the City . The Project does not propose any changes to the identified emergency evacuation routes. The Project would not obstruct emergency ingress/egress to and through the Project’s vicinity due to road closures or other Project actions. Construction activities along existing roadways may temporarily restrict vehicular access . However, these temporary changes to the existing roadway network require the approval of the City and notification to all emergency responders.

Adherence to City requirements would ensure that temporary roadway restrictions would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Refer also to the discussion of emergency evacuation included in Section 2. 20, Wildfire, issue area “a.” No impact would occur.

g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was prepared for the Project by Dudek (Dudek, 2024) to evaluate and identify the potential fire risk associated with the Project’s land uses and is included as Technical Appendix K of this document. The FPP identifies requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other fire protection criteria. The Project would be subject to General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM FP -1 through FP-4 to reduce risks associated with wildland fires to a less than significant level. Refer to discussion on wildfire impacts in Section 2.20, Wildfire, of this document for a detailed discussion of Project condition of approval (PCOAs 4-9 and 4-10) and compliance with applicable fire safety and building code requirements . Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

2.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to hydrology and water quality was addressed in Section 5.13, Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality, of the 2011 EIR.

The 2011 EIR determined that the General Plan 2035 could contribute to water quality degradation from run-off and chemical releases at future construction sites. However, new development and significant reconstruction projects within the City would be required to comply with MMC Title 15, which contains

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-77
regulations to meet federal and State water quality requirements related to storm water runoff.

Furthermore, future development and redevelopment pursuant to the General Plan 2035 would be subject to compliance with applicable Infrastructure and Conservation Elements policies. The General Plan 2035 also requires the continued compliance with federal, State, and regional governments and agencies to protect and improve the quality of local and regional groundwater. New development projects would be required to meet federal, State, and local water quality standards and implement mitigation (refer to General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM HYD-1 and MM HYD-2), if necessary, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

The 2011 EIR determined that the General Plan 2035 had the potential to contribute to the depletion/decrease of groundwater and an increase in water demand. However, not all water districts serving the City obtain 100 percent of their water from groundwate r basins and multiple districts have recharge plans in place. Moreover, the Conservation Element includes goals and policies that protect and conserve existing and future water resources. Compliance with the applicable goals and policies in the Conservation Element would ensure impacts to groundwater are less than significant.

The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 had the potential to contribute to runoff, which may exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. However, new development projects would be required to ensure that project -specific and Citywide drainage systems have adequate capacity to accommodate new development. The City’s annual capital improvement plan (CIP), as well as goals and policies, would ensure that General Plan 2035 related storm water mitigation techniques are e mployed and monitored, and included in the General Plan 2035. Moreover, implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM HYD-1 and MM HYD-2 would ensure that new development projects are designed to result in less than significant impacts related the existing drainage system’s capacity.

The 2011 EIR determined that the General Plan 2035 would not alter any existing drainage patterns.

Applicable regulatory requirements would be applied to future development projects to ensure that projects are not constructed in a way that would alter a stream or river, or result in substantial erosion or flooding. The 2011 EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in less than significant impacts.

The 2011 EIR determined that approximately 1,021.2 acres within the City are within the 100 -year flood zone. However, development associated with implementation of the General Plan 2035 would be subject to requirements outlined in MMC Chapter 15.56.040, Methods of Reducing Flood Loss, which establishes provisions to ensure damage from flood within the City is minimized. Additionally, MMC Chapter

15.16.070, General Provisions, and Chapter 15.56.040, Administration, establish flood zones in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and administrati ve procedures regarding development within or around flood zones. Moreover, the General Plan 2035 Safety Element includes policies to address flooding and flood hazards to minimize impacts related to flooding. The 2011 EIR concluded that flood -related impa cts would be reduced to a less than significant level following conformance with applicable General Plan 2035 goals and policies.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-78
The 2011 EIR determined that the City is unlikely to be subjected to flooding due to a seiche or tsunami; however, the City is subject to potential flooding in the event of dam failure. The possibility of seiches and tsunamis impacting the City is considered remote due to the City’s distance to large bodies of water. The nearest large body of water to the City is Lake Elsinore, located approximately 6.24 miles northwest. The 2011 EIR concluded that flooding due to a seiche or tsunami would not occur, and no impacts would result.

Portions of the City of Murrieta are subject to potential dam inundation zones associated with Lake Skinner and Diamond Valley Lake; however, dam failure is considered extremely remote. Additionally, future development associated wit h the General Plan 2035 would be subject to the provisions of MMC Chapter 15 and the applicable policies identified in the General Plan 2035 Safety Element that would minimize the potential for flooding to impact property and human life. Furthermore, flood risk for the City is addressed in the City’s Emergency Management Plan. The 2011 EIR concluded that impacts related inundation would be less than significant.

Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality were determined to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM HYD-1 and MM HYD-2.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in new or substantially greater impacts to hydrology, drainage or water quality than identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures relating to hydrology, drainage or water quality were identified.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.10.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

HYD-1 Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, and as part of the future development’s compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent shall be prepared and submitted to the San Diego RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit. Also, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities onsite. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP shall outline the source control and/or treatment control BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the “maximum extent practicable .” All recommendations in the Plan shall be implemented during area preparation, grading, and construction. The project applicant shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Study, and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential stormwater runoff impacts.

HYD-2 Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, future development projects shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer, a Water Quality Management Plan or Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which includes Best Management

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-79
Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the Riverside County DAMP and the Murrieta WQMP. All recommendations in the Plan shall be implemented during post construction/operation phase. The project applicant shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the Study, and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential water quality impacts.

2.10.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that the
project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the
basin?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of
a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

i. Result in substantial
erosion or siltation
on- or offsite;
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
ii. Substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result in
flooding on- or
offsite;
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-80
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
iii. Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing
or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
iv. impede or redirect
flood flows?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section was obtained from the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Wilson, 2023a) and Preliminary Hydrology Report (Hydrology Report), (Wilson, 2023b) both prepared by Wilson Mikami Corporation ( Wilson) for the Project, which are included as Technical Appendix H1 and Technical Appendix H2, respectively, of this document.

a. Would the project v iolate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site is within the planning area of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan) establishes water quality objectives and implementation plans for the beneficial water bodies in the San Diego Region. The Project site is within the Santa Margarita Watershed.

Receiving waters for this watershed include Warm Spring Creek, Murrieta Creek, and Santa Margarita River, which are currently on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies . Refer to Table A -1 of the WQMP for a list of the Section 303(d) List of Impairments for each of these water bodies.

Construction Impacts

Construction-related activities have the potential to result in impacts to water quality due to grading activities that would potentially cause erosion and sedimentation in runoff. Sediments also transport substances such as nutrients, hydrocarbons, and trace metals, which would be conveyed to the storm

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-81
drain facilities and receiving waters. Substances such as fuels, oil and grease, solvents, paints and other building construction materials, wash water, and dust control water could also enter storm runoff and be transported to nearby waterways. This could potentially degrade the quality of the receiving waters and lead to the impairment of downstream water sources.

Because construction activities associated with the Project would involve grading of more than one acre, the Project proponent would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (NPDES No. CAS000002, Water Quality Order No. 2009 -009DWQ6, or the latest approved Construction General Permit) and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce pollutants in the stormwater to the maximum extent practicable during construction. The SWPPP must include erosion -control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the construction site, in addition to tracking control, waste management, and non-stormwater control BMPs that reduce the potential for construction -related stormwater pollutants. These measures may include the use of gravel bags, silt fences, straw wattles, hay bales, check dams, hydroseed, or soil binders. The construction contractor would be required to install, implement, and maintain these BMPs throughout the duration of onsite construction activities. A Construction Site Monitoring Program that identifies stormwater monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. In addition, the construction contractor would be required to maintain an inspection log and allow the log-on site to be reviewed by the City and representatives of the RWQCB. Thus, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and implementation of the required SWPPP would avoid the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, as well as avoid the degradation of water quality during construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts

Development of the Project site with residential uses would also have the potential to increase the amount of urban pollutants entering receiving waters, including Warm Springs Creek, Murrieta Creek, and Santa Margarita River. As required by General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM HYD-2, a Project- specific WQMP has been prepared for the Project . The Project-specific WQMP (Technical Appendix H1) identifies BMPs, including basins, storm drain inlet markings, maintaining landscaping using minimum or no pesticides, means to drain fire sprinkler test water, sweeping of sidewalks and parking lots, and plumbing pools and water features to the sewer system. The BMPs are required to be implemented to adhere to l ocal and state water quality regulations. Implementation of the WQMP would ensure that water quality impacts during operation would be less than significant.

In summary, with implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM HYD -1 and HYD- 2, no violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality during construction or long-term operations would occur. Impacts related to water quality would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs, there are no peculiar effects not

6 NPDES No. CAS000002, Water Quality Order 2009 -0009-DWQ, SWRCB NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (adopted by the SWRCB on September 2, 2009, and effective on July 1, 2010). This order was amended by 2010-0014-DWQ, which became effective on February 14, 2011, and 2012-0006-DWQ, which became effective on July 17, 2012. In accordance with the language set forth in Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, this permit has been administratively extended indefinitely.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-82
addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no new mitigation measures are required.

b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site is within the boundaries of the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin. The Project does not involve use of groundwater and does not include the installation of groundwater wells on- or offsite. However, as identified above, the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR concluded that development within the City, which would include the Project, has the potential to contribute to the depletion/decrease of groundwater and an increase in water demand. The Conservation Element includes goals and policies that protect and conserve existing and future water resources, including groundwater.

EMWD, using water provided by Metropolitan, would provide water services to the Project site following the approval of Project annexation into the water districts. EMWD’s potable water supply includes a portfolio of local and imported water supplied by Metropolitan . Local supplies include recycled water, potable groundwater, and desalinated groundwater. EMWD periodically prepares an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to account for potable water needs in the various jurisdictions it serves. The most recent UWMP was approved in 2020. The UWMP water projections are based on the land use assumptions in the general plan for jurisdiction s within EWMD’s service area . The Project is consistent with the General Plan Update; therefore, the water demand associated with the development of the Project site is accounted for in EMWD’s 2020 UWMP projections. The 2020 UWMP forecasts adequate water supply under year 2045 under normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies resulting in a less than significant impact.

Although development of the Project site would reduce the pervious areas available for potential natural recharge by 65% , the area of the Project site is relatively small in relation to the overall size of the groundwater basin and, currently, the Project site’s only source of water is from direct precipitation, providing little opportunity to recharge under existing conditions . Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge and impacts would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs. T here are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-83
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity or existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

c.i) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . As previously discussed, construction activities associated with the Project would involve grading and ground disturbance.

Erosion during construction would be related primarily to disturbed soils and sediments that may enter the stormwater during rainfall events or winds, but the implementation of erosion control and sediment control BMPs as part of the SWPPP that would be required under the NPDES Construction General Permit would reduce erosion on and off site. Erosion and sediment control BMPs would include, but not limited to temporary construction fencing; fiber roll barriers; gravel bag barriers; inlet protection; sediment traps; designated construction vehicle driveways; and designated areas for material storage, stockpiles, and concrete waste would be installed to control erosion and sedimentation during construction . Thus, compliance with existing water quality regulations would prevent substantial erosion on - or off -site.

Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

As discussed under Threshold “a” above, to manage surface runoff, stormwater runoff would be directed to BMPs identified in the Project -specific WQMP, which would remove pollutants including sediment in the stormwater. Thus, impacts associated with the alteration of drainage patterns and erosion would be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and state requirements, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

c.ii) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The Project site’s existing and proposed hydrological condition is illustrated in Figure 2-4, Existing Condition Hydrology Map, and Figure 2-5, Proposed Condition Hydrology Map , respectively . The Hydrology Report analyze s the Project ’s developed conditions to ensure the storm drain infrastructure is appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the anticipated future development.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-84
The drainage from the proposed development would surface drain to several catch basin locations throughout the Project. There would be two major systems collecting the on -site drainage from these basins. The outlet location of these storm drain lines would remain consistent with the existing outlet locations. Line ‘A’ would collect the north and west portion of the site and outlet at the existing streamline located at the north boundary. Line ‘B’ would collect the flow from the south and east portions of the site and outlet through the proposed entry street off Arendt Lane. The outlet location would remain consistent with the existing low point location outside of Arendt Lane.

A proposed underground detention facility would be constructed off Line ‘B’ to detain any additional storm volume associated with the proposed development. The drainage would be metered out such that the flowrate at the outlet is not increased such that downstream facilities would be overburdened. The off-site flows would be collected in a bypass system transferred through the site and outlet at the original streamline located at the north boundary of the site.

The Hydrology Report calculates design storm flow rates at designated points of interest for the 100-year storm event and will be used to size drainage facilities that support development of the Project . Under existing conditions the Project site’s 100 -year flow rate is 39.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) and under developed conditions, the Project site’s 100-year flow rate is calculated to be 35.4 cfs (a 3.9 cfs decrease).

The proposed storm drain system is adequate to transport the drainage to the undergroun d detention system and the required storage is provided. Therefore, peak flows would be reduced under proposed conditions. Additionally, protection of onsite structures would be maintained for the 100 -year storm event.

Therefore, development of the Project site would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the subject property or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on - or offsite. Accordingly, this impact is less than signific ant consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

c.iii) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . As discussed under Threshold “a” above, the Project’s construction contractors would be required to comply with a SWPPP, and the Project’s owner or operator would be required to comply with the WQMP (Technical Appendix H1 of this Initial Study) to ensure that Project-related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Therefore, the Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and the impact would be less than significant. As d iscussed above, the Hydrology Report concluded that the proposed storm drain system can adequately accommodate stormwater runoff from the 100-year storm event. This impact is less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-87
c.iv) No Impact: The Project site is identified as being within an area of minimal flooding (FEMA Flood Zone X), and not within a 100 -year flood zone (FEMA, 2008). The Project, which would maintain the on - site tributary channels and would not alter drainage patterns, would not impede or redirect flood flows .

No impact would result.

d. Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The Project site is not within a FEMA flood zone; the Project site is identified within FEMA Flood Zone X (FEMA, 2020). Therefore, the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to being located within a flood hazard zone.

Tsunamis are giant waves caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions under the sea . The Project site is located approximately 27 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the Project site is not within a tsunami flood hazard zone and there is no risk of pollutant release from a tsunami.

A seiche occurs when a wave oscillates in lakes, bays, or gulfs as a result of seismic disturbances. There are no enclosed or semi -enclosed bodies of water in proximity to the Project site . The nearest enclosed body of water to the Project site is Lake Skinner located approximately 5 miles east. Additionally, based on review of the City’s Safety Element Exhibit 12 -7, Dam Inundation, the Project site is not within a designated dam inundation area. Therefore, the Project site is not within a seiche zone on inundation area and there is no risk of pollutant release from a seiche or dam failure. No impact would occur.

e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. California’s Porter-Cologne Act requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding policies of water pollution management in California; regional water quality control plans (known as a Basin Plans) have been adopted by each of the R egional Water Boards. The Project site is in the San Diego Region and the San Diego RWQCB has developed a Basin Plan for the San Diego Basin, which was adopted in September 1994 and contains amendments through September 2021. The Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters.

Specifically, the Basin Plan: (1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters; (2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy; (3) describes implementation programs to protect the beneficial uses of all waters in the Region; and (4) describes surveillance and monitoring a ctivities to evaluate the effectiveness of the Basin Plan (San Diego RWQCB, 2021). The RWQCB ensures compliance with the Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Water Discharge Requirements WDR, and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA.

As discussed under Threshold a, above, there would be a potential for the Project to generate pollutants and impact water quality during construction and operation. The Project would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements for protection of water quality during construction, including those set forth by the Construction General Permit, including preparation of an SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control stormwater runoff and discharge of pollutants and to

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-88
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. With respect to operations, as required by the Basin Plan and General Plan EIR , a Project-specific WQMP has been prepared and implement BMPs in accordance with the Riverside County D rainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Murrieta WQMP , which would ensure compliance with the Basin Plan . The Project Applicant shall comply with each of the recommendations detailed in the WQMP, and other such measure(s) as the City deems necessary to mitigate potential water quality impacts. Thus, the Project would not degrade water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters.

As such, the Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the San D iego RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.

The Project site is within the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin, which the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) identifies as a “ very low-priority” basin (DWR, 2022a). According to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in “high” - and “medium” -priority basins are required to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs (DWR, 2022b). However, because the Temecula Valley groundwater basin is a very low-priority basin, neither a GSP nor Alternative to GSP is required for the sustainable management of the Temecula Valley groundwater basin . Therefore, the Project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. No impact would occur.

2.11 Land Use and Planning

2.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to land use and planning for the General Plan 2035 was addressed in Section 5.1, Land Use, of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would lead to greater urbanization within the City by localized intensification of land uses on underutilized site and introduction of new lands on vacant sites. However, the proposed General Plan 2035 Land Use Policy Map establishes consistent and compatible development intensities to ensure existing and future land uses would not negatively impact adjacent and surrounding uses. Impacts were determined to be less than significant and cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Additionally, the 2011 EIR determined that the General Plan 2035 contains goals and policies that would continue to support procedures followed by the City when development applications are reviewed. The General Plan 2035 would have a beneficial effect by making the General Plan a more effective tool to review future projects and to coordinate with other jurisdictions and regulatory agencies on regional planning. Impacts, including cumulative impacts, were determined to be less than significant.

The 2020 SEIR provided analysis of land use and planning impacts for the General Plan Update in Section

4.1, Land Use and Planning. The 2020 SEIR determined that although the General Plan Update would change the land use within six focus areas of the City the implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in direct impacts related to land use compatibility and would not physically divide an established community. The 2020 SEIR concluded that the land use changes proposed through the General Plan Update would not divide an established community, including in the North Murrieta Business Corridor Focus Area. Further goals and policies from the General Plan Update were incorporated to preserve and improve existing and future physical development.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-89
The 2020 SEIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan Update addresses new State laws since 2011 including: wildfire risks and preparation (SB 1249), climate adaptation and resiliency (SB 379); transitioning to VMT analysis from Level of Service for traffic (SB 743); environmental justice (SB 1000) and the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, and would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The General Plan Update included a revised mix and location of land use designation and zoning classifications along with a new land use designation and zoning classification, Innovation. The 2020 SEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant impacts related to consistency to land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and no mitigation is required. As such, the 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in any new or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact in the 2011 EIR; impacts would remain less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative impacts related to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.11.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project site is bordered to the north by residential uses, to the west by Whitewood Road, to the south by Clinton Keith Road, and to the east by Arendt Lane. Regional access to the Project site is provided by Interstate (I)-215 via Clinton Keith Road. The Project site contains two existing residences in the eastern half of the site and the western half of the site is undeveloped. The Project would redevelop the site with uses compatible with the surrounding communities and would not introduce new major infrastructure which has the potential to physically divide an established community.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-90
The Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation s for the Project site, which anticipates development of residential uses within the Project site. The Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact . The following is a discussion of the Project’s consisten cy with local and regional planning programs.

Murrieta General Plan and Zoning Ordinance

The Project site has General Plan land use designations Multiple-Family Residential (10.1-30 du/acre), and is within the Multi-Family 2, Residential (MF-2) zoning district. The MF designation provides for attached and detached apartments and condominiums. Typical development consists of townhomes, condominiums, apartments, senior housing, and stacked flats. This designation encourages the development of integrated projects that provide complementary open spaces and amenities onsite. The Multiple-Family Residential designation permits a density between 10.1 and 30 du/ac. The MF-2 zoning district has an allowable density range from 15.1 – 18 du/ac. The Project proposes243 dwelling units at a density of 15.1 du/ac and includes a 900 s.f. restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot, and 65,120 s.f. of total common open space throughout the site. Thus, the Project would comply with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site.

The Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect or with the zoning designations and associated development standards already established by the City. Based on the foregoing analysis, no impact would occur.

2.12 Mineral Resources

2.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of mineral resources impacts was addressed in Section 5.12, Mineral Resources, of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR identified five mineral resource sites in the City containing clay, sand and gravel, feldspar, feldspar/silica, and gold and one geoth ermal resource. According to the State of California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) (formerly Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources), there are no underlying oil field present in the City or within outlying areas (CalGEM, 2022). The 2011 EIR determined that future development in the City would result in less than significant impacts to mineral resources because it is unknown and unlikely that the MRZ -4 area of the City contains significant mineral resources. Additionally, while the MRZ-3a classification represents an area that has the potential for mineral deposits, no resources have been identified. While mineral resources are identified within in the City, no mineral resource recovery sites currently exist. As such, future development within the City pursuant to the General Plan 2035 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or impacts to mineral resource recovery sites. The 2011 EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would not adversely impact mineral

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-91
resources and impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts on mineral resources were determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in new or substantially greater impacts to mineral resources than identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures relating to mineral resources were identified.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.12.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents of
the state?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally-
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is within the mineral classification of MRZ -3, which are areas that have the potential for mineral deposits, but no resources are identified (CDC, 2014). Additionally, according to 2011 General Plan EIR Figure 5.12-1, Mineral Resources, there are no known mineral resources onsite. As such, the implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

No impact would occur.

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact: The City’s Development Code allows mining within the General Industrial zoning district. The Project site is within the MF-2 zoning district and is not delineated by the City’s General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site . Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of a vailability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-92

2.13 Noise

2.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of noise impacts was addressed in Section 5.7, Noise, of the 2011 EIR. Sources of noise in the City include mobile sources (e.g., freeways, streets, aircraft, etc.) and stationary sources (e.g., construction, commercial facilities, and industrial facilities).

The 2011 EIR determined that short -term construction noise associated with the future development pursuant to General Plan 2035 would result in a temporary nuisance to residents and businesses. Future development would be subject to compliance with the applicable policies identified in the current Noise Element to ensure construction activities comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The 2011 EIR concluded that compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and/or Noise Element policies would reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant levels.

The 2011 EIR determined that construction has the potential to generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration. Groundborne vibration generated during construction would primarily impact existing sensitive uses that are located adjacent to or within the vicinity of specific projects. The General Plan 2035 includes policies that assist in the reduction of vibration by limiting the hours of construction in residential areas and employing noise reduction methods. The 2011 EIR concluded that with adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance, applicable Noise Element policies, and the implementation of mitigation (NOI -1) (addressing vibration impacts to historic structures), construction vibration impacts would be less than significant. The 2011 EIR further concluded that individual development projects would be reviewed for project -specific impacts during any required environmental review. If project -specific significant impacts are identified, applicable mitigation measures would be placed on the project as conditions of approval.

The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would generate additional traffic, which has the potential to increase ambient noise levels at existing land uses along roadways.

Additionally, implementation of the General Plan 2035 has the potential to provide opportunities for light rail transit and high-speed rail, which would create a new source of mobile noise. Moreover, French Valley Airport is the primary source of air traffic affecting noise levels within the City. S ome residential uses would experience noise levels that would exceed the allowable Land Use Criteria Compatibility Criteria ; however, the Noise Element identifies policies that would minimize noise generate from mobile sources and policies identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan 2035 would ensure noise from the French Valley Airport would be reduced. Further, the General Plan 2035 would implement General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM NOI -2 to ensure aircraft noise impacts to residential uses within the 55-community noise equivalence level (CNEL) noise contour are mitigated to a less than significant level.

The 2011 EIR concluded that operational mobile source noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. Specifically, the 2011 EIR concluded that with implementation of the proposed General Plan 2035, some residential uses would experience noise levels that would exceed the allowable Land Use Criteria Compatibility Criteria (refer to Table 5.7-2). However, General Plan 2035 Goal N-3 would minimize noise from mobile sources. Specifically, Policies N -3.1, N -3.2, and LU -25.3 consider noise mitigation measures in the design of and improvements to streets, highways, and freeways as well as working with Caltrans to achieve maximum noise abatement for highway and freeway projects. Policy N -3.3 also encourages the construction of noise barriers and maintenance of existing noise barriers along I-15 and I-

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-93
215. Therefore, conformance with the General Plan 2035 goals and policies would reduce traffic exposure at sensitive land uses. Implementation of the goals and polices would be realized through the review of individual development projects by the City for project -specific impacts during any required environmental review. If project -specific significant impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures would be placed on the project as conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the appropriate Land Use Criteria Compatibility Criteria.

The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in stationary noise sources, which have the potential to increase ambient noise levels. The 2011 EIR anticipated that residential uses would comprise the largest land use category in the City. Noise from residential stationary sources would primarily occur during the “daytime” activity hours. The 2011 EIR also anticipated commercial, office, and industrial land uses to be developed within the City. Noise generally associat ed with these uses are generated by slow moving truck deliveries, parking areas, landscape maintenance, and similar activities. The General Plan 2035 Noise Element includes policies that ensure the reduction of noise transmission between these uses through site design. The 2011 EIR concluded that operational stationary source noise levels would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and/or compliance with applicable General Plan 2035 policies.

Cumulative impacts related to short-term construction noise were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM NOI-1. Cumulative impacts related to long-term operational mobile noise sources were determined to be significant an unavoidable even with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM NOI -2. Cumulative impacts related to long -term operational stationary noise sources were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in new or substantially greater noise impacts than identified in the 2011 EIR and that the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures relating to noise were identified.

Further, as in the 2011 EIR, the 2020 SEIR concluded that individual development projects would be reviewed for project -specific impacts during any required environmental review. If project -specific significant impacts were identified, applicable mitigation measures would be placed on the project as conditions of approval.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.13.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM NOI-1 is not applicable to the Project as there is no pile driving anticipated with the Project and there are no historic structures in the vicinity. General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM NOI-2 is not applicable to the Project as the Project site is not within the 55 CNEL noise contour for the French Valley Airport.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-94

2.13.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted,
within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section was obtained from the Project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (NIA) (Technical Appendix I ) (Urban Crossroads, 2024c) , prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads to evaluate Project -related short -term construction and long -term operational noise impacts . Detailed information about noise fundamentals and methods used for preparation of the noise analysis are included in the NIA. Urban Crossroads assumed a total of 262 residential dwelling units; however, through Project redesign, the Project’s unit count has been reduced to a total of 243 residential dwelling units as discussed in section 1.0, Project Information. The slight reduction in unit count would result in a negligible change in the Noise analysis and therefore, would result in the same impact conclusion as further discussed below. The higher unit count of 262 residential units is used as a conservative approach to the analysis.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-95
Existing Noise Conditions

Existing Study Area Ambient Noise Conditions

On August 3, 2022, Urban Crossroads collected 24-hour noise level measurements from four (4) locations in the vicinity of the Project site (refer to Figure 2-6, Noise Measurement Locations ). The background ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated by transportation -related noise associated with the arterial roadway network. The noise measurements presented in Table 2-11, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (L eq), which represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. As shown in Table 2-11, daytime noise levels range between 68. 1 dBA L eq and 51.9 dBA Leq and nighttime
noise level range between 64.6 dBA Leq and 48.4 dBA Leq. The overall 24-hour exterior noise level ranges between 67.8 Leq and 48.4 dBA Leq.

Table 2 -12 summarizes the significance criteria for potential noise impacts during construction and operation; these criteria are further discussed in Section 4, Significance Criteria, of the NIA.

a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation.

Construction Impacts

Typical Construction Noise

As previously identified, construction activities for the Project would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Noise generated by the Project construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each sensitive receiver location. As described in Section 2.3, Air Quality, of this document, the nearest s ensitive receiver to the Project site is Location R2, located 59 feet north of the Project site.

As shown in Table 2-13, Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance , the highest typical construction noise levels are expected to range from 52.9 to 62.8 dBA L eq at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. To
evaluate whether the Project would generate potentially significant short -term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction -related daytime noise level threshold of 75 dBA L eq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations would satisfy the reasonable significance threshold during the daytime of 75 dBA Leq. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise would be less than significant at all receiver locations.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-97
Table 2-11 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located west of the Project site near single-family residence at 35960 Lindstrand Avenue. 68.1 64.6
L2 Located northwest of the Project site near single-family residence at 35842 Meadowlark Lane. 58.7 54.0
L3 Located south of the Project site across Clinton Keith Road. 66.2 63.0 L4 Located east of the Project site near single-family residence at 35960 Arendt Lane. 51.9 48.4
1 See Figure 2-10 of this document for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.1“of Technical Appendix I.
“Daytime” = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m“; “Nighttime” = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 5-1)

Table 2-12 Significance Criteria Summary
Analysis Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime6 Nighttime6
On-Site All Land Uses Exterior Noise Compatibility1 See Exhibit 3-A of the NIA Interior Noise Level Standard3 45 dBA CNEL
Offsite
Noise-Sensitive
< 60 dBA 5 dBA or more
60 – 65 dBA 3 dBA or more
> 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more
Non-Noise-Sensitive =< 70 dBA 5 dBA or more
> 70 dBA 3 dBA or more
Operational All Land Uses Daytime See Exhibit 3-B of the NIA Nighttime Construction
Noise &
Vibration
All Land Uses
Mobile Construction4 75 dBA Leq
Stationary Construction5 60 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold4 0.04 PPV in/sec
1 City of Murrieta General Plan Noise Element, Table 11-2. 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2. 3 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11. 4 City of Murrieta Municipal Code, Section 16.30.130 (A) (Appendix 3.1 of Technical Appendix I). 5 City of Murrieta Municipal Code, Section 16.30.130 (K) (Appendix 3.1 of Technical Appendix I). 6 Daytime” = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; “Nighttime” = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 4-1)

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-98
Table 2-13 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 59.9 75 No
R2 62.4 75 No
R3 52.9 75 No
R4 60.3 75 No
R5 62.8 75 No
R6 58.4 75 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A of the Project’s NIA2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations. 3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 2-12. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 11-3)

Operational Impacts

Offsite Traffic Noise Impacts

The offsite traffic-related noise impacts resulting from anticipated development at the Project site were evaluated under the following scenarios: Existing (Year 2022) Conditions with Project and Opening Year Cumulative (Year 20 24) with Project . Existing (Year 202 2) represents traffic noise levels on roadway segments in 2022, and Opening Year Cumulative (Year 20 24) represents potential near-term cumulative traffic noise levels on roadway segments in 2024. As shown in Table 2-14, Existing (Year 2022) With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases , under the Existing with Project conditions, the Project’s potential offsite traffic noise level increases are estimated to range from 0. 0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL and would not exceed the incremental noise level increase thresholds which are listed above. Impacts would be less than significant.

As shown in Table 2 -15, Opening Year Cumulative (Year 2024) with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases , under Cumulative Year 2024 Year with Project conditions, the Project’s potential offsite traffic noise level increases would range from an estimated 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL and would not exceed the incremental noise level increase thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the significance criteria for offsite traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to Project -related traffic noise levels.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-99
Table 2-14 Existing (Year 2022) With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental
Noise Level
Increase
Threshold3
No
Proj
ect
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Clinton Keith Rd. w/o I-215 SB Ramps Commercial 73.5 73.6 0.1 1.5 No 2 Clinton Keith Rd. e/o I-215 NB Ramps Commercial
/Public 72.1 72.3 0.1 1.5 No
3 Clinton Keith Rd. e/o Warm Springs
Pkway.

Residential/
Public 71.2 71.3 0.2 1.5 No
4 Clinton Keith Rd. e/o Whitewood Rd. Residential/
Public 73.0 73.1 0.1 1.5 No
5 Clinton Keith Rd. e/o Arendt Lane Residential 73.0 73.0 0.0 1.5 No 6 Whitewood Rd. s/o Clinton Keith Rd. Residential/
Public 71.7 71.8 0.0 1.5 No
7 Whitewood Rd. n/o Clinton Keith
Rd. Residential 71.6 71.8 0.2 1.5 No
8 Whitewood Rd. n/o Driveway 1 Residential 71.6 71.8 0.2 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right -of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 8-5)

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-100
Table 2-15 Opening Year Cumulative (Year 2024) with Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
Incremental
Noise Level
Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Clinton Keith
Rd. w/o I-215 SB Ramps Commercial 74.8 74.8 0.0 1.5 No
2 Clinton Keith
Rd. e/o I-215 NB Ramps Commercial
/Public 73.6 73.9 0.3 1.5 No
3 Clinton Keith
Rd.
e/o Warm Springs
Pkway.

Residential/
Public 72.9 73.0 0.1 1.5 No
4 Clinton Keith
Rd. e/o Whitewood Rd. Residential/
Public 74.0 74.1 0.1 1.5 No
5 Clinton Keith
Rd. e/o Arendt Lane Residential 74.0 74.1 0.1 1.5 No
6 Whitewood Rd. s/o Clinton Keith Rd. Residential/
Public 72.7 72.7 0.0 1.5 No
7 Whitewood Rd. n/o Clinton Keith
Rd. Residential 73.9 74.1 0.2 1.5 No
8 Whitewood Rd. n/o Driveway 1 Residential 74.0 74.0 0.0 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery . Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right -of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 8-6)

Stationary Noise Impacts

The proposed residential development is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond the typical noise sources associated with similar residential land uses in the vicinity of the Project site, such as air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, and pool/spa activity . Urban Crossroads calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project -related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. As indicated on Table 2 -16, Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases and Table 2 -17, Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases , the Project w ould generate daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 1.3 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations. There are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-101
Table 2-16 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 41.5 L1 68.1 68.1 0.0 3 No
R2 45.6 L2 58.7 58.9 0.2 5 No
R3 35.1 L4 51.9 52.0 0.1 5 No
R4 43.3 L4 51.9 52.5 0.6 5 No
R5 47.2 L4 51.9 53.2 1.3 5 No
R6 42.0 L3 66.2 66.2 0.0 3 No
1 See Exhibit 10-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 10 -2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5 -A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5 -1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4 -1.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 10-5)

Table 2-17 Nighttime Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 40.0 L1 64.6 64.6 0.0 3 No
R2 44.3 L2 54.0 54.4 0.4 5 No
R3 33.0 L4 48.4 48.5 0.1 5 No
R4 40.7 L4 48.4 49.1 0.7 5 No
R5 43.8 L4 48.4 49.7 1.3 5 No
R6 39.0 L3 63.0 63.0 0.0 3 No
1 See Exhibit 10-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 10 -3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5 -A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5 -1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4 -1.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 10-6)

b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground -borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-102
construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Typical Construction Activities

As shown in Table 2-18, Typical Project Construction Vibration Levels, at distances ranging from 59 to 567 feet from typical Project construction activities, vibration levels are estimated to range from less than 0.01 to 0.02 ( inches per second ) (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV ). Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.04 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels would satisfy the City of Murrieta threshold at all receiver locations . Additionally, the typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries. Therefore, Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during the typical construction activities at the Project site. There are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Table 2-18 Typical Project Construction Vibration Levels Receiver
Location1
Distance to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5 Small
bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 130’ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 No
R2 59’ 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 No
R3 64’ 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 No
R4 114’ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 No
R5 137’ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 No
R6 567’ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 No
1 Construction receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11 -A of the NIA. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 11 -4 of the NIA). 4 City of Murrieta Municipal Code, Section 16.30.130 (K) (Appendix 3.1 of the NIA) 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2024c, Table 11- 5)

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Project site is located approximately 2. 3 miles northwest of the French Valley Airport.

Based on review of Map FV-3, Future Noise Impacts, of the French Valley ALUCP, the Project is not within

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-103
an area that would be exposed to noise levels exceeding 55 dBA CNEL (ALUC, 2012) . Therefore, development at the Project site would not result in exposure of people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. No impact would occur.

2.14 Population and Housing

2.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to population and housing was addressed in Section 5.2, Population, Employment, and Housing, of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan 2035 would include approximately 44,484 dwelling units and an associated population projection of 133,452 persons. The non -residential land use development potential was estimated at approximately

50.2 million square feet with an employment projection of approximately 130,153 jobs, which was determined to be generally consistent with SCAG’s growth forecasts. The 2011 EIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in less than significant impacts on population and housing. Cumulative population and housing impacts were also determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that while the proposed Project would increase the number of dwelling units by 1,572, there would also be a reduction of 2,405,601 square feet of non -residential Innovation uses. As such, the growth forecast between the prior 2011 General Plan and the proposed General Plan Update was found to be relatively consistent and the City determined that the changes to the General Plan were not likely to induce a substantial population growth from that which was analyzed in the 2011 EIR.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.14.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-104
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) Displace substantial
numbers of people or
existing housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. In 2023, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated the population in the City of Murrieta to be 109,998 individuals, representing approximately 4. 5% of the population in Riverside County (2,4 39,234 residents) (DOF, 2023) . SCAG estimates that there were 34,498 existing households in the City in 2018, representing approximately

4.7% of the estimated households in Riverside County (729,920 households) in 2018 (SCAG, 2019).

The Project includes development of 243 dwelling units. Assuming 3.0 person per unit, it is estimated that up to 7 29 persons could reside at the Project site, compared to 1,551 persons assumed based on the maximum density permitted on-site (30 du/ac) by the General Plan (City of Murrieta, 2020a). Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth that was not already anticipated by the City in the General Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact.

The Project would involve the installation of utilities necessary to connect to existing infrastructure systems adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Project site and would involve improvements to adjacent roadways, consistent with General Plan . The infrastructure and roadway improvements would serve planned development and would not induce unplanned growth. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial indirect unplanned population growth in the area.

The Project would create short-term jobs during Project construction phases. These short-term positions would be filled by workers who, for the most part, would already reside in the local area; therefore, construction of the Project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in population within the Project area.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the metropolitan planning organization responsible for developing and adopting regional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local governments from Imperial, Los Angeles, Oran ge, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG’s Connect SoCal , adopted in September 2020, is the 2020 -2045 RTP/SCS, and includes a Demographics and Growth Forecast technical report, which helps coordinate regional planning, employment, and housing development strategies in Southern California. The demographic and growth

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-105
forecasts presented in Connect SoCal are the currently adopted population, housing and employment forecasts for the six -county region, and reflect recent and past trends, key demographic and economic assumptions, and local, regional, state, and national policy. As part of the development of t he forecast, SCAG coordinates with local jurisdictions, including the City of Murrieta, to understand each community’s vision for the future so that it can be integrated into the outlook for the future of the region. As presented in the Connect SoCal Demographic and Growth Forecast technical report, SCAG estimates that the City of Murrieta will have a population of 127,700 individuals by 2045, and 42,300 households. Therefore, the estimated increase in population and dwelling units resulting from the Project ( 729 individuals and 243 units) is well within the growth forecast by SCAG for the City of Murrieta by 2045 as well as consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned direct population growth in the region, resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs , and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site contains two existing residences in the eastern half of the site and the western half of the site is undeveloped . Although implementation of the Project would result in the demolition of the two existing residences, the Project would increase housing on-site with development of 243 dwelling units. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs, and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs..

2.15 Public Services

2.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Section 5.17 of the 2011 EIR addressed impacts on fire protection service due to the implementation of the General Plan 2035. The 2011 EIR concluded that the General Plan 2035 and associated increase in population would result in an increase fire protection service demand that may require an additional Truck Company and staffing. However, future development would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants, as well as General Plan 2035 goals and policies identified in the Safety Element. The 2011 EIR indicated that the Murrieta Fire & Rescue is independently funded; however capital improvements are also funded through Development Impact Fees and special Develop ment Agreement fees. Individual projects would be reviewed by the Murrieta Fire & Rescue to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. This would ensure that new developments would not reduce the staffing, response times, or existing service levels within the City; thus, the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities would not be required. The Murrieta

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-106
Fire & Rescue requires development, as part of a project’s conditions of approval, to install Class A roofing, noncombustible siding, and/or 100 -foot fuel buffer zones to protect communities form wildland/urban interface fires. Additionally, mitigation (Ge neral Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM FP -1 through FP-4) would be incorporated to reduce impacts on fire protection services. The 2011 EIR concluded that impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant with mitigation and the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities is not required.

The 2020 SEIR provided analysis of wildfire impacts for the General Plan Update in Section 4.5, Wildfire.

Potential impacts related to wildfire are discussed in Section 2.20 below. With respect to Public Services related to fire impacts, the 2020 SEIR determined that the General Plan Update did not change the potential impacts discussed in the 2011 EIR for fire protection services and that future development could result in the development of the same vacant and underutilized land analyzed in the 2011 EIR. Although the General Plan Update would allow for an increase in residential uses, it also encompasses a de crease in allowable non -residential uses. Further, implementation would be realized through the review of individual development projects by the City for project -specific impacts during any required environmental review. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur when compared to the impacts identified in the 2011 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) would remain unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures were identified.

Section 5.18 of the 2011 EIR addressed impacts on police protection services due to the implementation of the General Plan 2035. The 2011 EIR determined that the General Plan 2035 build out would occur over a 25-year period and the Murrieta Police Departme nt would effectively plan for increases in population and police protection service demand. Future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 would be subject to compliance with the applicable goals and policies identified in the General Plan 2035 and would be required to pay development impact fees (DIFs), which are collected to offset service demand increases. The 2011 EIR concluded that impacts on police protection services would be less than significant and the construction of new or expansion of pol ice protection facilities would not be required. With respect to police protection services, the 2020 SEIR concluded that no service shortfall requiring additional police personnel or equipment is anticipated as a result of the implementation of the General Plan Update and no mitigation beyond the goals and policies identified in the General Plan 2035 are required. therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the General Plan Update when compared to those identified in the 2011 EIR, and the level of impact (less than significant) remained unchanged. No mitigation measures were required.

Section 5.19 of the 2011 EIR addressed impacts on school facilities due to the General Plan 2035. The City is within the service areas of four public school districts: Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD), Menifee Union School District (MUSD), P erris Union High School District (PUHSD), and Hemet Unified School District (HUSD). The 2011 EIR determined that based on plans for school facilities in the MVUSD, MUSD, PUHSD, HUSD, prior approved bonds, and collection of DIFs on a case -by-case basis (refer to General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM SCH -1), school facility impacts would be less than significant. As with fire and police services, the 2020 SEIR concluded that no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the General Plan Update when compared to those identified in the 2011 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures were identified.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-107
Cumulative impacts related to public services were determined to be less than significant in the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.15.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

FP-1 The Murrieta Fire Department shall review future development projects to determine if a Fuel Modification Plan is required. If required, project applicants shall prepare the Fuel Modification Plan in accordance with Fire Department requirements prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

FP-2 Brush clearance shall be conducted prior to initiation of construction activities in accordance with Murrieta Fire Department requirements.

FP-3 Adequate access to all buildings on the project site shall be provided for emergency vehicles during the building construction process.

FP-4 Adequate water availability shall be provided to service construction activities.

SCH-1 Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, individual project applicants shall submit evidence to the City of Murrieta that legally required school impact mitigation fees have been paid per the mitigation established by the applicable school district.

2.15.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Parks? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-108
government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i ) Fire protection; ii ) Police protection; iii) Schools; or iv ) Other public facilities?
a.i) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site is located within the Murietta Fire and Rescue (MFR) response area, which includes the corporate limits of the city of Murietta. MFR Station 4, located at 28155 Baxter Road, is staffed 24-hours per day/7 days per week with career firefighters and would provide initial response. It is equipped with one engine company, a brush engine and Battalion Chief. Station 4 w ould be capable of responding within 3.2 minutes. Secondary response would be provided from MFR Station 2, which is located at 40060 California Oaks Road, and can respond within 6 minutes. Station 2 is staffed 24-hours per day and houses a Truck and Medic Patrol unit. (Dudek, 2023)

Construction activities associated with the Project would not increase the demand for fire protection services such that new or expanded fire protection facilities would be required. However, i ncreased demands for fire protection and emergency services would result from implementation of the anticipated residential uses at the Project site, which would be consistent with development anticipated in the General Plan. Based on the anticipated amount and type of future use, the Project would increase the typical number and range of service calls by Murrieta Fire & Rescue, including structural fires; emergency medical and rescue services; and Community safety, awareness, and outreach activities. The level of service demand for the Project would result in an incremental increase in overall call volume, but the incremental increase is considered minor and is not anticipated to impact the existing fire stations to a point that they cannot meet the demand.

Additionally, proposed roadways and infrastructure to be installed with implementation of the Project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants, as well as General Plan goals and policies identified in the Safety Element. Further, the Project site would be provided with adequate water pres sure in order to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure for on -site fire hydrants and interior sprink ler systems.

Additionally, in accordance with MMC Chapter 16.36, Public Facilities/Infrastructure Mitigation , the Project would be required to pay a public facilities DIF, which would fund public facilities in the City.

The Project does not propose any new fire protection facilities and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities other than as already described by the General Plan.

Therefore, no physical environmental impacts would result. There are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs. No additional mitigation measures are required.

a.ii) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Murrieta Police Department would provide police protection services to the Project. The Murrieta Police Department headquarters is located at 2 Town Square, approximately 5.0 roadway miles southwest of the Project site. Murrieta Police

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-109
Department is comprised of 10 6 sworn police officers , 35 dispatchers, 25 professional staff, and 30 volunteers and explorers (City of Murrieta, 2023).

Anticipated crime and safety issues during construction at the Project site include theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and general vandalism. During operation of anticipated development, the Project could create the typical range of police service calls that other similar uses in the City experience. The primary types of crimes experienced in residential areas are property crimes (e.g., burglary, larceny, theft/auto theft, arson, shoplifting, vandalism). In addition to property crimes, “crimes against persons” are typically associated with residential uses. These include, but are not limited to, assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual and child abuse, and robberies.

Residents, visitors, and other individuals that would come to the Project site would have to comply with the regulations in the MMC and the California Penal and Vehicle Codes, as monitored and enforced by the Murrieta Police Department. However, based on t he anticipated land use, and the increase in calls for service in the area compared to existing conditions, implementation of the Project would require additional police protection services. As individual projects are proposed in the City, the Murrieta Pol ice Department service levels and staffing requirements are evaluated to determine if additional staffing and/or facilities would be required. The Murrieta Police Department would ultimately determine the timing and number of new officers hired as part of its standard staffing practices based on the amount and type of land uses ultimately developed. Future development would be required to be in substantial conformance with applicable General Plan goals and policies related to safety and police protection an d comply with MMC Chapter 16.36 regarding the payment of DIFs for public facilities.

The Project does not propose any new police protection facilities and would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Therefore, no physical environmental impacts would result. There are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s ef fects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs . No additional mitigation measures are required.

a.iii) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The Project site is within the Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD). Construction activities associated with Project would not result in an increase in population or associated increase in the demand for school services such that new or expanded school facilities would be required.

Impacts to school services are primarily driven by increases in permanent population; therefore, student generation is estimated based on the number of proposed residential units. It is anticipated that future development at the Project site would involve up to 243 dwelling units. Using the student generation rate from the General Plan, it is estimated the Project would generate approximately 438 new students in the MVUSD. It is anticipated that existing and planned schools in the area would accommodate future growth of students from the Project.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-110
Senate Bill (SB) 50, adopted in 1998, limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development. It also authorizes school districts to levy statutory developer fees. California Education Code 17620 establishes the authority of any school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirements against any development within the school district for the purposes of funding the construction of school facilities, as long as t he district can show justification for the fees. Project developer(s) would be required to pay the applicable impact mitigation fees to the appropriate school district. Moreover, the developers would be required to comply with MMC Chapter 16.36.070, which addresses requirements for development projects relevant to school services.

The Project does not propose any new school facilities and would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities. Therefore, no physical environmental impacts would result. With implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM SCH-1 as applied to the Project, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

a.iv) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project would not result in an increase in population or associated increase in the demand for park services such that new or expanded park facilities would be required.

The City’s Parks and Recreation Department oversees the park system in the City and the City has a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The anticipated future residential use and associated increase in population (estimated to be 7 71 residents) would increase the demand for park and recreational facilities in the City. Based on standard of 5 acres per 1,000 persons, approximately 3.86 acres of parkland would be required to serve the Project. Chapter 16.106.030 of the Murrieta Municipal Code specifies Parks and Recreation Facility dedications or fees that must be paid to the City when development occurs. Chapter 16.106.030 is written in compliance with the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), which allows local agencies to establish ordinances requiring residential subdivisions to provide land or “in-lieu-of” fees for park and recreation purposes. Therefore, the parkland requirement for the Project would be met through a combination of dedication of land, provision of onsite recreational facilities, and payment of in-lieu fees. The provisions of the Quimby Act only apply to land acquisition and not park improvements. In compliance with MMC Section 16.36, the Property Owner/Developer would also pay the applicable DIF collected for the purpose of constructing, expanding or rehabilitating the park facilities.

The Project does not propose any new parks and parkland requirements would be m et through the provision of land or in -lieu fees. Therefore, no physical environmental impacts would result. With compliance by the Project with the Quimby requirements, impacts would be less than significant and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-111
a.v) Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project would not result in an increase in population or associated increased demand for library services such that new or expanded library facilities would be required.

The Murrieta Public Library, located at 8 Town Square approximately 4.0 miles southwest of the Project site, provides library services to the City . The anticipated future residential uses at the Project site and associated increase in the residential population in the City have the potential to increase the demand for library services. The Property Owner/Developer would be required to pay applicable DIFs for public facilities.

The Project does not propose any new library facilities and would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities. Therefore, no physical environmental impacts would result. There are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

2.16 Recreation

2.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts on recreational facilities was addressed in Section 5.20, Parks and Recreation Facilities, of the 2011 EIR. The 2011 EIR determined that future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 had the potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on parks and recreational facilities.

Per the City’s adopted standards of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the 2011 EIR identified a deficit of 34 acres of parkland. The 2011 EIR concluded that the increase in dwelling units would result in an increase in population that would create a new demand on current recreational infrastructure and increase the parkland deficit. Future development pursuant to the General Plan 2035 would be reviewed on an individual basis to determine the potential impact on parks and recreational facilities within the City. Additionally, the implementation of applicable General Plan 2035 goals and policies identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element would ensure the provision for new develop ments to mitigate impacts on parkland and recreational facilities. The payment of park facilities fees and/or dedication of parkland by future development would further reduce impacts on parks and recreational facilities.

However, with the City’s then-existing parkland deficiency and future growth associated with the General Plan 2035, the 2011 EIR determined impacts on recreational facilities would be significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts to recreational facilities were also determined to be sign ificant and unavoidable.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update could result in the development of the same vacant and underutilized land analyzed in the 2011 EIR and due to the increase in residential density under the update, would increase the demand for residential resources, including parkland and recreational facilities. However, the 2020 SEIR concluded that future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update would continue to be reviewed for potential impacts on parks and recreational facilities and would further be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, relevant General Plan Update goals and policies, and mitigation measures and that

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-112
because of the existing parkland deficiency and future growth associated with the proposed Project, the proposed General Plan Update would still result in potential significant unavoidable impacts to parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the City c oncluded that no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed General Plan Update when compared to those identified in the 2011 EIR and the level of impact (significant unavoidable) remains unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR, but remains significant and unavoidable.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.16.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction of or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The Project would not result in an increase in population or associated increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

The nearest park to the Project site is Los Alamos Hills Sports Park located at 37000 Ruth Ellen Drive at Hunter Road. Los Alamos Hills Sports Park is a 47.0-acre park with the following amenities: Barbecue, Bike Path, Walking Trails, Two Concession Stands, Three Football Fields, Open Grass Areas, Parking Lot, Four Diamonds for Baseball and Softball , Parking lot, Picnic Tables or Park Benches , Restrooms, Shelters, Six Soccer Fields, Community Center, Tot Lot, Playground Equipment, and Water Fountains. Additionally, the Project site is 0.8-mile south of Alderwood Park, located at 28796 Baxter Road. Alderwood Park is a 3.0-

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-113
acre park with the following amenities: Bike Path, Walking Trail, Dog Park, Mature Trees, Parking Lot, Picnic Tables or Park Benches, Shelters, and Tot Lot Playground Equipment. (City of Murrieta, 2020b). As discussed under Threshold a.iv in Section 2.15, Public Services, of this document, the proposed residential development at the Project site would result in an increase in the City’s population and an associated in demand for park services. The Project includes development of a private 4,200 sf amenity building including a fitness center and lounge area . The Project would not substantially increase the demand for park and recreation facilities and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated.

The parkland requirement for the Project (approximately 3.86 acres) would be met through payment of in-lieu fees in compliance with Quimby Act. Additionally, in compliance with MMC Section 16.36, the Property Owner/Developer would pay the applicable DIF collected for the purpose of constructing, expanding or rehabilitating the park facilities. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to the increased use and the potential for substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities. However, the General Plan EIRs identified a significant and unavoidable Project -level and cumulative impact related to park and recreational facilities due to an overall deficit in parkland based on the City’s estimated population and standard of 5 acres p er 1,000 residents. Although development at the Project site would have fewer units than allowed by the General Plan Update, the Project would contribute to the increased demand for park and recreational faci lities identified in the General Plan EIRs, but less than assumed in the General Plan EIRs due to the reduced units. Therefore, the Project would not have new impacts on recreation that were not disclosed and analyzed in the General Plan EIRs and evaluated in the Statements of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City as part of the approval of the General Plan 2035 and General Plan Update for the significant and unavoidable impacts related to park and recreational facilities. No new impact to recreatio n is anticipated with respect to development of the Project, there are no environmental effects that were not addressed as significant effects in General Plan EIRs and no potentially significant off- site impacts and cumulative impact which were not discussed in the General Plan EIRs and there is no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that could result in the Project hav ing a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs.

b. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

As identified under Threshold “a” , the Property Owner/Developer would adhere to applicable requirements for the provision of parkland. Any recreational facilities included in the proposed residential development, including recreational amenities for residents, would be within the physical impact area evaluated in this document . Therefore, t he physical environmental impacts associated with the construction activities for recreational facilities have been evaluated in the respective sections of this document and no additional impacts would result . T he Project would not involve the construction or expansion of any offsite existing recreational facilities . The Project would not have new impacts on

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-114
recreation that were not disclosed and analyzed in the General Plan EIRs and evaluated in the Statements of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City as part of the approval of the General Plans for the significant and unavoidable impacts related to park and recreational facilities. No new physical impacts associated with development of park facilities would result beyond those identified in this document, impacts would be less than significant and there are no environmental effects that were not addressed as significant effects in General Plan EIRs and no potentially significant off- site impacts and cumulative impact which were not discussed in the General Plan EIRs and there is no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that could result in the Project having a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs.

2.17 Transportation

2.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to transportation was addressed in Section 5.4, Traffic and Circulation, of the 2011 EIR. The 2020 SEIR provided analysis of transportation impacts for the General Plan Update in Section 4.2, Transportation.

As with the 2011 EIR, the 2020 SEIR determined that the General Plan Update would not substantially increase hazards due to design or incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access; Project and cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The 2011 EIR predates the 2018 change to State law that determined that “a project's effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” [ Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15064.3,], as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics. Therefore, the 2011 did not include an analysis of VMT impacts (with respect to transportation) resulting from implementation of the General Plan 2035. Notwithstanding, the 2011 EIR analysis of air quality impacts identifies that an increase in job -creating businesses would allow Murrieta residents to live and work in the same community.

Therefore, the amount of VMT would be substantially reduced, which correlates directly to a reduction in transportation-related air pollutant and GHG emissions, and the CAP includes several strategies and measures aimed at reducing VMT and energy consumption. The 2020 SEIR determined that the General Plan Update would result in a decrease in VMT compared to the General Plan 2035 (41.1 VMT per capita compared to 43.2 VMT per capita). Therefore, the 2020 SEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in less than significant Project and cumulative impacts related to VMT.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.17.2 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-115
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable
program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the
circulation system,
including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact.

City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element

Circulation System
The Project would pay its fair share of mitigation fees for traffic signals and offsite roadway improvements through the City of Murrieta DIF program, payment of the required WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUM F), and fair share payments to addres s intersection deficiencies the Project contributes to. The Project would not conflict with policies and regulations associated with the roadway circulation system.

Alternative Modes of Transportation

A
lternative modes of transportation mean any other way to commute other than driving alone. Examples include biking, walking, carpooling, and taking public transit. There are existing Class II (striped, on-r oad)
bike lanes along Whitewood Road along the western boundary of the Project site, which provide connections to other existing and planned Class II bikeway s in the area as shown on the Circulation Element Exhibit 5-4, Trails and Bikeways. According to the Circulation Element, Class II bicycle lanes are proposed along Whitewood Road and existing along Clinton Keith Road. The Project would implement

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-116
required bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the Project’s frontage . These facilities would improve connectivity for alternative modes of transportation in the area. The Project would not conflict with policies and regulations associated with alternatives modes of transportation.

Public Transit Services

The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) serves the City of Murrieta and provides local and regional bus service throughout Riverside County. The Project site is currently served by bus service along Clinton Keith Road.

RTA Route 61 extends from the Perris Transit Center on the north to Temecula on the south, and travels along various roadways through Sun City, Quail Valley, Menifee, and Murrieta. Relevant to the Project site, RTA Route 61 runs along Clinton Keith Road immediately southwest of the Project site .

Implementation of the Project would not interfere with existing transit routes, bus stops, or bus turnouts.

In summary, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. No impact would result.

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Information provided in this section was obtained from the Site -Specific Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (VMT Analysis) prepared for the Project by Urban Crossroads (Urban Crossroads, 2023d), and included in Technical Appendix J of this document. Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay -based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). Based on OPR’s Technical A dvisory, the City of Murrieta adopted their Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines (TIA Preparation Guidelines) in March 2021 (City of Murrieta, 2021).

Screening Criteria

The TIA Preparation Guidelines provide details on “Project Type Screening” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a project level assessment. Projects that meet project type screening include:

• Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet • Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips regardless of whether consistent with the General Plan or not. This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:
o A residential parcel map
o 11 single family housing units
o 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units o 10,000 sf of office

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-117
o 15,000 sf of light industrial
o 63,000 sf of warehouse
o Local-serving retail that primarily serves the City and/or adjacent cities • Office and other employment-related land uses reducing commutes outside the local area • Local-serving day care centers, pre-K and K-12 schools • Local parks and civic uses
• Local-serving gas stations, banks and hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels) • Local serving community colleges that are consistent with SCAG RTP/SCS assumptions • Student housing projects
As shown in the trip generation table included in the VMT Analysis, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,826 daily vehicle trips and the Project’s land use type is not included in the list of projects that meet the screening criteria above. Therefore, consistent with TIA Preparation Guidelines, further VMT analysis is required.

Limited VMT Analysis

As stated in the TIA Preparation Guidelines “projects not screened out using the process above shall perform a limited analysis of VMT expected to be generated by the project” (City of Murrieta, 2021). As noted in the TIA Preparation Guidelines, the results of this analysis will result in one of the following outcomes:

• VMT per service population is less than the land use assumed in the General Plan – Less than Significant VMT impact and no need for further analysis in a TIA for VMT • VMT per service population is more than the land use assumed in the General Plan - Likely Significant VMT impact and need for full analysis in a TIA for VMT

The Project site is within an area designated in the General Plan as MFR, which allows a maximum of 30.0 du/ac. As noted previously, the Project consists of 243 dwelling units on approximately 17.26 acres, which equals 15.1 dwelling units per acre, below the 30 dwelling units per acre threshold. The zoning for the site is MF-2, which allows for a maximum of 18.0 du/ac. The Project’s proposed density is consistent with the land use and zoning assumptions evaluated by the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map and would not generate VMT in excess of the land uses assumed in the General Plan.

Therefore, the anticipated residential land use densities for the proposed development at the Project site are below the underlying land use assumptions in the General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impact is less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the 2020 SEIR.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-118
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Access to the Project site would be provided from Whitewood Road and Arendt Lane. Project access would be constructed in compliance with recommended roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in the Murrieta Circulation Element and as directed by the City. Signing/striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the P roject site, which would be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works/Engineering.

Additionally, the Project site would be developed with uses permitted under the existing land use and zoning designations. The Project would not introduce incompatible uses. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no environmental effects that were not addressed as significant effects in General Plan EIRs and no potentially significant off- site impacts and cumulative impact which were not discussed in the General Plan EIRs and there is no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that could result in the Project having a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs.

d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Vehicular and emergency a ccess to the Project site would be provided from existing and proposed roadways constructed in compliance with recommended roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in the Murrieta Circulation Element and as directed by the City.

The roadway improvements implemented as part of the Project would improve overall access in the Project area. Consistent with Circulation Element Policy CIR -2.14, the existing and proposed roadways would ensure that safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles is provided. Furthermore, the Project’s development plans were reviewed by the Fire Department for emergency access. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access . Impacts would be less than significant and there are no environmental effects that were not addressed as significant effects in General Plan EIRs and no potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impact which were not discussed in the General Plan EIRs and there is no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that could result in the Project having a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the General Plan EIRs.

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

2.18.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
See Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, of this document for a summary of the prior analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR, which included analysis of resources Tribal concern. The 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-119

2.18.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project See Section 2.5, Cultural Resources , which identifies General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures incorporated into this document.

2.18.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defines in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is
a) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register
of Historical resources or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying for the
criteria set forth in (c) of
Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying for the criteria set forth in (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-120
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. As previously mentioned, the Project Archaeologist performed the cultural resources survey of the northwestern, northeastern, and southeastern parcels on January 13, 2022, and of the southwestern parcel on September 29, 2022. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the P roject area. Recon identified two previously unrecorded cultural resources (10041-ISO-01 and 10041.1NDY -01) within the 17.26- acre Project area during the field survey . These resources are discussed above in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources. The previously unrecorded cultural resources are not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic resources or in a local register of historic resources as defined in PRC section 4020.1(k)Additionally, as a result of AB 52 tribal consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, three potential cultural reburial sites totaling 1,775 s.f. were identified near the northern boundary of the Project site, in the event cultural resources are found during construction.

At the request of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians , are required by PCOA CUL-10, the potential cultural reburial sites located on the Project site would be avoided by Project development and preserved as part of Project site design . Additionally, as required by PCOA CUL -9, the Project shall comply with all requirements for the avoidance and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources and incorporate the utilization of controlled grading techniques and relocation of resources as provided under Confidential Exhibits, Figure 1, “Relocation Area,” and Figure 2, “Control Grading Area.”

Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures as outlined in Section 2.5 are incorporated into the Project. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the PCOAs described in Section 2.5. Following compliance with State regulations and with implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP MM CR-1 through MM CR-3, and PCOA -CUL-1 through PCOA-CUL-10, there are no peculiar effects with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs. No new mitigation is required.

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems

2.19.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Section 5.15 of the 2011 EIR evaluated impacts to water supplies and distribution systems that could result from the implementation of the General Plan 2035. The 2011 EIR determined that each of the water districts serving the City
7 would have adequate water supplies based on normal, dry, and multiple dry years and water shortage contingency plans to meet the future regional water needs through the year 2030. Future development would be reviewed by the City on a project -by-project ba sis to ensure adequate water supplies are available to accommodate future projects. New development would be required to pay its share of costs of infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate development anticipated by the General Plan 2035. With adherence to the General Plan 2035 policies identified in the Conservation Element and the MMC Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, compliance with the applicable Urban Water Management Plans, coordination between the City and water districts,

7 Rancho California Water District (Rancho California Water District), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), Wester Municipal Water District (WMWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-121
and water usage limits for each water district, the 2011 EIR concluded that impacts related to water supply and delivery would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the potential impacts or mitigation measures related to water supply was not affected by the General Plan Update, which would allow for an increase in residential uses because the General Plan Update involved a decrease in allowable non-residential uses. Additionally, the General Plan Update would adhere to the established General Plan policies. Thus, the 2020 SEIR concluded that water supply and infrastructure impacts (less than significant) remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR and no new mitigation measures were required.

Section 5.16 of the 2011 EIR identifies the nature and location of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities and existing related infrastructure for the City. Additionally, Section 5.16 provides an analysis of projected impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, as well as the estimated demands that could result from the implementation of the General Plan 2035. Wastewater collection for the City is provided by the same four water districts that deliver potable water to the City; however, only RCWD and EMWD provide wastewater treatment. The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 had the potential to result in an increase in the City’s population and businesses; thus, an overall increase in demand on the exist ing sewer system from increased sewage flows. Individual development would be reviewed by the City of Murrieta and the applicable water district to determine if sufficient sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. The applicable water distri ct would charge fees for connections to their sewage systems or increasing the strength and/or quality of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. The fees would mitigate the impact of the development on the sewage sys tem. The water districts would only allow new development to connect to their sewer systems if there is sufficient capacity or planned expansions of its facilities to accommodate new developments proposed. The 2011 EIR concluded that with the anticipated expansion of the EMWD and RCWD treatment facilities, City coordination with the water districts, implementation of the General Plan 2035 policies, and mitigation measures (General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM WW-1 through MM WW-3), impacts would be less than significant.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the potential impacts or mitigation measures related to wastewater was not affected by the General Plan Update. While the General Plan Update would increase residential uses, the General Plan Update also included a reduction in the non-residential uses to be developed. The 2020 SEIR concluded that with City coordination with the water districts, implementation of the General Plan goal and policies, and mitigation measures (WW -1, WW -2, and WW -3) from the 2011 EIR requiring individual development projects to verify sufficient wastewater transmission and treatment plant capacity is available to serve the proposed development, impacts would remain less than significant. Thus, the 2020 SEIR concluded that wastewater impacts remained unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR (less than significant impacts) and no new mitigation measures were applied.

Section 5.21 of the 2011 EIR identified the potential solid waste impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan 2035. The 2011 EIR determined that the majority of solid waste generated within the City is disposed of at the El Sobrante Landfill. Compliance with City and County waste reduction programs and policies would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Individual development projects within the City would be required to comply with applicable State and local

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-122
regulations, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste by at least 50 percent. Nonetheless, buildout associated with implementation of the General Plan 2035 would increase the volume of solid waste generated in the City that is diverted to existing landfi lls, thus contributing to the acceleration of landfill closures or the use of more distant sites. However, the closure dates for the various landfills range from 2013 until 2067. Combined remaining capacities at the landfills would be adequate to accommodate the buildout of the General Plan 2035. The General Plan Conservation Element includes policies that address opportunities to reduce solid waste generation and disposal within the City. Additionally, future developments resulting from the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure that solid waste disposal services and landfill facilities would be available to serve the development. All development projects would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The 2011 EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the potential impacts or mitigation measures related to solid waste was not affected by the General Plan Update. While the General Plan Update would increase residential uses, the General Plan Update included a reduction in the non -residential uses to be developed. Additionally, the combined remaining capacities at the existing landfills would be adequate to accommodate the building of the General Plan Update. Moreover, future developments resulting from the implementation of th e General Plan Update would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure that solid waste disposal services and landfill facilities would be available to serve the development. All development projects would be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Thus, the impacts resulting from the General Plan Update would be consistent with the impacts identified in the 2011 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) remains unchanged from tha t cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures were required.

Section 5.22 of the 2011 EIR evaluated potential electricity and natural gas impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan 2035. Electrical power is provided within the City of Murrieta by Southern California Edison (SCE). The City of Murrieta receives its natural gas service from Southern California Gas Company (SCG). The 2011 EIR determined that the implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in an increased electricity demand and that SCE would be able to serve the projected buildout. It is anticipated that service demands created by implementation of the General Plan 2035 would be within the service parameters of SCE current and future transmission and service infrastructure.

SCE would update existing facilities or add new facilitie s in the City as needed throughout the life of the General Plan 2035. Financial responsibility for any updates or additional facilities would be in accordance with SCE’s rules and tariffs. All new developments that require new electricity lines to be installed would be required to pay applicable fees assessed by SCE to extend electricity lines to serve a specific project site. SCE would not provide service to new developments if there were not adequate electricity supplies and infrastructure to maintain existing service levels and meet the anticipated electricity demands of the specific development requesting service. In addition, all new construction in the State of California is subject to the energy conservation standards set forth in Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 of the California Code of Regulations. These are prescriptive standards that establish maximum energy consumption levels for the heating and cooling of new buildings. Furthermore, the General Plan 2035 includes policies related to conservation and energy efficiency in the Infrastructure and Conservation Elements. Adherence to these

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-123
building practices would reduce the demand for electricity. Therefore, the 2011 EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required.

The 2011 EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in an increased natural gas demand and that SCG would be able to serve the projected increase. Each project would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, which means that natura l gas sources and infrastructure to serve the project(s) would be planned for well in advance of project construction. Additionally, Infrastructure and Conservation Elements policies would also be applicable to all future development projects requiring natural gas. Therefore, the 2011 EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan 2035 would result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that the discussion of potential impacts or mitigation measures related to electric and natural gas infrastructure were not affected by the General Plan Update. While the General Plan Update would increase residential uses, the General Plan Update included a reduction in the non - residential uses to be developed. Each project would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and electricity and natural gas sources and infrastructure to serve future project(s) would be planned for well in advance of project construction and would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulation, and relevant General Plan goals and policies related to electricity and natural gas. Thus, impacts related to electric and natural gas infras tructure resulting from the General Plan Update would be consistent with the impacts identified in the 2011 EIR and the level of impact (less than significant) would remain unchanged from that cited in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures were identified.

Cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems were determined to be less than significant in the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM WW-1 through MM WW-3.

The analyses from the 2011 EIR and 2020 SEIR are incorporated by reference in this document.

2.19.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project The following applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP are incorporated into the Project and will be included in the MMRP for the Project.

WW-1 Prior to issuance of a wastewater permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall pay applicable connection and/or user fees to RCWD, EVMWD, WMWD, or EMWD.

WW-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall prepare an engineering study to support the adequacy of the sewer systems and submit the engineering study to the City for review and approval. Any improvements recommended in the engineering study shall be installed prior to the certificate of occupancy for the development project.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-124
WW-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence that the RCWD, EVMWD, WMWD, or EMWD has sufficient wastewater transmission and treatment plant capacity to accept sewage flows from buildings for which building permits are being requested.

2.19.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural
gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Result in a determination
by the wastewater
treatment provider which
serves or may serve the
project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-125
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management
and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . EMWD and Metropolitan provide water service to the Project site, following the Project site’s annexation into the water districts, and EMWD provides sewer service to the Project site. The City owns/maintains public storm drain systems.

As shown on Figure 1-13, Conceptual Utility Plan, the Project would include the installation of the water, sewer and storm drain lines that would serve the proposed development. The proposed utility lines would connect to existing utility infrastructure in the roadways surrounding the Project site. The proposed utility infrastructure would also be installed in accordance with the requirements of the respective utility providers.

SCE provides electricity, SCG provides natural gas, Frontier provides telecommunication, and Comcast provides cable television service to the Project site. The Project would connect to the existing dry utility infrastructure within the surrounding roadways.

The installation of the proposed infrastructure improvements would result in physical environmental impacts; however, these impacts have already been included in the analyses of construction -related effects presented throughout this document . As identified through the analysis presented in this document, with implementation of required General Plan EIR mitigation measure s, the construction of infrastructure necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment. The project would have a less than significant impact with respect to construction of new facilities to provide water, wastewater treatment or to address storm drainage and no additional mitigation measures beyond the General Plan EIR mitigation measures identified throughout this document for potential construction impacts would be required. With implementation of those mitigation measures, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-126
and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs and no additional mitigation measures are required.

b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . EMWD, using water provided by Metropolitan, would provide water to the Project site , following the Project’s site annexation into the water districts. According to EMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), EMWD’s has sufficient water supply to meet demands from 2020 to 2045 under normal, historic, and multiple dry years (EMWD, 2021a). EMWD’s 2020 UWMP uses general plans from jurisdictions within its service area to estimate projected water demands . Because the Project site would be developed with uses permitted under the existing General Plan land use designations, the Project site’s anticipated water demand was accounted for in EMWD’s 2020 UWMP. Because the UWMP demonstrates that the EMWD would have sufficient water supplies, including groundwater, to meet water demands within its district through 2045 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, it can therefore be concluded that there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve th e Project and reasonably foreseeable future development.

Additionally, EMWD would provide water pressure to sufficiently serve the Project site and provide adequate on-site fire hydrants and sprinkler systems . Therefore, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIRs, water supply impacts would be less than significant and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The EMWD Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVWRF) would treat wastewater generated at the Project site. Following an expansion in 2018, the TVRWRF currently has capacity to treat 23 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD) and typically treats approximately 14 MGD (EMWD, 2021b). Located in the central commercial area of Temecula, this plant maintains only 50 m illion gallons of temporary on -site storage. When additional storage is required, the Temecula plant pumps reclaimed water north 10 miles to the storage ponds in Winchester. As an alterna tive, another pipeline can deliver recycled water to the Lake Elsinore area. The expansion project included new primary, secondary, ter tiary, solids handling, and effluent pumping facil ities/storage to provide 5 MGD additional total capacity . The anticipated future development at the Project site is consistent with that anticipated in the General Plan Update, and would not exceed the treatment capacity of the TVWRF , which was recently expanded to accommodate additional flows associated with projected growth . Further, as required by General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measure MM WW -2, prior to the issuance of any building permits for future development, evidence that the EMWD has sufficient wastewater transmission and treatment plant capacity to accept sewage flows from the proposed buildings would be required. Consistent with the conclusion of the

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-127
General Plan EIRs, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to provision of wastewater treatment and the TVWRF has the capacity to serve the Project and meet existing demands.

With implementation of MM WW -2, which implement s uniformly applied development policies or standards previously adopted by the city or county, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Waste Management, Inc. would provide solid waste hauling for the Project site . It is expected that s olid waste generated at the Project site would be transported primarily to the El Sobrante Landfill, which has a daily permitted tonnage of 16,054 (CalRecycle, 2023). The Project would generate solid waste during construction and operation, consistent with that anticipated in the 2020 SEIR for future development implementing the General Plan Update, and would be subject to established local and state regulations related to diversion of solid waste from landfills. The Project would not generate solid waste beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan Update. Therefore, the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity, and impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs, and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

e. Would the project comply with federal, s tate, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste.

Construction activities associated with the Project would adhere to CALGreen Code requirements, which are implemented through the MMC Chapter 15.47, California Green Building Standards Code, and require that at least 65% of construction and demolition debris be diverted from landfills through recycling, reuse, and/or salvage.

Compliance with applicable practices enacted by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and any other applicable local, State, and federal solid waste management regulations is also required. AB 939 required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The diversion goal has been increased to 75 % by 2020 by SB 341.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-128
The proposed r esidential uses at the Project site would be required to comply with all applicable solid waste statutes and regulations; therefore, no conflict with these requirements would occur. There are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

2.20 Wildfire

2.20.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Wildfire was added in December 2018 as a topic in the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 5.17 of the 2011 EIR included a discussion of the regulatory setting related to fire protection in the City. The 2020 SEIR provided analysis of wildfire impacts for the General Plan Update in Section 4.5, Wildfire. The 2020 SEIR determined that City does not have defined evacuation routes; however, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) addresses the planned response to emergency situations. Future developments in the City would be subject to the City’s development review process and would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction and access to the site. The General Plan Update includes existing and/or revised policies that are intended to identify strategies that ensure the capacity and resilience of escape routes. The 2020 SEIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan Update would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The 2020 SEIR determined that future development pursuant to the General Plan Update has the potential to exacerbate wildfire risks and expose individuals to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The General Plan Update incorporates policies that specifically address wildland fires to reduce the incidence of damage to life and property from wildfires, and incorporates mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures (MM FP-1 through MM FP-4) which require the preparation of fuel modification plans and sufficient water supply during construction.

The 2020 SEIR concluded that with the implementation of applicable General Plan policies and mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

The 2020 SEIR determined that future development pursuant to the Update would result in the development of the same land analyzed in the 2011 EIR, and could expose people or structures to risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Development associated with the General Plan Update would be subject to the MMC and applicable General Plan policies, including new policies in the General Plan Update to reduce wildfire related risks, and the 2020 SEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative impacts related to wildfires were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM FP-1 through MM FP-4.

The analysis from the 2011 EIR is incorporated by reference in this document.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-129

2.20.2 Applicable General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Incorporated to the Project Refer to General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM FP-1 through FP-4 in Section 2.15.2.

2.20.3 Project Environmental Review
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose
project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other
utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Information provided in this section was obtained from the Project-specific Fire Protection Plan (FPP) (Technical Appendix K) (Dudek, 2024), prepared for the Project by Dudek.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-130
The Project site is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone with a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, among other factors with more hazardous sites, including steep terrain, unmaintained fuels/vegetation, and W ildland Urban Interface (WUI) locations. Projects situated in VHFHSZ’s require fire hazard analysis and the application of fire protection measures to create ignition-resistant structures and defensible communities within these WUI locations. VHFHSZ designations do not, in and of themselves, indicate that it is unsafe to build in these areas.

a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site is located within the Murietta Fire and Rescue (MFR) response area, which includes the corporate limits of the city of Murietta.

MFR Station 4, located at 28155 Baxter Road, is staffed 24/7 with career firefighters and would provide initial response. It is equipped with one engine company, a brush engine and Battalion Chief. Station 4 would be capable of responding within 3.2 minutes. Secondary response would be provided from MFR Station 2, which is located at 40060 California Oaks Road, and can respond within 6 minutes. Station 2 is staffed 24-hours per day and houses a Truck and Medic Patrol unit. (Dudek, 2024)

The City of Murrieta EOP was adopted June 2017 and is the City’s current emergency response plan (City of Murrieta, 2017) . The City ’s EOP addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergencies associated with natural disasters, national security emergencies, and technological incidents. In addition, the EOP describes the City’s EOC operations, the central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the various City departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities.

The Project site is not identified as an emergency facility or serve as an emergency evacuation route. The City has no defined evacuation routes; however, the WRCOG identifies I-15 and I-215 as evacuation routes within the City. The Project does not propose any changes to the identified emergency evacuation routes.

The Project would not obstruct emergency ingress/egress to and through the Project’s vicinity due to road closures or other Project actions. Rather, as discussed in Section 2.17, Transportation, of this document, the Project involves the roadway improvements within and adjacent to the Project site . These roadway improvements would adhere to City roadway design standards and would serve to improve emergency access and evacuation in the area, including emergency access from MFR.

Construction activities along existing roadways may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic hazards.

However, these temporary changes to the existing roadway network require the approval of the City and notification to all emergency responders. Adherence to City requirements would ensure that temporary roadway restrictions would not interfere with emergency responses.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, resulting in a less than significant impact , consistent with the conclusion of the General Plan EIRs, and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-131
b. Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . The site is fairly flat with elevations that range from approximately 1,385 amsl in the southeast corner to 1,480 feet amsl along the western boundary. The prevailing wind pattern is from the west (on-shore), but the presence of the Pacific Ocean causes a diurnal wind pattern known as the land/sea breeze system. During the day, winds are from the west–southwest (sea), and at night winds are from the northeast (land). The highest wind velocities are associated with downslope, canyon, and Santa Ana winds. Wildfire behavior on the Project site is expected to be primarily of moderate to high intensity through the non -maintained surface grass -shrub/shrub- chaparral dominated fuels directly adjacent to the Project site. The most common type of fire anticipated in the vicinity of the Project Area is a wind -driven fire from the north/northeast, moving through the chaparral and sage scrub on the adjacent lands.

As required by General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures MM FP-1 and MM FP-2, a Fuel Modification Plan was prepared for the Project site. The Project’s buildings would also be designed in compliance with applicable provisions of the California Building Code and local and State fire code requirements, including provision of fire hydrants, fire flow requirements, street/aerial access for emergency vehicles, and sprinkler systems within the proposed buildings.

With implementation of the FPP ( Technical Appendix K ) required by General Plan MMRP mitigation measure MM FP-1, the Project would be designed with the latest fire protection measures, including fuel modification along the perimeter edges of the development. As discussed in the FPP, the structures along the northern portion of the Project site cannot achieve the required 100 feet of FMZ due to lot constraints and boundary limitations. While the FMZs for the Project cannot achieve the required 100 feet of FMZ, the FPP identified Project design features that would adequately reduce potential impacts due to wildfires. The Project would be designed to include the following alternative FMZ compliance features:

• Application of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, ignition resistant requirements along with applicable sections of the 2022 CRC, including Section R302, subsection 302.2.2.

• Minimum 1-hour rated exterior walls and doors.

• Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or be tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12 -7A-2. For structures located along the northern edge of the property unable to achieve the full 100 feet of FMZs, dual pane dual tempered glass windows will be installed on exposed sides of residential structures.

• Ember resistant vents (recommend BrandGuard or similar vents).

• Installation of an NFPA 13D, automatic residential interior fire sprinkler system within each individual townhouse unit to code for occupancy type.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-132
• Low home ignitability, including construction materials and 10 meters of vegetation modification.

• Non-combustible, heat-deflecting wall 6 feet in height along the northern Project boundary.

Refer to t he Project-specific FPP ( Appendix K) for a detailed discussion on proposed FMZs and Project Design Features.

The potential for off-site wildfire encroaching on, or showering embers on the site is considered moderate to high, but the risk of ignition from such encroachments or ember showers is considered low based on the type of ignition resistant landscapes and c onstruction and fire protection features that would be provided for the structures. The Project would include a robust fire protection system, as detailed in the Project’s FPP (Technical Appendix K). In addition, the FPP describes additional measures that would be implemented to mitigate the non-conforming fire-related threats and reduce fuel modification zone. The mitigation measures include fire safety requirements related to fire apparatus access, ignition resistant construction, fire protection systems, infrastructure and fire protection systems, d efensible space and vegetation management, and a wildfire education program. The mitigation measures would support the ability of the proposed structures throughout the development and FMZs to withstand the predicted short duration, moderate to high-intensity wildfire, and ember shower that would be expected from a wildfire burning in the vicinity of the site or within the site’s landscape . Therefore, the Project would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and impacts would be less than significant after implementation of General Plan EIR MMRP MM FP-1 through FP-4 and PCOA-WF-1. Therefore, there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project would be designed to comply with applicable portions of the Murrieta Fire Prevention Standards. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 7A (or current edition at the time of construction); 2019 edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), Chapter 49 (or current edition at the time of construction); and the 20 18 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC) as adopted and amended by MFR Municipal Code (Chapter 15.24 Fire Code) . The Project would meet all applicable fire and building code requirements for building s in these higher fire hazard areas or meet the intent of the code through the application of Project site-specific fire protection measures, as detailed in the Project’s FPP. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of any associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Therefore, installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. There would not be any environmental impacts associated with the operation of onsite roadways and utility

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-133
infrastructure required for fire protection services. Therefore, similar to the conclusions of the 2020 SEIR, impacts would be less than significant and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. The Project site occurs in a portion of Murrieta that does not contain prominent hill formations or other topographic features that could subject the Project site or surrounding areas to risks associated with flooding or landslides caused by wildfires.

Additionally, as previously discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not substantially alter the site’s existing drainage pattern, and the site’s existing infrastructure would have the capacity to accommodate the Project’s total runoff flow to prevent the potential of flooding hazards downstream. Accordingly, there are no components of the Project that could contribute to or cause significant risks to people or str uctures as a result of fire related flooding or landslides resulting from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As such, impacts would be less than significant , consistent with the conclusions of the 2020 SEIR and there are no peculiar effects not addressed in the General Plan EIRs, no significant environmental effects of the Project that have not been “adequately addressed” in the General Plan EIRs and no new information not known at the time the 2020 SEIR was certified that shows that the Project’s effects will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIRs.

Project Conditions of Approval

Although the following PCOAs pertaining to fuel modification were not included in the General Plan EIR MMRP, the General Plan EIRs acknowledge that a fuel modification plan may be needed, and the General Plan Update includes various goals and policies related to wildfire . The City routinely requires fuel modification conditions of approval for any new development within the City on properties where a fuel modification plan is needed. As such, the following PCOAs comprise conditions of approval that are routinely applied by the City to new development projects to ensure compliance with local, State, and federal regulations.

PCOA WF-1 The Project would be designed to include the following alternative FMZ compliance features:

a. Application of Chapter 7A of the 2022 California Building Code, ignition resistant requirements.

b. Minimum 1-hour rated exterior walls and doors.

c. Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane. For structures located along the northern edge of the property unable to achieve the full 100 feet of FMZs,

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-134
dual-pane dual -tempered glass windows will be installed on the exposed sides of residential structures.

d. Ember-resistant vents.

e. Automatic, interior fire sprinkler system to code for occupancy type.

f. Low home ignitability, including construction materials and 10 meters of vegetation modification.

g. Non-combustible, concrete masonry unit (CMU)heat-deflecting wall 6 feet in height (lower 1 to 2 feet block wall and upper 4 to 5 feet dual pane, one pane tempered glazing or a six -foot high CMU block wall) along the northern edge of the property where 100 feet of fuel modification is not feasible.

PCOA-WF-2 Prior to issuance of buildings permits, the City of Murrieta Building and Safety Division shall confirm wildland/on-site open space area exposed sides of the structures along the northern side and in the northwest portion of the Project site, respectively, include 5/8- inch Type X fire rated gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior covering or cladding (stucco or exterior siding) on the exterior side of the framing, from the foundation to the roof. This requirement shall apply for facade s facing the open space and naturally vegetated areas.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-135

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issue Areas
Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Project Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
Previous
Documentation
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Does the project have the
potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or
animal community,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the
range of a rare or
endangered plant or
animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major period of California
history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that
the incremental effects of
a project are considerable
when viewed in
connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects
of other current projects,
and the effects of probable
future projects.)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-136
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . As discussed in Section 2.4, Section

2.5, and Section 2.18 impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with incorporation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures , and PCOAs. As indicated throughout the analysis in this document, assuming the incorporation of General Plan EIR MMRP mitigation measures and the PCOAs identified herein, the implementation of the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation . Based on the analysis presented in this document, Project-level impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. The General Plan EIRs identified a significant and unavoidable Project-level and cumulative impact related to park and recreational facilities due to an overall deficit in parkland based on the City’s estimated population and standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. As further discussed in Section 2.16 above, the parkland requirement for the Project (approximately 3.86 acres) would be met through payment of in- lieu fees in compliance with Quimby Act. Additionally, in compliance with MMC Section 16.36, the Property Owner/Developer would pay the applicable DIF collected for the purpose of constructing, expanding or rehabilitating the park facilities. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to the need to provide new or expanded park and recreational facilities, and the potential for substantial physical deterioration of park and recreation facilities. However, although future development at the Project site is expected to have fewer units than allowed by the General Plan Update for development at the site and would mitigate the impacts of the Project to a less than significant level, the future development would contribute to the cumulative increased demand for park and recreational facilities identified in the General Plan EIRs. This impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIRs and Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City as part of the approval of the General Plans for the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to park and recreational facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts of the Project have been previously considered and addressed by the City in connection with its adoption of the 2035 General Plan and General Plan Update.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 2.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 2-137
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Previous Documentation. With development of the Project site, the Project could create environmental effects that would directly or indirectly cause adverse effects on human beings. These impacts include, but are not limited to, noise, air quality, geology, hazards, hydrology and water quality, and wildfire . As described in detail in this document, adherence to General Plan policies, implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and Project conditions of approval, impacts would be less than significant. No significant and unavoidable impacts on human beings would occur with the Project.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 3.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 3-1

3.0 References
Cited As Reference
(CalRecycle, 2023) CalRecycle. (2022). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217).

Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID =2402

(Caltrans, 2023) Caltrans. (202 3). State Scenic Highway Viewer. Retrieved from https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c4 6cc8e8057116f1aacaa

(CDC, 2018) CDC. (2018). California Important Farmland Finder . Retrieved from California Department of Conservation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/

(CDC, 2014) CDC. (2014). Mineral Land Classification . Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?m ap=mlc

(City of Murrieta, 2020a) City of Murrieta. (2020a). General Plan 2035. Retrieved from https://www.murrietaca.gov/303/General-Plan-2035

(City of Murrieta, 2020b) City of Murrieta. (2020 b). City of Murrieta Parks. Retrieved from City of Murrieta:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b1ccc365467f4225a39827ddb6686bc4

(City of Murrieta, 2020c) City of Murrieta. (2020 c). City of Murrieta Zoning Map. Retrieved from https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4374/Murrieta-Zoning- Mappdf
(City of Murrieta, 2017) City of Murrieta. (2017). Murrieta EOP Part 1 Basic Plan. Retrieved from https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/714/Emergency- Operations-Plan-Basic-Plan-PDF

(City of Murrieta, 2023) City of Murrieta. (2023). Murrieta Police Department . Retrieved from City of Murrieta:
https://www.murrietaca.gov/153/Police

(City of Murrieta, 2021) City of Murrieta. (2021). Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4205/Murrieta-TIA- Preparation-Guidelines-March-2021?bidId=

(DOF, 2023) DOF. (202 3). Table E -1. Retrieved from
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/

(DTSC, 2023) DTSC. (202 3). EnviroStor. Retrieved from DTSC:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=+28680+Clinto n+Keith+Road++murrieta%2C+ca

(DWR, 2022a) DWR. (2022a, March 21). Basin Prioritization Map. Retrieved from https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/basin- prioritization

Oakcrest Townhome Project 3.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 3-2

(DWR, 2022b) DWR. (2022b, March 21). Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) .

Retrieved from California Department of Water Resources:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA- Groundwater-Management

(Dudek, 2024) Dudek. (2024). Fire Protection Plan. Included as Technical Appendix K.

(EMWD, 2021a) EMWD. (2021a). 2020 UWMP. Retrieved from:
https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721

(EMWD, 2021b) EMWD. (2021b). TVRWRF fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/tvrwrffactsheet.pdf?1620227175

(FEMA, 2020) FEMA. (2020). National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette . Retrieved from FEMA FIRM:
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/agolprint b_gpserver/j9807a35780424454ab0a8d76b9741644/scratch/FIRMETTE_d25 541d0-a881-41ad-8855-e99e0127b889.pdf

(Leighton, 2022) Leighton. (2022). Phase I ESA. Included as Technical Appendix G.

(Recon, 2024) Recon. (2023). Cultural Resources Survey Report. Included as Technical Appendix D.

(ALUC, 2012) Riverside County ALUC. (2012). French Valley Airport ALUCP. Retrieved April 19, 2022, from https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/15%20 -
%20Vol.%201%20French%20Valley%20Amd%202011.pdf?ver=2016-08-15- 151151-090

(San Diego RWQCB, 2021) San Diego RWQCB. (2021). Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.

Retrieved from
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_pl an/#:~:text=The%20Water%20Quality%20Control%20Plan,available%20in%2 0electronic%20format%20only.

(SCAG, 2019) SCAG. (2019). Local Profile of the City of murrieta . Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/murrieta_localprofile.pdf?1606013525
.
(SCAG, 2020) SCAG. (2020a). Connect SoCal. Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176

(Urban Crossroads,
2024a)
Urban Crossroads. (2023a). AQ & EA Assessment. Included as Technical Appendix B.1.

(Urban Crossroads,
2023a)
Urban Crossroads. (2023b). Construction Health Risk Assessment. Included as Technical Appendix B.2.

Oakcrest Townhome Project 3.0 References
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 3-3
(Urban Crossroads,
2023c)
Urban Crossroads. (2023b). GHG (CAP Consistency Checklist) Assessment. Included as Technical Appendix F.
(Urban Crossroads,
2024c)
Urban Crossroads. (2023d). Noise Impact Analysis. Included as Technical Appendix I. (Urban Crossroads,
2023d)
Urban Crossroads. (2023d). VMT Analysis. Included as Technical Appendix J. (USCB, 2010) USCB. (2010). Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters: 2010. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-
data/maps/reference/2010UAUC_List.pdf
(USGS, n.d.) USGS. (n.d.). U.S. Landslide Inventory. Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/tools/us- landslide-inventory
(Wilson, 2023a) Wilson. (2023a). WQMP. Included as Technical Appendix H1. (Wilson, 2023b) Wilson. (2023b). Preliminary Hydrology Report. Included as Technical Appendix H2 (WRA, 2024) WRA. (2023). Biological Resources Technical Report. Included as Technical Appendix C

Oakcrest Townhome Project 4.0 Preparers
Lead Agency: City of Murrieta Page 4-1

4.0 Preparers
City of Murrieta (Lead Agency)

Chris Tracy, AICP Senior Planner

T&B Planning, Inc. (Preparation of the Initial Study)

Tracy Zinn, Principal

Emilie Colwell, Project Manager

Justin Nguyen, Environmental Analyst

Delaney Tax, Environmental Analyst

Cristina Maxey, Senior GIS/Graphics Specialist

Rhea Smith, GIS/Graphics Technician