Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitchell Crossing Project
City of Murrieta, California
Prepared for:

City of Murrieta
26442 Beckman Court
Murrieta, CA 92562
951.461.6063
Murrieta
Contact: Paul Swancott, Associate Planner
Prepared by:

Michael Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909.884.2255
Contact: Bob Prasse, Senior Project Manager
March 9, 2010
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitchell Crossing Project
City of Murrieta, California
Prepared for:

City of Murrieta
26442 Beckman Court
Murrieta, CA 92562
951.461.6063
Murrieta
Contact: Paul Swancott, Associate Planner
Prepared by:

Michael Brandman Associates
621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
909.884.2255
Contact: Bob Prasse, Senior Project Manager
March 9, 2010 (Amended 8/17/2010)
City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction ..1

1.1 - Purpose. 1

1.2 - Project Location.. ...1

1.3 - Project Description ...1

1.4 - Existing Conditions .2

1.4.1 - Description of Project Site ...2

1.4.2 - Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning 22 |
Section 2: Environmental Checklist.. ...9
Section 3: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation .. ...19

3.1 - Aesthetics. 19

3.2 - Agricultural Resources.. ...20

3.3 - Air Quality...... ...21

3.4 - Biological Resources 3230

3.5 - Cultural Resources. 3533

3.6 - Geology and Soils... 3634

3.7 - Greenhouse Gas 4038

3.8 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4745

3.9 - Hydrology and Water Quality... .5048

3.10 - Land Use and Planning .. 5351

3.11 - Mineral Resources. 5452

3.12 - Noise.. ....5553

3.13 - Population and Housing... ..6058

3.14 - Public Services . 6259

3.15 - Recreation.. ...6461

3.16 - Transportation/Traffic ..6462

3.17 - Utilities and Service Systems 6865

3.18 - Mandatory Findings of Significance. ...7169
Section 4: List of Preparers ..7571

4.1 - IS/MND Project Team Personnel ..7571

4.2 - Persons Consulted ..7672
Section 5: References......................... ..............772 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JNI423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL I.dec|423 0014 IS MND 4thfinal3 9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Table of Contents Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF APPENDICES
(Located on attached CD)
Appendix A: URBEMIS2007 Data
Appendix B: Biological Resources (Thomas Leslie Corporation) Appendix C: Cultural Resources
Appendix D: Geotechnical
Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas
Appendix F: Hazardous Materials
Appendix G: Hydrology
Appendix H: Noise
Appendix I: Traffic

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Estimated Site Buildout Summary ... ...2
Table 3-1: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (w/o Mitigation) 23 Table 3-2: Best Available Control Measures - SCAQMD Rule 403 .24 Table 3-3: Daily Operational Emissions (Without Mitigation) . .25 Table 3-4: Summary of Construction LST Assessment (without Mitigation).. ..26 Table 3-5: Results of the CO Hot Spot Assessment 3129
Table 3-6: Construction Exhaust Carbon Dioxide Emissions. 4240 Table 3-7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (without Project Design Features or Mitigation)... 4341
Table 3-8: Consistency with Applicable Scoping Plan Reduction Measures.. 4442 Table 3-9: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases, Estimated Reductions).. 4745 Table 3-10: Noise Associated with Typical Construction Equipment.. 5856

LIST OF EXHIBITS
| Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map........ .43
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Aerial Map........ ..5
Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity USGS Map...... ...7
iv Michael Brandman Associates
| l H:IPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls Mnd FINALI.decl423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3 9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with the Mitchell Crossing Project. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zone change.

This IS has been prepared in acordance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Murrieta CEQA Guidelines.

Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Murrieta ("City") is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this proposed IS. Granite Construction Services, LP is the sponsor and Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is the environmental consultant to the City, which has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the project.

The intended use of this Initial Study is to provide adequate environmental analysis related to proposed project construction and operational activities. This IS will be used by the City of Murrieta (Lead Agency) in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Mitchell Crossing project.

The remainder of this section provides a description of the project location and the characteristics of the project. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential environmental impacts that would or would not result from project implementation. Section 3 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist and provides a detailed explanation of each determination.

1.2 - Project Location
The project is located in the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California, and is approximately 28 gross acres (23.5 net acres) in area (See Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map). Specifically, the project site is bordered by Clinton Keith Road and Catt Road to the south, Duster Road to the west and Fireman's Circle to the north and is located aproximately 0.50 mile east of the I-215 Freeway (See Exhibit 2, Local Aerial Map). The property is located in Section 34 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West as indicated on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Murrieta quadrangle map (See Exhibit 3, Local Vicinity USGS Map). The Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) for the proposed project include 392-230-018, 392-230-019, 392-230-020, 392-230-021, 392-230-022, 392- 230-023, 392-230-024, 392-230-024, 392-230-025, 392-230-026 and 392-230-027.

1.3 - Project Description
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from the Rural Residential (RR) District to Multi-Family 1, Residential (MF-1) for 5.5- 12.2 net acres, Multi-Family 2, Residential (MF-2) District for +2.5- 9.5 net acres and the Regional Commercial District- Neighborhood Commercial for 5.5- 5.0 acres. The RR Zone currently allows for up to 0.4 dwelling unit (du) per acre. Buildout of the entire 28 gross acre site under the current zoning would yield a total of Michael Brandman Associates 1
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED_8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL 1.doel 423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Table of Contents Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approximately 11 single-family units. Table 1-1 shows the estimated buildout for each of the three proposed zones/land use designations.

Table 1-1: Estimated Site Buildout Summary
Proposed Zones Net Acres Square Foot Dwelling Units
Multi Family 1, Residential (MF-1) 5.5- 12.2 82-183
Multi Family 2, Residential (MF-2) 12.5-9.5 225-171
Regional Commercial (R.C): 5.5- 60,000= -
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 5.5 30,000
Total 23.5- 60,000- 307-

27.2 30,000 354
This analysis is based upon the estimated future buildout of the Project of 307-354 multi-family residential units and a maximum of 60,00030,000 square feet commercial development in the 5.5-acre project site. In particular, these buildout factors provide the bases for the traffic, air quality, noise and climate change analyses provided in this document. When specific development projects are submitted they will be evaluated to determine whether they are consistent with the development factors/assumptions used in this document. If it is determined that they are not consistent additional environmental review may be necessary for the specific development project proposed. The changes to the multi-family zoning were to enhance the transition from the multi-family designations to the single-family designations The net result of the changes does not require any further analysis.

1.4 - Existing Conditions

1.4.1 - Description of Project Site
In general, the topography of the project site and vicinity slightly slopes to the south and southwest.

The general elevation of the project site is 1,525 feet above mean sea level (msl) with a difference of less than approximately 25 feet across the entire site. Vegetation consists of a moderate to dense cover of annual weeds and grasses along with numerous trees. The onsite vegetation identified was broadly classified into three vegetation categories; Non-Native Grassland (NNG), Chaparral (Ch), and Developed, Disturbed Land (DDL). An unnamed ephemeral drainage and its tributary traverse the project site along the eastern boundary. The drainage flows south to existing culverts that pass under Clinton Keith Road. The project site has been developed with several rural residential structures since the late 1960s or early 1970s. However, the recent site visit indicated that the previous residential houses have been demolished and currently there is only one residential home and a barn located along the northern boundary of the project site, specifically within the APN 392-230-021.

The site reconnaissance indicated that the northeast and southeast portion of the project site contains scattered demolition debris, water lines and gas lines associated with the demolished residences.

1.4.2 - Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
The existing land uses in the adjacent properties include Rural Residential to the north, Unimproved Regional Commercial, and Multi Family-2 to the east, Clinton Keith Road to the south and Rural ~ Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mind FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Me FINAL 1d0e1123-0011IS MID-4thinal?-9.dea City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Residential to the west. The project site is designated for Rural Residential uses in the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The zoning of the adjacent properties include Rural Residential to the north, Regional Commercial to the east, Murrieta Oaks SPM 10 (across Clinton Keith Road) to the south and Rural Residential to the west.

Michael Brandman Associates 3
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAl._I.deel423-0014_ISMND_4thfinal3-9.doe Moreno Valley Beaumont
Perris
Reservoir
Nuevo
Perris San Jacinto
Project Site "East"Hemet
Hemet
Sun City Winchester
Railroad
Canyon
Reservoir
Lake Elsinore
Lake
Elsinore
County
Orange - Project Site
Wildomar
Cleveland NF
Murrieta
Temecula
Vail Lake
-. - Riverside County
San Diego County
Cleveland NF
Fallbrook
Camp Pendleion North
Packic
Осейи
Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS 2009.

Exhibit 1
" Miles Regional Location Map
14230014 • 01/2010 | 1_regional.mxd CITY OF MURRIETA • MITCHELL CROSSING

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BM 1586
Spring *Prospect
* PrOSDeCIs
Project Site
Source: TOPO! USGS Murrieta (1979) 7.5' DRG
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
" Feet Topographic Base
Michael Brandman Associates
14230014 • 01/2010 |2_Local_Topo.mxd CITY OF MURRIETA • MITCHELL CROSSING

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Greer Rd Mcelwain Rd
Duster Rd Mitchell Rd. Sierra Li
ply uaidif
Gatt Rd
Clinton Keith Rd
Toulon Dr Marrieta Oaks Av
215
Project Site
Source: NAIP for Riverside County (2009). Exhibit 3
Local Vicinity Map
1,000 500 1,000
g " Feet Aerial Base
Michael Brandman Associates
14230014 • 01/2010 | 3_Local_Aerial.mxd CITY OF MURRIETA • MITCHELL CROSSING

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially Less Than
Significant Less Than
Environmental Issues No
Significant Significant
With Impact
Impact Impact
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ] X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

2. Agriculture Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?

3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Michael Brandman Associates 9
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL_1.dee|423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant No
Environmental Issues Significant Significant
With Impact Impact
Impact Mitigation
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ПА XO
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial L •
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?

4. Biological Resources
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 Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian • • habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally •
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X
native resident or migratory fish or wildlif
species or with established native resident o
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of 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 (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Michael Brandman Associates
10 H:WPWINClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL. I.dee1423-0014_IS-MND 4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Less Than
Potentially Less Than
Environmental Issues Significant No
Significant Significant
With Impact
Impact Impact
Mitigation

5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the L
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the LI
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique • L
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those •
interred outside of formal cemeteries?

6. Geology / Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to 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.

Strong seismic ground shaking? •
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? •
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of • П topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is • •
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in • •
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Michael Brandman Associates 11
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JNU423-Murricta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd-FINAL_L.doe1423-0014_IS-MND_4thfinal3 9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Less Than
Potentially Significant No
Environmental Issues Significant Significant Impact
With
Impact Impact
Mitigation

7. Green House Gas
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or L
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

8. Hazards / Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous •
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
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 for people residing or working the
project area?
+) For a project within the vicinity of a private •
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
broject area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Г
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Michael Brandman Associates
12 H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls Mnd FINAL. I.deel123-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Potentially Less Than
Less Than
Environmental Issues Significant Significant No
With Significant
Impact Impact Impact
Mitigation

9. Hydrology / Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or •
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
grondwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern X L of area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) 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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area L
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk •
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xks Mnd-FINAL-l.dee1423 0014_IS MND_4thfina|3-9.dee 13 City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Less Than
Potentially Significant No
Environmental Issues Significant Significant
With Impact
Impact Impact
Mitigation

10. Land Use / Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? •
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, L
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?

11. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known X L
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?

12. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise •
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of •
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient •
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in • • • ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JI423-Murrieta\is-Mind FINAL. AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-MadFINAL L.doel423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Environmental Issues No
Significant Significant
Impact With Impact
Impact
Mitigation
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

13. Population / Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

14. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks!
e) Other public facilities? X

15. Recreation
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 acelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?

15. Transportation / Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Michael Brandman Associates al
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINALI.deg1423 0014_IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than -Less Than
Significant No
Environmental Issues Significant Significant
With Impact
Impact Impact
Mitigation
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? •
f Result in inadequate parking capacity? •
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

16. Utilities / Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of •
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)?
b) Require or result in the construction of new • •
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Require or result in the construction of new •с
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) 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?
f) Be served by a landfill with suficient permitted П
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrictalis-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL 1.dee1423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Potentially Less Than
Less Than No
Environmental Issues Significant Significant Significant With Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact

17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are • L
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?
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Green House Gas Hazards / Hazardous U Hydrology / Water Materials Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources • Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Services Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Michael Brandman Associates
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-MurrictaNs-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL I.d0e1 423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3 9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Environmental 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.

L 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 measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further Paul Swarmatt Date March 1S, 2010
Signed
Michael Brandman Associates
18 HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\1423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.doc City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation SECTION 3: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

3.1 - Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Murrieta General Plan does not identify any specific scenic vistas within or in the surrounding areas of the project site. The project site currently consists of one existing house, which may be demolished as a part of future development, and the reminder of the project site is vacant land. The areas surrounding the project site consists of existing residential uses. The project is for a General Plan Amendment and Zone change and will not obstruct the views from surrounding areas to the north, east and west, which are already developed and the area to the south, which is bordered by Clinton Keith Road. Therefore, the project will not create a substantial adverse effect on an existing scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. Clinton Keith Road and Catt Road border the site to the south, Duster Road to the west and Freman's Circle to the north. The City of Murrieta General Plan does not identity any of the above roads as a scenic corridor or scenic highway. The project site is undeveloped land that does not contain rock outcroppings or historic buildings. However, the project site contains a significant number of trees, which can be considered scenic resources. According to City Ordinance 16.42, when trees are proposed for removal as part of a development project, the City will require compliance with applicable requirements of the Ordinance, which includes an appraised value report to be submitted by the applicant. Therefore, as discussed above, the future development at this site will not result in substantial damage to scenic resources and the impacts in this regard will be less than significant.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact. The future development of the project site will convert existing undeveloped land to residential and commercial uses. The project proposes a zone change from low-density Rural Residential to a higher density Multi-Family Residential and 5.5-acres of Regional Commercial District- Neighborhood Commercial.

Accordingly, future development of the project site will change the current visual Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWIN Client PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL I.deel423-0014 IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration characteristics of the site. While, the visual changes would be noticeable, the impacts would be less than significant, as any development would be reviewed for consistency with residential development in the adjacent areas. The area to the east is developed as Multi-Family Residential and retail uses, similar to the proposed development. In addition, the City's development code regulates the setback distances, building heights, landscaping and other design features for new development. It should be noted that, with application of these standard requirements, future development of any project would result in an attractively designed residential and commercial development in sync with the surrounding uses. These features represent a visual upgrade to the current barren state of the project site. Therefore, impacts with respect to visual degradation to the project site and surrounding areas would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. Future development of the project area will introduce new lighting features (e.g., lighting for internal streets, parking areas, etc.) on the project site and surrounding areas. Development has the potential to impact the existing residential neighborhood to the north east and west, by introducing light incursion and glare from the project's building and street/parking lights. Future development will be required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance 16.18.100, which establishes uniform City lighting standards and imposes standard control measures (i.e. shield, fixture direct, brightness controls) to reduce the potential impact from the light or glare.

In addition, any future development will also be required to abide by all exterior lighting requirements pursuant to Section 16.18.110 - Mount Palomar Lighting Standards of the City of Murrieta Development Code.

Therefore, with compliance of the requirements of Section 16.18.100 and 16.18.110 in the City's lighting ordinance, the impacts in this regard will be less than significant.

3.2 - Agricultural Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

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 Michael Brandman Associates
20 HAWPWINIClient PN-JNV1423-Murrieta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL I.deel423 0044_IS MND_4thfnal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site does not contain any Prime or Unique Farmland according to the California Department of Conservation FMMP, 2006. Therefore, there will be no impacts associated with the loss of farmland as a result of the proposed project. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is currently zoned as Rural Residential, which allows for agricultural uses. However, none of the project site or the adjacent area is used for agricultural purposes. In addition, the project site is not within or the subject of, a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for any agricultural use or Williamson Act Contracts. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas do not contain any farmland used for commercial agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a change in use of existing agricultural lands onsite or in the adjacent areas and there will be no impact.

3.3 - Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM1o and PM2s), which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to protect the health of sensitive individuals. Criteria pollutants include ozone, PM1o, PM2s, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. Ozone is formed through reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sunlight.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Michael Brandman Associates
21 H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN1423-Murricta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL1.doe1423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Less than Significant Impact. The project includes a General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. . The air quality analysis was based on the development of 307 multi- family residential units and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of commercial uses in the

5.5-acre project site. The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the air quality plan applicable to the proposed project. The SCAQMD adopted the AQMP on June 1, 2007 (SCAQMD 2007). The 2003 AQMP was prepared to lead the Basin and portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under SCAQMD jurisdiction into compliance with the 1-hour ozone and PMio national standards (SCAQMD 2003). The update to the 2003 AQMP, the 2007 AQMP, was prepared to lead the Basin into compliance of the national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The AQMP determines emission budgets for future years; input to these budgets includes projections for land use designations. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD CEQA air quality significance thresholds for nonattainment or maintenance pollutants.

As demonstrated in the AIR Impact - B analysis below, the anticipated project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the AQMP. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less than Significant Impact. Two primary types of significance thresholds have been defined by the SCAQMD to address this impact question: regional emission and localized significance thresholds. The regional emission thresholds are designed to limit the impacts that emissions from a proposed project would have as such emissions add to the existing Basin emission burden in affecting the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. Such emissions may affect the attainment of standards many miles from the project location. Regional emission thresholds are defined separately for construction and operational activities. Local significance thresholds were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board's environmental justice initiatives (EJ initiative I-4) in recognition of the fact that criteria pollutants such as CO, NO,, and PMio and PM2s in particular, can have local impacts as well as regional impacts.

Regional Significance Impact Analysis
An assessment of project-generated short-term and long-term regional air pollutant emissions was conducted using the URBEMIS2007, version 9.2.4 computer model to quantify regional short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. Input data used in the URBEMIS model were taken from the project description and plans and 22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN\1423-Murricta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd-FINAL-1.deel423-0014IS-MND-4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation from the project's traffic report (KA 2009). The URBEMIS model outputs are included in Appendix A.

Short-term Construction
Construction emissions can occur during all facets of the construction activities involving grading, trenching, asphalt paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project construction were assumed to occur over the short term from January 2010 through December 2010 because of construction equipment combustion products, fugitive dust from grading and earth- moving activities, and emissions from vehicles driven to and from the site by construction workers. A "worst case" project build-out year of 2011 was conservatively assumed in the emission estimation. Construction emissions consist of VOC, NOx, CO, oxides of sulfur (SOx), PMio, and PM2s.

The project site consists of aproximately 27 acres. The URBEMIS model assumes that a maximum of 25 percent of the total project development area would be disturbed in a single day. Therefore, an area of aproximately 6.4 acres was assumed disturbed in a single day. Table 3-1 presents the estimated maximum daily emissions for the proposed project and compares the estimated emissions with the SCAQMD daily mass emission thresholds.

Table 3-1: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (w/o Mitigation) Emissions (pounds per day)(")
Construction Activity
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mass Grading / Fine Grading 4 34 19 0 10 3
Trenching 2 18 1 1
Asphalt Paving 4 21 0 2
Building Construction + 37 27 46 2 2
Architectural Coating
Max emissions in 1 day 37 34 46 3
Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Note:
"Emissions shown assume compliance with applicable emission regulations. The PMio and PMzs fugitive dus emissions are in the "mitigated" output in URBEMIS because the project would comply with dust control measures a specified in SCAQMD Rule 403.

Source: Appendix A for URBEMIS model output
As shown in Table 3-1, construction-related emissions generated by development of the project area would be less than the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance (SCAQMD 2009). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Note that the Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xts-Mnd FINAL_I.doel4230014_IS-MND_4thfinal3-D.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration URBEMIS results shown in Table 3-1 above assume compliance with the requirements SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which requires that fugitive dust generating activities follow best available control measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust. The best available control measures and the associated measure in URBEMIS are found in Table 3-2. Any future development of the project site shall be subject to Rule 403 as shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Best Available Control Measures - SCAQMD Rule 403 Best Available Control Measure' Associated Measure in URBEMIS 2 Clearing and Grubbing
02-1 Maintain stability of soil through pre-watering of site prior -Water exposed surfaces three times per to clearing and grubbing
02-2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities 02-3 Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities
Earth Moving Activities
08-1 Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts
08-2 Re-apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction
08-3 Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete Import/Export of Bulk Materials
09-1 Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive -Equipment loading/unloading dust emissions
09-2 Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul
vehicles
09-3 Stabilize material while transporting to reduce
fugitive dust emissions
09-4 Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions
09-5 Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114
Landscaping
10-1 Stabilize soils, materials, slopes -Replace ground cover in disturbed areas Guidance: Apply water to materials to stabilize; Maintain quickly materials in a crusted condition; Maintain effective cover over materials; Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes; Hydroseed prior to rain season
Staging Areas
13-1 Stabilize staging areas during use by limiting vehicle -Reduce speed on unpaved roads to 15 speeds to 15 miles per hour miles per hour.

Traffic Areas for Construction Activities
15-1 Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas -Haul road dust watering three times per 15-2 Stabilize all haul routes day
15-3 Direct construction traffic over established haul routes Guidance: Apply gravel/paving to all haul routes as soon as possible to all future roadway areas; Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only used on established parking
areas/haul routes
24 Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mind FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL I.dec|423 0014_IS MND_1thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Best Available Control Measure Associated Measure in URBEMIS 2 Sources: 1) SCAQMD Rule 403; 2) URBEMIS output in Appendix A.

Long-Term Operations
Long-term operational emissions occur once a specific project is developed and commences full operations. Such emissions would come from area sources including natural gas for space and water heating, gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment, and from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips for residential units and retail establishment patrons, employees, and deliveries). Estimated regional operational mass emissions for the project-related area and mobile sources without incorporation of mitigation measures are shown in Table 3-3. A build-out year of 2011 was assumed in acordance with the traffic impact study. As shown therein, the operational emissions expected to be generated by development of the project area do not exceed any SCAQMD regional emission significance threshold during operations.

Table 3-3: Daily Operational Emissions (Without Mitigation) Operational Emissions (pounds per day)
Summer/Winter
Operational Activity
VOC NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 17/17 5/6 5/2 0/0
0/0 0/0
Mobile Emissions - Residential 16/17 13/16 192/182 0/0 35/35 7/7 Mobile Emissions - Retail 17/19 25/30 223/215 0/0 41/41 8/8 Total Daily Emissions 50/53 43/52 420/399 0/0 76/76 15/15 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Note: Emissions are for buildout year, 2011.

Source: Appendix A for URBEMIS model output
Localized Significance Impact Analysis
The analysis of local impacts makes use of the localized significance threshold (LST) methodology developed by the SCAQMD (SCAQMD 2008 and SCAQMD 2006) for assessing the impacts during construction and operation on local air quality. This methodology provides a series of mass emission rate look-up tables that identify the maximum daily emissions from a project that would not cause an exceedance of the most restrictive State or federal ambient air quality standard. The emission estimate depends on the size of the project, its location within the Basin, and the distance to the nearest receptor.

Michael Brandman Associates
H:\WPWINClient PN-JN 1423-MuretaNs-Mnd FINAL. AMENDED 8-17-10x/sMad FINAL. 1. doe1423 0014_IS MND_ 4thfina13 9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Short term Construction
The localized construction assessment réquires an estimate of the construction emissions generated solely from onsite construction activities, that is, emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust and does not include emissions from offsite delvery or worker vehicles. The localized significance thresholds are derived from the SCAQMD mass rate daily emission tables for a 5-acre construction area in SCAQMD source- receptor area 26 (Temecula Valley)'. As indicated above, the URBEMIS emission model assumes that 25 percent of the area comprising a project would be disturbed in a single day. Since the area of the proposed project is approximately 26.7 acres, the maximum area to be disturbed in a single day is about 6.4 acres. This value is slightly larger than the 5-acre size mass emissions rate lookup tables contained in the SCAQMD LST methodology. However, the mass rate emission thresholds for a 5-acre size were used to provide a conservative estimate of project impacts since the allowable emission thresholds for a 6.4 area would be greater than that for a 5-acre size. A receptor distance of 25 meters from the project was also assumed as the distance to the nearest residence, which is located across Duster Road. Table 3-4 provides the localized significance threshold analysis results for project construction.

Table 3-4: Summary of Construction LST Assessment (without Mitigation) Maximum Onsite Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Construction Activity
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Mass Grading 34 17 10 3
Trenching 18 8 1 1
Asphalt Paving 15 8 1
Building Construction 17 11 1
And Architectural Coating
Maximum Daily Emissions . 34 17 10 3
Localized Significance 371 1,732 13 8
Threshold (pounds per day)"!
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Note:
() Significance threshold for a 5 acre construction area, in Source Receptor Area 26, and a receptor distance of 25 meters
Source: see Appendix A for onsite emissions (includes off road diesel and fugitive dust) As shown in Table 3-4, the construction of 307 multi family units and 60,000 square feet of commercial development would not exceed any of the SCAQMD localized 1 The SCAQMD divides the Basin into 35 geographical areas called source-receptor areas or SRAs wherein the meteorology and terrain are relatively consistent and uniform. SRAs are used to identify emission source areas and areas that are impacted by transported pollution in the Basin. 26 Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/sMnd FINAL 1.dee|423-0014 IS MND-4thfina|3_0doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation significance thresholds. Therefore, the impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.)
Long Term Operation
The predominant sources of operational emissions arise from the daily traffic from residences and patrons of the retail use that accesses the project each day. However, the vast majority of a project's operational emissions are derived while the traffic moves to and from the project site, and not from traffic operating within the residential and retail land uses. Consequently, there would only be small amounts of onsite emissions from motor vehicles. In addition, only minor amounts of onsite emissions arise from consumption of natural gas for heating and landscaping emissions. Therefore, the operational localized air quality impacts are less than significant. c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less than Significant Impact. The region where the proposed project is located is a nonattainment area for PMio, PM2.5, and the ozone. The project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during short-term project construction as well as daily operation.

As detailed in response to AIR Impact - B above, these emissions would be less than the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds. Because short- and long-term emissions associated with the project would be below SCAQMD thresholds, the project's contribution of these pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable and would represent a less than significant impact.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Exposure of sensitive receptors is addressed for three situations: compliance with the localized significance thresholds, CO hot spots at off-site congested intersections, and exposure to diesel exhaust.

Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
As discussed in AIR Impact - B, the project's local construction and operational impacts are less than the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. As such, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPW/NIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL_I.dee1423-0014_IS-MND_Ah/inal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration CO Hot Spots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. The potential for violation of State and federal CO standards at study area intersections and exposure to sensitive receptors at those intersections is addressed using the methodology outlined in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) (UCD 1997).

According to the CO Protocol, projects may worsen air quality if they significantly increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent or more; significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes; or worsen traffic flow by increasing average delay at intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F.

The traffic analysis (KA 2009) based on 307 multi-family units and 60,000 square feet maximum commercial development indicates that some intersections would operate at LOS E or LOS F under future conditions without the project, and the delay at some of those intersections would be increased with the addition of project traffic, thus meeting the definition of worsening traffic. The following intersections were found to operate at unacceptable LOS of E and F with the build out of a project at this site. • Green Road and Clinton Keith Road;
• Murrieta Oaks Avenue and Clinton Keith Road;
• McElwain road and Clinton Keith Road;
• I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps and Clinton Keith Road; and • I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps and Clinton Keith Road.

Currently neither the federal nor State ambient air quality standards are exceeded for CO within the area where the project is located. Therefore, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions when added to the background levels of CO from non-project emissions sources result in an exceedance of the CO standards at the intersections impacted by the project.

Localized CO concentrations were projected using the CALINE4 traffic pollutant dispersion model developed by the California Department of Transportation. The analysis of CO impacts followed the protocol recomended by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and published in a document titled Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (UCD 1997). As stated in the Protocol, receptor locations for the 1-hour analysis were located three meters from each intersection corner.

Table 3-5 summarizes the results of the CO hot spot analysis. As shown therein, the CO emissions from a project in combination with emissions from other traffic sources would 28 Michael Brandman Associates
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAl.-1.dee1423-0014-IS-MND-4hfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation not cause a CO hot spot at any intersection. Therefore, the operation of a project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations.

Michael Brandman Associates
29 HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls Mnd FINAL I.doe1423 0014_IS MND_4thfinel3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Table 3-5: Results of the CO Hot Spot Assessment
Most
Impact Total CO Restrictive
Background Exceeds
Intersection Concentration(*) Concentration Concentration (*) CO Standards? (ppm) (ppm) Standard
(ppm) (ppm)
1-hour Average
Greer Road @ Clinton Keith Road 2.0 2.4 4.4 20 No
Murrieta Oaks Avenue @ Clinton 2.0 2.2 4.2 20 No
Keith Road 2.0 2.4 4.4 20 No
McElwain Road @ Clinton Keith 2.0 3.7 5.7 20 No
Road 2.0 3.4 5.3 20 No
1-215 Freeway SB Ramps @
Clinton Keith Road
215 Freeway NB Ramps
inton Keith Roa
8-hour Average
Greer Road @ Clinton Keith Road 1.4 1.7 3.1 No
Murrieta Oaks Avenue @ Clinton 1.4 1.5 No
Keith Road 1.4 1.7 9 No
McElwain Road @ Clinton Keith 1.4 2.6 9 No

1.4 2.4 3.8 9 No
Road
I-215 Freeway SB Ramps @
Clinton Keith Road
I-215 Freeway NB Ramps @
Clinton Keith Road
Notes:
(") Background concentration derived from the SCAOMD Lake Elsinore air monitoring station (2) Impact concentration is the total of CO from the Project + CO contributed by the growth in ambient traffic 3) Total concentration is the sum of the background CO + CO from the project and non-project traffic sources Source: See Appendix A
Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust Emissions
Projects of concern for diesel particulate matter exposure are those projects which would be located near high traffic freeways, urban roads with more than 100,000 vehicles per day and a high concentration of heavy truck usage such as rail yards, ports, and distribution centers (ARB 2005). The project area is not near any of those uses that would emit significant quantities of diesel particulate matter. The impact would be less than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, a project's development would operate equipment that may generate odors. Potential construction odors would result from on-site construction equipment's diesel exhaust emissions, roofing, or paving operations. However, these odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Future development may involve minor, odor- generating activities such as cooking odors, lawn mower exhaust, and other factors.

However, these types and concentrations of odors are typical of local commercial uses and would be considered less than significant.

Michael Brandman Associates 31
H:IWPWIN1Client PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL_1.dee|423-0014_IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.dee - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.4 - Biological Resources
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 Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC) prepared a Habitat Assessment Report in December 2005 (see Appendix B), which included the results of a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (BUOW) habitat suitability assessment, narrow endemic plant (NEP) species habitat assessment, and jurisdiction delineation for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 34051 (an earlier proposal for the project site). The report concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and indicated that there are no MSHCP Criteria Cells mapped within 1,000 feet of the project site. No State or federal listed threatened or endangered or unlisted species (including the burrowing owl) were found on the project site. The study also determined that, although no BUOW individuals or occupied ground burrows were present on the Project site, there are suitable habitat elements (grassland and vacant ground squirrel burrows) for the BUOW.

Following the October 4, 2005 report TL also conducted four protocol winter non- breeding season BUOW surveys in December 2005, and four focused breeding season BUOW surveys in March and April of 2006. No BUOW individuals and no BUOW occupied ground burrows were observed on the project site or within an area roughly 500 feet from the project site boundary, which was examined with binoculars.

Finally, on June 26, 2009 TLC performed a reconnaissance survey of the project site to evaluate whether biological conditions had changed since the earlier surveys had been conducted. TLC determined that no obvious significant changes had occurred since the 2005 and 2006 surveys.

Due to the presence of suitable BUOW habitat on the project site, absent mitigation, the development of the project could result in significant adverse impacts if BUOW were to occupy the site and nests or individuals are harmed by grading or construction activity.

In addition, migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird, nest or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the 32 HAWPWINClient PN-J11423-Murrietals-M TINAL AMENDED 81-10%MatAL Michael Brandman Associates Lade: 123-0044 IS MAD Into 9 doe
City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation countries of the former Soviet Union. Removal of the trees on the project site during nesting season (March 1 to September 15) could destroy or otherwise harm protected birds and/or their eggs. In order to address these potential impacts, and in acordance with the requirements of the MSHCP, the mitigation measures identified below will be implemented for future development projects within the project area which will reduce the potential impact to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
MM BR-1 A clearance survey for the BUOW shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to clearing, grubbing, grading or any other ground disturbing activities on the site. If the BUOW are present, additional measures and actions will be required pursuant to the CDFG Code and the MBTA to avoid nesting burrowing owls and the potential take of active nests.

MM BR-2 Vegetation removal shall occur outside of the nesting bird season (March 1 to September 15). If such avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall have a qualified biologist survey for active nesting birds within the nesting bird season. Any active nests identified shall have highly visible construction fencing installed within a 300-foot minimum radius of the active nests where grading and construction would be restricted. The fencing shall remain in place until the nest is deemed vacant by a Riverside County certified biologist.
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 CDFG or USFWS?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As mentioned above, the project site is not within any MSHCP criteria cell, which identifies sensitive natural communities. The nearest cell is approximately ¼ mile to the north and, therefore, impacts would not be significant. In addition, the June 2009 TLC reports included an MSHCP consistency analysis which determined that, with the mitigation measures MM BR-1 and MM BR-2 described herein, that the project site would be in compliance with the MSHCP. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. In October 2005, the TLC conducted a jurisdictional assessment and delineation of waters under the jurisdiction of the State (CDFG), and the federal government (Army Corps of Engineers). The jurisdictional delineation prepared by TLC indicated approximately 0.0723 acre would fall under the Michael Brandman Associates 33
H:\WPWIN\Client PN-JN\1423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL-/.dee1423 0014 IS MND 4thfinal3-0.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
jurisdiction of the State and 0.0261 acre under federal jurisdiction. The report further indicated these areas are "non-wetland upland vegetated isolated ephemeral waters." The report states that while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not typically assert jurisdiction over these types of waters, the State does presume jurisdiction.

Additionally, the report states that; "no Riparian/Riverine habitat was identified onsite, therefore, no Riparian/Riverine study and no Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report will need to be prepared." TLC further indicates that a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required to authorize filling of jurisdictional waters of the State (see mitigation measure below). With the proposed mitigation measure, the impact related to State protected wetlands is expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
MM BR-3
CDFG shall be consulted prior to initiation of any grading, construction, or other land disturbance activity that would impact any isolated waters identified in the most current jurisdictional delineation prepared for the project site. If the CDFG determines that a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement is required, such agreement must be executed prior to filling that would impact these isolated waters.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site was not identified as part of or linking to any wildlife corridors. There are no known wildlife nursery sites in the project site vicinity. Therefore, project implementation will not interfere with the movement of any species or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local applicable policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. In order to comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (16.42) TLC prepared a Tree Appraisal Report (January 27, 2006) that identified 244 live trees. One-hundred eighty four of these trees were determined at the time of the appraisal to fall under the jurisdiction of Ordinance 16.42.

In order to offset the loss of these trees, the ordinance provides for two methods of mitigation, which have been incorporated into the mitigation measure below.

Mitigation Measure
MM BR-4 Offsets for the removal of trees on the project site shall be in acordance with Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL Idee/423-0014-IS-MND-4thfinal39.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Section 16.42.070 of the City of Murricta Tree Preservation Ordinance.

Generally, this may be accomplished by applying the appraised value of the trees to be removed by either increasing the amount of landscaping for the project, or by the planting of minimum twenty-four (24) inch box trees of equal value within City rights-of-way or public parks. Additionally, any tree removal in future shall be subject to Section 16.42.070 of the City of Murrieta Tree Preservation Ordinance.

D Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project is consistent with the MSHCP (see discussion under Impact a above, and there are no other local, State or federal habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site.

3.5 - Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant. A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for this project, dated July 2009, by Jean A. Keller, Ph.D. and is include as Appendix C of this Initial Study. The assessment indicated that no cultural resources of prehistoric or historic origin were identified on the project site. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As mentioned above, the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for this project indicated that no cultural resources of prehistoric or historic origin were observed on the project site. While the likelihood that any subsurface cultural resources would be found during grading operations is very low, the Phase 1 assessment notes that 22 archaeological sites have been found within a one- mile radius of the project site. Although unlikely, it is possible that currently unknown resources could be found. The Phase 1 Assessment recommends that in the event an archaeological site is found, grading be halted or diverted away from the affected area of the project site until the find can be evaluated to determine its significance.

Michael Brandman Associates 35
H:\WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\[s-Mind FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mad FINAL 1.d0e/123 0014 IS MND 4th6mal3-9.doe Discussion of Environmental Evaluation City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Native American Heritage Commission and recognized Native American Tribes were contacted in compliance with SB 18 requirements.

Mitigation Measure
MM CR-1 If currently unknown cultural artifacts are discovered during grading or demolition, such activity shall be halted or diverted away from the affected area of the project site until a qualified Archaeologist can examine the artifact(s) to determine their significance. If the find(s) are determined to be significant, the Archaeologist shall provide recommendations regarding the collection documentation and disposition of the artifact and shall provide recommendations on whether the remainder of the site that has not yet been disturbed should be monitored.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant. The Paleontological Sensitivity Map contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Murrieta General Plan classifies the entire city as having either High, Low, or undetermined sensitivity (i.e. parts of the City that have not been studied). The project site has been classified as Low sensitivity indicating that it is very unlikely that Paleontological resources would be unearthed d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant. Based on the records search and field survey, no human remains are located in or near the project site and none are expected. Although the likelihood of finding human remains is remote, if remains are encountered, the State of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 Public Resources Code § 5097.94 and 5097.98, 5 imposes specific requirements for the disposition of such remains.

3.6 - Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to 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.
36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN1423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL I.doel 423-0014_IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less than Significant Impact. The project geo-technical consultant, LGC, evaluated the potential for fault rupture on the site related to any active faults either crossing or trending towards the project site. Their report (LGC 2006) is included in Appendix D of this document. This assessment is based upon the site-specific data (i.e. site geologic mapping, arial photo review, lineament analysis, and literature review (etc.). No active or potentially active faults are shown on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site on published geologic maps. No evidence of active faulting on or immediately adjacent to the project site was observed during the geologic field reconnaissance or on the arial photographs reviewed. The nearest "zoned" active fault is the Elsinore fault located approximately four miles to the southwest of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within any Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) as created by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Act.

Therefore, the potential for fault-induced ground rupture on the project site is considered a less than significant impact.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Even though the project site is not located in an immediate vicinity of any active faults, the area contains several regional faults, which have potential to generate strong ground motions at the project site. An earthquake occurring on the Elsinore fault would cause the most severe shaking. The geo-technical report prepared for the project site (LGC 2006) indicated that the Elsinore fault zone would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with anticipated maximum moment magnitude of 6.8 and anticipated slip rate of 5mm/year. As indicated in the geo-technical report, structures within the project site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 2007 California 1 Building Code (CBC) Section 1613. With compliance to the criteria within 2007 seismic design coefficients, the impacts related to ground shaking significant impacts are avoided.
iit) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Factors influencing a site's potential for liquefaction include seismicity, onsite soil type, consistency and groundwater level. The project site is underlained by shallow bedrock with grondwater at a depth of approximately

24.5 feet. The project site does contain loose soils however; all existing low density and collapsible soil materials will be removed and replaced with compacted fills (LGC 2006). Therefore, based upon site characteristics the potential for earthquake- induced liquefaction within the project site is considered very low to remote. iv) Landslides?
37 Michael Brandman Associates
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL. I.deet423-0014-IS-MND 4thfinel3 9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Less than Significant Impact. The project site is underlained by massive bedrock at relatively shallow depths. Based on the geologic setting of the site and expected nature of the underlying geologic materials, the necessary factors for deep-seated landslides are not present at the project site. The site reconnaissance does not show evidence of onsite landslides. In addition, the site area does not contain any unstable or steep slopes, which have a higher tendency for landslide activity. Therefore, based upon the existing topography, the occurrence of landslide due to seismic events is less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Grading and construction activities associated with development of the project area will expose soil, making it susceptible to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. There could be potential for surface water to carry sediment from onsite erosion into the stormwater system and local waterways. However, a majority of the areas that could be developed on the project site have soil types with slight to moderate erosion potential. In addition, the excavation and grading activities that would occur will be carried out pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that requires adoption of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion from stormwater runoff. During construction a specific development project would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions Control), which includes BMP's such as watering controls to prevent equipment from tracking dirt off-site, and cessation of grading during high wind conditions. Therefore, impacts to soil erosion or topsoil loss will be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. Geotechnical reports for the site indicated that undocumented artificial fill materials were encountered in the upper 2.5 to 5.5 feet followed by residual topsoil, which blankets the underlying bedrock. These materials are typically loose to medium dense and slightly moist. Based upon the field investigation and test data, it was determined that the upper loose and disturbed soils (including the undocumented fill soils) in their present condition will not provide uniform or adequate support for the proposed project structures.

The geotechnical report (LGC 2006) also indicated that oversize rock is expected to encounter during grading and construction phase. These, oversize rock, (i.e., rock 38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL I.dee|423 0014 IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation exceeding a maximum dimension of 12 inches) will require special handling, although the report also indicated that blasting would not be necessary.

Therefore, as discussed above, unstable soil surfaces present on the project site could have significant impact on the proposed development without appropriate mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 The developer shall implement the grading recommendations identified in the Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Report (2006). Prior to the commencement of building construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified geo-technical engineer to design foundations adequate to support the proposed project's structures where necessary, based on the recomendations of the Geotechnical Report (2006). The ground preparation (monitoring of fill areas and disposal of oversize rock) shall be performed and verified to the satisfaction of the project geotechnical engineer.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The project geotechnical report (LGC 2006) indicated that laboratory tests of the onsite soils exhibit expansion potentials ranging from "Very Low" to "Low" as classified in acordance with Table 18-I-B of the 1997 UBC.

Classification of "Very Low" infers the onsite soils of expansion index is less than 20 and a classification of "Low" infers the onsite soils of the expansion index is between 21 to

50. The project area with onsite soils of expansion indices of less than 20 (classification "Low") are exempt from the procedures outlined in Section 1815 of UBC. However, the 1997 UBC specifies that the slab on ground foundations (floor slabs) resting on soils with expansion indices greater than 20, require special design considerations in acordance with 1997 UBC Section 1815. Compliance with the design standards within UBC Section 1815 will avoid potential significant impacts related to expansive soils. Please refer to geotechnical report (LGC 2006) for further discussion of design considerations related to expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Less than Significant Impact. The project will connect to an existing sewer line served by the East Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Accordingly, potential soil Michael Brandman Associates 39
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN1423-Murrieta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL 1.doel123 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Grossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration constraints for using septic or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not applicable since the proposal for sewer service would not generate any risks of significant impact.

3.7 - Greenhouse Gas
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. This analysis is restricted to greenhouse gases identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Inventory
The development of a project at this site would generate a variety of greenhouse gases during construction and operation, including several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

The development may also emit greenhouse gases that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the project may generate aerosols. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about one week. Black carbon is a component of aerosol.

Studies have indicated that black carbon has a high global warming potential; however, the IPCC states that it has a low level of scientific certainty (IPCC 2007).

Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping, but would not be a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities.

The project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. Ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, unlike the other greenhouse gases, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants.

Certain greenhouse gases defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project.

Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. 40 Michael Brandman Associates
- H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN\1423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xks-Mnd FINAL 1.d0e1423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles are assumed to remain the same over time because the emission factors used to estimate future emissions from the motor vehicles that would access the project site are currently calculated as remaining constant. The on- road mobile inventory used the current version of the EMission FACtors model (EMFAC2007), and the off-road mobile inventory used the OFFROAD model for base emission factors. Both the EMFAC and OFFROAD Models develop carbon dioxide and methane emission estimates; however, they are not currently used as the basis for ARB's official greenhouse gas inventory, which is based on fuel usage information. It is important to note that the current versions of EMFAC and OFFROAD are not fuel-based, but apply a single carbon dioxide factor that is unchanged throughout future years. ARB is working to reconcile the emissions estimates from the fuel usage approach and the models. Implementation of adopted regulations (such as AB 1493) and anticipated regulations will reduce future motor vehicular emissions.

An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project is presented below. The emissions are converted to metric tons of carbon equivalents (MTCO,e) using the following formula:

MTCO_e = (tons of gas) x (global warming potential) x (0.9072 metric tons of gas) Construction
The project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources and direct sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment).

An upstream emission source (also known as life cycle emissions) refers to emissions that were generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the project. Upstream emission sources for the project include but are not limited to the following: emissions from the manufacture of cement; emissions from the manufacture of steel; and/or emissions from the transportation of building materials to the seller (i.e., URBEMIS only estimates the transportation of building materials locally). The upstream emissions were not estimated because they are not within the control of the project and to do so would be speculative at this time. Additionally, the CAPCOA White Paper on CEQA and Climate Change supports this conclusion by stating, "The full life-cycle of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from construction activities is not accounted for ... and the information needed to characterize [life-cycle emissions] would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level." (CAPCOA 2008) Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15144 and 15145, upstream /life cycle emissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary.

Greenhouse gas emissions from construction were estimated using URBEMIS 2007 as discussed in the Air Quality section (Section 3). The emissions of carbon dioxide from 41 Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd-FINAL I.deel423 0014 IS-MND_ 4thfinel3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Grossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 3-6Table 3- 6 Table 3-6. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are negligible. The emissions are from all phases of construction.

Table 3-6: Construction Exhaust Carbon Dioxide Emissions Phase Carbon Dioxide Emissions
(tons) Emissions (MTCOze)
Mass grading 71 64
Fine grading 32 29
Trenching 9 8
Asphalt paving 11 10
Building 561 509
Coating 6 5
Total 690 626
Notes:

MTCO_e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, converted from tons by multiplying by 0.9072 and the global warming potential of 1.

Source of carbon dioxide emissions: URBEMIS 2007 output in Appendix A.

Operation
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. Mobile, area source, and indirect sources generate operational emissions. Mobile sources are exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles that would access the project site. Area source emissions are from natural gas exhaust. Indirect sources refer to the electricity required for the project and the electricity required to transport and treat the water that would be used for the project.

The operational greenhouse gas emissions for the project are shown in Table 3-7. The estimation contains the major sources of emissions and does not include minor sources such as emissions from landscaping equipment. The emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. The carbon dioxide emissions for motor vehicles and natural gas were estimated using URBEMIS 2007 assuming a buildout year of 2011. The other emissions were estimated using emission factors and methods described in the spreadsheets located in Appendix A.
42 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL. 1dee1423-0014_IS-MND 4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Table 3-7: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (without Project Design Features or Mitigation)
Source Emissions (MTCOze per year)
Motor vehicles (retail) 4,069
Motor vehicles (residential) 3,274
Natural gas (retail) 115
Natural gas (residential) 818
Indirect electricity 848
Water transport 202
Waste 62
Refrigerants 1,153
Total 10,541
MTCO_e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons).

Source: See spreadsheets in Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Emission Spreadsheets and URBEMIS 2007 Model Output.

Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation The City of Murrieta does not have an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, project consistency with the adopted Scoping Plan will be used to determine whether the project generates greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Scoping Plan
Emission reductions in California alone would not be able to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. However, California's actions set an example and drive progress towards a reduction in greenhouse gases elsewhere. If other states and countries were to follow California's emission reduction targets, this could avoid medium or higher ranges of global temperature increases. Thus, severe consequences of climate change could be avoided.

The ARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State's strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit.

The Scoping Plan "proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health." (ARB 2008)
This Scoping Plan calls for an "ambitious but achievable" reduction in California's greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today's levels. On a per- Michael Brandman Associates 43
H:IPWINClient PN-JNV423-Murricta\s-Mind FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls Mne FINAL I.docl423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3 9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.

Project consistency with applicable strategies in the Plan is assessed in Table 3-8Table 3 8Table 3-8. As shown, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies.

Table 3-8: Consistency with Applicable Scoping Plan Reduction Measures Scoping Plan Reduction Measure Project Consistency

3. Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency Consistent with implementation of mitigation building and appliance standards; pursue additional measures GHG-2 and GHG-3. Sources for efficiency including new technologies, policy, and potential mitigation measures were incorporated implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable from sample measures from the OPR (OPR investment in energy efficiency from all retail 2008), CAPCOA (CAPCOA 2008), and the providers of electricity in California. California Office of the Attorney General (AG

9. Million Solar Roofs Program. Consistent with implementation of mitigation Install 3,000 MW of solar-electric capacity under measure GHG-3.

California's existing solar programs.

13. Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green Consistent with implementation of mitigation building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of measure GHG-2 and GHG-3.

California's new and existing inventory of
buildings.

15. Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions Consistent with implementation of mitigation at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, measure GHG-2, GHG-3, and GHG-4. and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-
waste.

17. Water. Continue efficiency programs and use Consistent with mitigation measure GHG-2, cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. GHG-3, and GHG-4.

Source of ARB Scoping Plan Reduction Measure: ARB 2008.

Source of Project Consistency or Applicability: Michael Brandman Associates.

Level of Significance before Mitigation
Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the commercial portion of the project, the applicant shall demonstrate that a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been prepared for the project. The Program shall publish ride sharing information for ride sharing vehicles and provide a website or message board for coordinating rides. The Program shall ensure that appropriate bus route information is placed in each building. The Program shall promote and encourage alternate employment work schedules (i.e. that varies from a traditional 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedule). Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided to the City Building Official for review and approval.
44 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINClient PN-JN\1423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINALI.doel423-0014_IS MND_4thfinel3 D.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation MM GHG-2 The residential units shall be designed to meet certification standards under the California Green Builder program and/or the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes or an equivalent rating system. If LEED is selected, the following credits from the LEED for Homes Rating System dated January 2008 shall be incorporated (or equivalent in subsequent version of manual): Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 2.3, SS Credit 2.4, SS Credit 2.5, SS Credit 3, Water Efficiency (WE) Credit 3.1, Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credit 1.2 (by 30 percent), EA Credit 9.1, EA Credit 11.2, and Materials and Resources (MR) Credit 3.2.

MM GHG-3 The commercial portion of the project site shall be designed to meet certification standards under LEED. In addition, the following LEED credits from the LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations shall be followed (or equivalent in subsequent version): SS Credit 4.2: Alternative Transportation - Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms; SS Credit 7.1: Heat Island Effect - Non Roof; SS Credit 7.2: Heat Island Effect - Roof; WE Credit 1: Water Efficient Landscape; WE Credit 3: Water Use Reduction; EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance by at least 30 percent; EA Credit 2: On-Site Renewable Energy; EA Credit 4, and MR Credit 2: Construction Waste Management.

MM GHG-4 Development proposals shall incorporate the design and construction features listed below to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Building Official.
a) The designs shall incorporate exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste.
b) There shall be garages or long-term bicycle parking for each residential unit. If applicable, the garages shall have space for at least two bicycles. If applicable, the long-term bicycle parking shall consist of one of the following: a bicycle locker, a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclists only, or a standard rack in a location that is monitored by video surveillance 24 hours per day. c) No more than 40 percent of the residential landscape shall be conventional turf.
d) There shall be safe pedestrian connections consisting of a sidewalk and/or path between the residential and commercial land uses. All sidewalks internal and adjacent to project site shall be a minimum of five feet wide.
e) All streets internal to the project wider than 75 feet have Class I or Class II bicycle lanes on both sides. The bicycle lane(s) shall connect to all streets contiguous with the project site.

Michael Brandman Associates 45
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL I.dee1423-0014_IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration f) Site design and building placement shall minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Residential and commercial developments that abut one another within the project area shall provide for convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between these two land uses to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

The commercial area shall provide a parking lot design that includes clearly marked pedestrian pathways between transit facilities (where applicable and building entrances.

MM GHG-5 To ensure minimal refrigerant leakage, the commercial refrigerant systems and heating and ventilation systems shall be maintained and checked for leaks at least once every six months. Additionally, the Credit 11.2 from the LEED for Homes Rating System dated January 2008 shall be complied with in the residential units. The maintenance records for the commercial area shall be kept onsite and made available for review by City Building Inspectors.

Level of Significance after Mitigation
Less than significant.

The proposed zone change will allow higher density residential adjacent to commercial uses, which is associated with fewer vehicle miles traveled for each dwelling. The CAPCOA White Paper (CAPCOA 2008) indicates that bicycle parking, end of trip facilities, and proximity to bicycle lanes can result in up to a five percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions. It also indicates that a proper pedestrian network can result in a 10 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions. The CAPCOA White Paper also indicates that TDM measures can be associated with up to a 28 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions. It also indicates that high residential density with safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to transit can result in up to a 40 percent reduction in motor vehicle emissions. Therefore, based on the inclusion of residential and commercial uses within the project area, and the mitigation measures discussed, it is estimated that at least a 25 percent reduction from motor vehicle emissions would be attained. Also of equal importance, with implementation of mitigation measures, future development of the project area would be consistent with the Scoping Plan. Estimated mitigation measure reductions are shown in Table 3-9.
46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL L.deel 123-0014_IS-MND 4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Table 3-9: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases, Estimated Reductions) Unmitigated Mitigated
Emissions Emissions
Source Reduction (%) (MTCOze per
(MTCOze per
year) year)
Motor vehicles (retail)* 4,069 25 3,052
Motor vehicles (residential)* 3,274 25 2,456
Natural gas (retail) 115 30 81
Natural gas (residential) 818 30 573
Indirect electricity 848 30 594
Water transport - 202 50 101
Waste 62 - 285
Refrigerants 1,153 20 922
Total 10,541 30 7,494
MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbons)
Source for unmitigated emissions: Table 3-7.

Source for reductions:
- *Motor vehicles - combination of commercial and residential uses and mitigation measures GHG-1, GHG-3, and GHG-4, reductions are pursuant to CAPCOA 2008 and Ewing et al. - Natural gas and indirect electricity - mitigation measures GHG-2 (see reference CGB 2009) and GHG-3 and to account for the fact that the emission factors used to generate the electricity emissions are from 1993; many improvements in energy efficiency have occurred since that time.
- Water transport - mitigation measures GHG-2 (see reference CGB 2009), GHG-3, and GHG-4. - Waste - mitigation measures GHG-2 (see reference CGB 2009), GHG-3, and GHG-4 - see EPA model WARM output. - Refrigerants - mitigation measure GHG-3 and GHG-5

3.8 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction. The project must comply with the standard requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, which contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, treatment, storage and disposal facilities. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential and retail uses would emit or handle hazardous materials that will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, any hazardous materials associated with the construction or operation of the project site will be subject to standard controls and regulations in place and in force by County, State, and/or federal agencies.

Michael Brandman Associates 47
H: WPWINIClient PN-JNI1423-Murrietalis-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xfs-Mad FINAL Ideel 4230014_IS MND_4thfinal3 9 doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site (see Appendix F) indicated that there is no evidence of Recognized Environmental Concerns (REC's) in connection with the project site and the site is not included in a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (Cortese)
However, the Phase I ESA identified several non-REC issues of potential concern related to lead and asbestos and recommended pre-demolition asbestos and lead-based paint investigation. Accordingly, JR Inc. on September 24, 2005, conducted lead and asbestos investigation at the project site. The investigation identified asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint on various locations within the project site. The investigation further recommended that for lead-based paints, Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard (Title 8 CCR Section 1532.1) requirements should be followed during demolition activities that will impact all painted surfaces. Similarly, a State licensed asbestos abatement contractor was required to abate all asbestos containing materials in acordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations.

Following the publication of the report, most of the existing buildings on the project site were demolished and the lead-based paints and asbestos containing materials were handled in acordance with the guidelines as recommended in the Phase I ESA (JMR 2005a and 2005b).

The Phase I ESA also indicated that aproximately ten domestic water wells and five septic systems were observed on the project site and recommended that they should be properly abandoned according to the State and local regulations. These existing domestic wells and septic systems were subsequently abandoned in acordance with applicable State and local regulations as recommended in the Phase I ESA.

Therefore based on the above discussion, the proposed project will not create a potential hazard to the public or the environment and the impacts in regards to this will be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located aproximately 814 feet (0.15 mile) north of Antelope Elementary School. However, the proposed residential and retail uses allowed by the zone change is not anticipated to emit or handle any kind of 48 Michael Brandman Associates
HAWPWINIClient PN-/N11423-Murrieta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd-FINAL 1.dee1423-0014 IS-MND 4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation acute hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of a project at this site will not result in a significant impact to an existing school because of the emissions and handling of acutely hazardous materials.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. LG Inland, Inc. conducted a Phase I ESA July 3, 2005 (LGI 2005). The report concluded that the project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites identified pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there will no significant impact related to significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The French Valley Airport is the closest public use airport located aproximately three miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project will not result in a safety hazard relative to a public airport for people residing or working in the project area.

D For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Less than Significant Impact. There are no private airstrips or helipads within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Accordingly, the implementation of the proposed project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working on the project site. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The project will introduce residents and employees to the site that would be subject to emergency evacuation or response in the event of a major disaster. The City of Murrieta Fire Department is responsible to implement the Emergency Operation Plan at the policy and operational levels. Chapter 2.60 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Murrieta provides for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of emergency or disaster conditions. Clinton Keith Road and Duster Road, which border the project site, along with the proposed internal street network, provides adequate emergency vehicular access to and through the project site in the event of emergency Michael Brandman Associates 49
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED_8-17-10xts Mnd FINAL 1.deel123 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration evacuation. Therefore, the project would not result in the impairment or interference with the implementation of the Riverside County emergency evacuation and support services procedures in the event of a natural disaster or emergency h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within- a "Wildland Fire Protection Areas" as depicted in the City of Murrieta General Plan, Figure VI-7. Any future project shall be subject to and designed in compliance with current California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC) and Wildland Urban Interface Code (WUI). Accordingly, the proposed project will not create significant impacts related to Wildland fire hazards.

3.9 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant. When specific development proposals for this project are submitted to the City for review and approval, they will be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (General Permit). The project will also be required to comply with conditions for new development that are identified through the City of Murrieta and Riverside County Flood Control District's implementation of their Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit.

Specific proposals submitted in the future will also be subject to project-specific conditions related to water quality established under the Section 401(c) Water Quality Certification for this project, which will be issued by the RWQCB. The RWQCB will require the implementation of BMPs to prevent deterioration of water quality caused by construction activities and project operation. Compliance with Section 402 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) regulations will be required as administered by the RWQCB.

Water pollution control measures incorporated into project design, construction, and operations would establish compliance with current NPDES regulations. In addition, BMPs will be implemented through Water Quality Management Plan(s) (WQMP), which are required to comply with regional and local water quality requirements for post construction conditions.
50 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murictals-Mnd FINAL, AMENDED 8-17-10x/sMnd-FINAL L.doe1123 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP for specific development projects will require compliance with established local and State water quality requirements, and through this compliance, violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be avoided.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant. No groundwater is expected to be used by a project during the life of the project, nor are there any methods of substantial groundwater recharging known to exist on the property.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant. The requirements to prepare and implement an SWPPP during grading and construction and a WQMP as well as other requirements discussed under impact "a" above will ensure that substantial erosion or siltation will not occur on- or off- site.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less than Significant. The current drainage pattern on site will not be substantially altered in a way that will result in on or off-site flooding. Drainage on the project site will continue to flow in a north-south direction, although runoff flows will be increased due to the expansion of impervious surface that will result from project implementation.

However, these flows will be concentrated and controlled by the construction of on-site and, if necessary, off-site drainage improvements that would avoid potential flood conditions. Provision of a stormwater drainage system for the project site is discussed under Impact "e" below.
e) 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?
Michael Brandman Associates 51
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN\1423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls Mnd FINAL 1.dee1423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site currently drains in a southerly direction. The unnamed ephemeral drainage in the northwestern portion of the project site receives off-site flows from a concrete drainpipe near the northeast corner. Flows from the eastern portion of the project site, including the ephemeral drainage, are concentrated and flow under Clinton Keith Road through culverts. Runoff flows generally for the western portion of the project site surface drain to a small ditch along the north side of Catt Road, which are ultimately conveyed to a culvert that carries the water underneath Clinton Keith Road.

There are currently no specific development plans for any portion of the project site, so specific drainage characteristics, as well as the drainage facilities that will ultimately be provided for the project site are unknown. In addition, several different developers may develop the project at different times in the future. If drainage facilities are not coordinated the overall project could exceed the capacity of drainage facilities downstream and may be undersized for development that could occur upstream of the project site. In order to adress these potential problems, Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 has been imposed on the project.

Mitigation Measures
MM HWQ-1 Prior to approval of a Tentative Map or other type of land use approval to permit development within any part of the project site, a comprehensive drainage plan for the entire site shall be approved by the City Engineer. The drainage plan shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and in accordance with City requirements, that the improvements and facilities identified shall provide adequate protection from flooding on-and off-site and be adequately sized and designed to accommodate future upstream development. In addition, each Tentative Map and/or other land use application shall, as a condition of approval, be required to provide for the construction and the necessary asements and/or rights-of-way associated with the drainage plan. If deemed necessary to provide for adequate protection from flooding by the City Engineer, interim improvements may also be required. Such interim facilities, if needed, shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

D Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant. Water quality will be regulated through the imposition of a SWPPP and a WQMP as discussed under impact "a" above. There are no other out-of- the-ordinary circumstances related to the project that are expected to otherwise cause a substantial degradation of water quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
52 Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL I.deel-123-004/_IS-MND_4thfnal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area, and no off-site structures associated with the development of the project site are proposed within a 100-year flood hazard area.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The site is not within the vicinity of dams or levees nor is it within the inundation area of a dam or levee.
j) Inundation by siche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project site is not located near a large body of water that would be subject to tsunamis or seiches. In addition, the project site is located in midst of a developed area with flat topography, which is not subject to mudflows.

3.10 - Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in rezoning from the Rural Residential Zone, which provides for residential development with a 2.5-acre lot minimum, to denser and more urban residential and commercial land uses. This change in zoning is a logical extension of the existing urban development/zoning located immediately to the east and south of the project site. Implementation of the project will not disrupt or split the community of 2.5-acre rural residential lots located to the north and west of the project site. In addition, implementation of the project will not truncate or close streets or driveways, which would restrict access to the existing rural residential community.

Michael Brandman Associates 53
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/sMad FINAL I.deel423-0011_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The change in the zoning contemplated by the project will not conflict with land use plans policies or regulations of the City that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The potential loss of trees on the project site would be offset by City requirements to comply with its Tree Preservation Ordinance. Although the specific configuration of development that will eventually occur on the project site is not known at this time, it is possible there could be some conflict between future development and animal keeping related to the 2.5-acre lots located next to the project. However, this issue is addressed by Policy LU-2.1d of the City's General Plan, which is quoted below:

Residences or farms/ranches with existing horses or livestock in areas that allow the keeping of animals shall be presumed to have pre-existing rights to maintain such animals in the same manner barring health and safety issues.

New development shall bear the responsibility for providing any buffers or setbacks between the existing development and the new development.

Where applicable, new development shall be encouraged to provide buffer zones and shall comply with the City's Equestrian/Agricultural Preservation Standards.

With the continued application of Policy LU2.1d to future development within the project area, any potential conflicts that may otherwise exist would be avoided. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Less Than Significant. The project will be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. In addition, as indicated in Section 4 of this document (Biological Resources), the project is not located within an MSHCP cell and complies with the provisions of the MSHCP.

3.11 - Mineral Resources
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?
54 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL_1.dee1423 0014_IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation's Mineral Land Classification report, the project site occurs within an area that has been classified as MRZ-3. (CDC 1987, 1997) These are areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from available data. No mining operations currently occur on or in proximity of the project site, nor is there information that suggests that mining operations been conducted in the past on or in proximity of the project site. Accordingly, there is no evidence indicating that the project site contains any mineral resource that could be of value on a regional or State level. Therefore, the development of the site is not expected to result in the loss of availability of valuable mining resources known to exist on or within the project site 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? Less than Significant Impact. The project area has not been delineated as a locally important resource recovery site on the City's General Plan. Evidence of historical aggregate mining operations in the vicinity is also not apparent. The existing zoning (Rural Residential) and the proposed zoning (Multi Family Residential and Regional = Commercial District-Neighborhood Commercial), is incompatible with future mining operations; in addition, the existence residential neighborhoods immediately surrounding the site limits possible future mining operations due to the insufficient buffer. Based upon the above discussion, impacts to the loss of locally important mineral resources will be less than significant.

3.12 - Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation for Long Term Noise Impacts Short-term Noise
Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with development of the project area would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of construction activities. The City of Murrieta Municipal Code exempts construction, grading and demolition activity from noise standards if these activities are conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday (not including Sundays and legal Michael Brandman Associates 55
H:WPWINIClient PN-JNV423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL 1.dee|423 0011_IS-MND-4thfinel3 9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
holidays). The project will conduct hours of construction, grading and demolition in acordance with the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance, will not exceed City standards, and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Long-term Noise
The Noise Element of the Murrieta General Plan has identified 65 dBA CNEL as the maximum acceptable exterior noise level for noise sensitive uses such as residential and public institutions and 45 dBA as the maximum acceptable level for interior noise. (City of Murrieta 1994)
The most prominent source of existing and future noise that would affect the project site would be from veicular traffic on Clinton Keith Road, which is located directly to the south and is the busiest street in proximity to the project site. Veicular noise along Clinton Keith Road was evaluated to estimate existing and future noise levels from mobile traffic. Existing and future roadway noise levels were projected using the trips generated by the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted by Kunzman Associates (Appendix G) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model. (RD-77-108) The FHWA model is based upon reference energy mean emission levels (REMEL) for automobiles, medium trucks (2 axles), and heavy trucks (3 or more axles), with consideration given to vehicle volume and speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site.

According to the traffic noise estimates conducted for the project (Appendix F), the estimated existing daily trips generated on Clinton Keith Road total aproximately 25,600 and have a noise level of 78.2 dBA. at a distance of 60 feet from road centerlines.

Future buildout noise levels without the project (again based on the TIA) would total 82.1 dBA. Although the specific design and layout of future building configurations are not known at this time, without appropriate mitigation significant impacts could occur from the exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of the City's standards. In addition, there is the potential for future residences near other project roadways besides Clinton Keith Road to experience noise levels in excess of City standards. In order to address these potentially significant impacts, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 has been imposed on the project and will mitigate such impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
MM NOI-1 Concurrent with the submittal of a project application at this site, the project proponent shall submit a noise study to evaluate existing and projected noise levels that could affect residences within the project site to assure that exterior and interior noise levels meet City noise standards. If City noise standards are exceeded, measures to attenuate noise levels (i.e. walls, berms, building construction techniques, etc) shall be required to attenuate noise to Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls Mnd FINAL I.doe1423-0014_IS-MND 4hfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation levels that are in acordance with City standards. Noise studies shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City's Community Development Director. b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the project will not result in any excessive groundborne noise levels or groundborne vibration. There are no such vibration or groundborne sources associated with the proposed residential or commercial uses.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The construction of the project would not require the use of equipment such as jackhammers and pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels.

The primary sources of vibration during construction would be from bulldozers, backhoes, crawler tractors, and scrapers. Construction impacts were assessed using the continuous/frequent intermittent structural damage vibration threshold of 0.5 peak particle velocity PPV for construction. A vibratory roller would produce the greatest amount of vibration on the project site, with a (PPV) of 0.210 inch per second at 25 feet, well below the 0.5 PPV standard. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site is the residential uses located aproximately 115 feet southeast of the site, which yields only an estimated .050 PPV for a vibratory roller. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts from the project on existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact.

The CEQA Guidelines and the City of Murrieta General Plan provide no definition of what constitutes a "substantial" noise increase, which relates to permanent increase in ambient noise levels. However, Caltrans provides guidance that can be used to define substantial changes in noise levels that may be caused by a project. According to the Caltrans guidelines, an increase in noise levels by three dBA or more where the existing noise level is greater than 65 dBA is considered a significant increase.

As described in Impact 12, a) the future noise levels generated on Clinton Keith Road without the project would total 82.1 dBA, and b) with the project, would be approximately 82.3 dBA. Consequently, the total increase with the project would total

0.2 dBA, which is well below the Caltrans three dBA significance threshold, and the increase is at a level that is imperceptible to the human ear. Similarly, the increase in Michael Brandman Associates 57
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL 1.deel423 0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Grossing Projec
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation nitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaratior traffic noise for other road segments evaluated in the Traffic Impact Report would be even less. Therefore, the project will not create substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, and impacts in this regard are less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Construction noise represents a short- term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities either from the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated onsite during demolition, ground clearing, excavation, grading, and construction activities.

Table 12.1 lists typical construction equipment noise levels for equipment that would be used during construction of the project. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has a unique mix of equipment and, consequently, unique noise characteristics. These sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow for categorizing noise ranges by work phase.

Table 3-10: Noise Associated with Typical Construction Equipment Construction Phases Maximum Noise Levels
Measured (dBA at 50 feet)
Grading 89
Backhoe 90
Pneumatic tools 88
Air compressor 86
Crane 83
Plate compactor 89
Concrete vibrator 85
Trucks 87
Source: Federal Transit Agency, 1995.
58 Michael Brandman Associates
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL_1.dee1423-001/_IS-MND 4thfinal3-2.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Based on their proximity to the project site, the residential land uses to the east and southwest of the project site are of the most concern as they relate to project construction noise. Noise levels at these receptors represent the worst-case scenario, and any receptors further from the project site would experience noise levels that are less than those predicted for the project. It should also be noted that the CEQA requirements target a project's effects on the environment in general and not on a project's effects on specific individuals.

Based on the closest residence aproximately 74 feet to the cast of the project site, and based on operation of a backhoe which is the noisiest equipment listed in Table 1, above, the maximum noise level would be 84 dBA. Note that construction noise often varies significantly on a day-to-day basis, and the noise levels shown in the table represent a worst-case scenario. Noise levels based on construction noise at 90 dBA measured at 50 feet from project site; assume a 6 dBA reduction for each doubling of distance. Noise level depicts peak levels and does not predict the 24-hour weighted average (CNEL).

Construction noise would occur during clearing, grading and construction, but would be the most noticeable during the initial period of intensive grading. Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally would be limited to daytime hours, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday (excluding Sundays and legal holidays). The noise created would also be of limited and variable duration and would occur only during the construction phase of the project. Consequently, the noise generated from construction may at times represent a substantial temporary increase over existing noise levels.

In order to minimize disruption to existing residents, all construction activity would be performed in acordance with the City of Murrieta Municipal Code noise requirements.

Consequently, with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-2 and NOI-3, construction noise impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant.

MM NOI-2 Construction activities shall adhere to the following noise requirements:
• All construction equipment shall utilize noise reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.

Hours of construction shall comply with those established in the City of Murrieta Municipal Code construction activity noise regulations. Those hours are weekdays from 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays.

MM NOI-3 At the time a grading permit application is submitted, the project proponent shall submit a construction noise mitigation plan to the City of Murrieta for Michael Brandman Associates 59
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL. AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL 1.dee1423-0014_IS MND_Ahfinal3-9.doe Discussion of Environmental Evaluation City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
review and approval. The plan shall depict the location of construction equipment and describe how noise would be mitigated through methods such as, but not limited to, locating stationary noise-generating equipment (such as pumps and generators), as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Where practicable, noise-generating equipment shall be shielded from nearby noise-sensitive receptors by noise-attenuating buffers such as structures or haul trucks trailers. Onsite noise sources such as heavy equipment located less than 200 feet from noise-sensitive receptors shall be equipped with noise-reducing engine housings. Portable acoustic barriers able to attenuate at least six dBA shall be placed around noise-generating equipment located within 200 feet of residences may also be required. Water tanks and equipment storage, staging, and warm-up areas shall be located as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible. The construction noise mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no airport land use plans in the area, nor is the project within two miles of an airport. The airport closest to the project is the French Valley Airport, which is approximately 3.16 miles southeast from the project site.

A) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity.

3.13 - Population and Housing
Would the project:

Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the project would yield a maximum of 307-354 residential units and is assumed to develop approximately 60,000-30,000 square feet of commercial uses for the 28-acre site. Based upon the SCAGs per-dwelling-unit estimate of 3.01 used for the City of Murrieta in the 2008 RTP (SCAG 2008), it is estimated that, at project buildout, which is assumed to occur in 2011, there would be 927 60 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JNI1423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xłs Mnd FINAL. I.dec1423001/_IS-MND_4thfinal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation -1,065 new residents. -(The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and aproximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.) The SCAG RTP 2008 population estimate for the City of Murrieta was 100,173 in 2008.

SCAG's forecast used in the RTP predicted a population of 103,726 in 2010, 3.5 percent or 1.75 percent on an annual basis. However, California DOF estimated that the City's population, as of January 1, 2009, was 100,174 and for January 1, 2008, 99,576 persons, or an annual increase of 1.1 percent, which is below SCAG's estimated annual increase.

In addition, extrapolating the DOF's 1.1 percent increase for years 2009 and 2010 yields a projected population of approximately 102,390 persons, which is lower than SCAG's 2010 projection of 103,726 persons. Even if it were assumed that the project would build out a year early in 2010 instead of 2011, the additional 923 - 1,065 persons from the project would not exceed SCAG's 2010 projection. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in the City beyond what was already projected in the KIP.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant. The project site consists of one existing house, which may be demolished as part of the proposed development; the remaining area of the project site is primarily vacant land. In addition, the analysis is for development of approximately 307 354- multi-family residential units. Therefore, impacts related to displacement of substantial numbers of existing houses necessitating the construction of replacement housing, is less than significant. (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As discussed above, the project site only consists of one residence, which may be demolished as a part of the proposed development. In addition, the project analysis was based on the development of approximately 307-354 multi-family residential units, which will offset the loss of the single home that will be removed.

Therefore, there will be no impact in this regard. (The project description was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.)
Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mind FINAL. I.deel423 0014_ISMND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Projec
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaratio

3.14 - Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Murrieta Fire Department provides fire protection to the project site. The nearest fire station to the project site (Fire Station No. 4) is located at 28155 Baxter Road. The project would create an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency service due to an increased number of emergency and public service calls generated by proposed development. The City of Murrieta's development impact fees apply to all new development and are designed to offset the potential impacts to public services by new development. As such, the proposed project will be required to pay its fair share of fees to alleviate any cumulative impacts associated with fire services. With the payment of the mandatory development impact fees, impacts on fire services will be avoided.
b) Police Protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Murrieta Police Department provides protection services for the project area. The Murrieta Police Station is located at 24701 Jefferson Avenue, approximately three miles from the project site. The project analysis is based on the development of approximately 307-354 multi-family residential units and approximately 60,000-30,000 square feet of a regional commercial district. As discussed in the "Population and Housing" section, the project would result in a population increase of approximately 927-1,065 persons. Similarly, the proposed commercial use allowed by the zoning is estimated to employ approximately 120 persons. Therefore, the project would create an incremental increase in the demand for police protection to the residents and the employees. To provide adequate funding for law enforcement protection facilities, the City has established law enforcement fees based on development type and size. The law enforcement fees associated with the development of the proposed project would help the City provide police services. The project would thus pay its fair share of mandatory development impact fees. With the payment of the mandatory development impact fees, impacts on police services will be avoided. (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.)
62 Michael Brandman Associates
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/sMnd FINAL_L.deg|423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.doe City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is within the boundary of the Murrieta Unified School District (MUSD). A project will generate additional students, which could affect existing school facilities. In order to address such impacts the State of California enacted the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) to provide mitigation for impacts caused by the development of real property on school facilities.

SB 50 provides that a State or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property based on a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50.

In acordance with SB 50, the MUSD requires residential/commercial development to contribute and pay mandatory development fees to offset the potential impacts to school facilities and services by the introduction of new students. Section 65996 designates Section 17620 of the Education Code (the mitigation fees authorized by SB 50) and Section 65970 of the Government Code to be the exclusive method for considering and mitigating development impacts on school facilities. Therefore, with payment of MUSD mandatory school fees, impacts on school facilities are deemed less than significant. d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, development of the site will induce a direct population growth in the project area. The project will have the potential to cause impacts to the parks services and facilities by additional population utilizing the park services and facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will be required to pay its fair share of development fees to alleviate any impacts associated with park services.

With the payment of the mandatory development impact fees, impacts on park services will be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to cause significant impact on other public services including libraries, health services, etc.

However, the City requires residential/commercial development to contribute and pay mandatory development fees to offset the potential impacts to public facilities and services by the inducement of population growth. With the payment of the mandatory development impact fees, impacts on public facilities will be less than significant.

Michael Brandman Associates 63
H:IWPWINIClient PN-JNI1423-Murricta\/s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL.-I.dee11230014_IS MND_Athfinal3 9.doe Discussion of Environmental Evaluation City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.15 - Recreation
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the site is expected to generate a population of aproximately 927 -1,065 residents. This will result in direct impact to the existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, as the added population will utilize those facilities. To offset the impacts to recreational facilities, the developer will be required to pay all apropriate development impact fees as they relate to parks and park services. With payment of the mandatory development impact fees, impacts on recreational facilities and services will be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. At this time, the project does not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. If such facilities were determined by the City to be needed in the future once site-specific development applications have been reviewed, recreation facilities would be required on the project site, but would not have any additional impacts to those that have been evaluated in this document. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.16 - Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Kunzman Associates, Inc. conducted a TIA for the proposed project on July 27, 2009 (Appendix I). The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone change. The TIA was based on the development of 307 multi-family residential units and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of commercial uses in the 5.5-acre project site. The TIA study area included five intersections, 64 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL.1.dee|423-0014_IS-MND 4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation consisting of Greer Road (NS) at Clinton Keith Road (EW), Murrieta Oaks Avenue (NS) at Clinton Keith Road (EW), McElwain Road (NS) at Clinton Keith Road (EW), 1-215 Freeway southbound Ramps (NS) at Clinton Keith Road (EW), and 1-215 Freeway northbound Ramps (NS) at Clinton Keith Road (EW). (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.)
The City of Murrieta General Plan states that peak hour intersection operations of LOS D or better are generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at Level of Service E to F will be considered deficient.

The study area intersections, as described above, currently operate at LOS D or better during peak hours for existing traffic conditions, except for intersection I-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at Clinton Keith Road (EW), which operates at LOS E during the morning peak hour. (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.)
The TIA analyzed traffic generated by the project, distribution of the project traffic to roads outside the project, and buildout traffic conditions, which was assumed to occur in Year 2011. According to the TIA, development of the project as analyzed is estimated to generate approximately 4,682 daily vehicle trips, 222 of which occur during the morning peak hour (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and 340 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
Upon buildout of the project area, (based on the City of Murrieta Traffic Model) all intersections analyzed in the TIA, without the trips generated from the project, are estimated to operate at LOS E to F, which according to the City of Murrieta General Plan are considered deficient. As would be expected, these intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS with the addition of project traffic and no additional improvements. However, with improvements included in the TIA, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS Dor better during the peak hours for buildout with project traffic conditions and with project improvements. Since the project, by its self would not directly cause intersection failure but would contribute, along with other future traffic, to intersection failure direct off-site impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would however, contribute to off-site cumulative impacts that must be mitigated. Any application for a project at this site shall be subject to review by the City.

Mitigation Measures
MM T-1 Site Access: Prior to occupancy of the project, the proposed project will have Michael Brandman Associates 65
H:IWPWINClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xts Mad FINAL-Idee|423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3 9.dee Discussion of Environmental Evaluation City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
access to Mitchell Road (Pahl Road), Duster Road, and Sierra Lane.

MM T-2 Alignment Study: Prior to any development approval, an alignment study shall be submitted for City approval for Mitchell (Pahl) Road, from Clinton Keith Road to Linnel Lane.

MM T-3 Roadway Improvements:

On- Site: Prior to occupancy of the project, the following site-specific circulation and access improvements shall be constructed (see Figure 22 of the TIA).

Construct Mitchell Road (Pahl Road) from the north project boundary to Clinton Keith Road at its ultimate cross-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.

2. Construct Sierra Lane from Mitchell Road (Pahl Road) to the cast project boundary at its ultimate cross-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.

Sufficient on-site parking shall be provided to meet City of Murrieta parking code requirements.

4. Sight distance at the project accesses should be reviewed with respect to California Department of Transportation/City of Murrieta standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

5. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project.

Off-Site: The City of Murrieta shall periodically review traffic operations in the area of the project once the project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory.

Prior to occupancy, the project shall participate in the funding or construction of off-site improvements through the payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees and the City of Murrieta Development Impact Fees for transportation.
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 66 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN\1423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd-FINAl. 1.doel423-0014 IS-MND Ihfinal3-2.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initia/ Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation No Impact. The proposed project is located aproximately 3.16 miles northwest from the French Valley Airport. Consequently, due to the distance from the French Valley Airport, the project site is outside the range of an airport land use compatibility zone, and would therefore not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, there will be no impact to air traffic patterns as a result of the proposed project. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The traffic analysis conducted by Kunzman and Associates determined that the project would not create significant impacts as long as the proposed on-site improvements were made, including contributions to site-specific circulation and access improvements. Additionally, the project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) because the existing and future roadway will be required to meet City of Murrieta roadway design criteria, insuring that specific roadway hazards are not created.

Therefore, impacts due to a hazardous design feature will be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. Regional access to the project site is provided by the I- 215 Freeway. Local access will be provided by various roadways in the vicinity of the site. Roadways expected to provide emergency access to the project site include Greer Road, Clinton Keith Road, Murrieta Oaks Avenue and McElwain Road. As part of the project development, roadways and signals will be improved in the project area, thus providing for adequate emergency access. In addition, all roadways will be required to meet City of Murrieta emergency access and safety requirements. (Minimum roadway widths and turn radii, two points of access, sight distance, etc.) D Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site was analyzed for development of 307 residential dwelling units and 60,000 square feet of retail commercial space. The total amount of parking spaces needed for the project shall be subject to City of Murrieta development code (Section 26) provisions related to off street parking, insuring that parking capacity will not be impacted. Therefore, project impacts related to parking are less than significant. (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.) Michael Brandman Associates 67
H:WPWIN Client PN-JN11423-Murrieta\s-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL 1.doel423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less than Significant Impact. The study area is currently not served by the Riverside Transit Agency Route 23 along Clinton Keith Road. However, the project does not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Although there are no forms of alternative transportation available near the project site, according to the Murrieta General Plan, development of the project may, if applicable, be required to construct bus turnouts with shelters adjacent to the new developments where transit demand levels may be sufficient in the future to warrant such accommodations.

Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with alternative transportation and impacts are less than significant.

3.17 - Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Less than Significant Impact. Development of the site will involve an onsite system for the collection of wastewater for conveyance to offsite public wastewater facilities.

Wastewater conveyed from the site would ultimately reach EVMWD wastewater treatment facility where it would undergo treatment in accordance with applicable regulations, including the requirements of the Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed below in impact "e", EVMWD has sufficient capacity to provide the waste treatment service to the proposed project.

Therefore, the project will not be required to construct new water or wastewater treatment facilities and the environmental impacts associated with their construction is less than significant.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts?
68 Michael Brandman Associates
HAWPWINIClient PN-JNI1423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xfs-Mnd FINAL_I.deel423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Less than Significant Impact. The proposed development of the project site will result in an incremental increase in stormwater. The infiltration of the presently undeveloped site will be decreased by construction of the project, which will be covered by impervious surfaces. Currently, the project site does not have any storm water drainage facilities and so will require the expansion of the existing local storm water drainage system.

Development shall incorporate appropriate design features (i.e., detention basin, retention ponds) which will reduce the potential storm water runoff and/or the velocity of such runoff from the project site. Development will also require coverage under the SWRCB NPDES permit General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit), since the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land. Therefore, compliance with all applicable stormwater regulations and incorporation of appropriate storm water control features in the project design, the impacts relating to capitol improvements of stormwater facilities will be less than significant.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact. Water service to the project site will be provided by EMWD, which has existing infrastructure near the project site. An existing 12" water line is located at the intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Murrieta Oaks Road.

The project proposes the development of 5.5-12.5 net-acres of Multi-Family 1, Residential (MF-1), 12.5-9.5 net-acres of Multi-Family 2, Residential (MF-2) and 5.5 acres of Regional Neighbourhood Commercial District (RCDNC). The water consumption rate for the proposed project is estimated to be approximately 2,835 gallons per day per acre for MF-1, approximately 3,600 gallons per day per acre for MF-2 and approximately 2,000 gallons per day per acre for RCD. Based upon EMWD consumption rates, at buildout, the project would consume roughly 71,592.5 gallons of water per day. (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.) Based upon the 2005 EMWD's Urban Water Management Plan, EMWD has suficient water supplies to meet its current and projected water demands including those for a project as analyzed, over the next 15 years. The project's estimated annual demand falls within the current available and projected water supplies for normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years through the year 2025. (EMWD 2005) In addition, EMWD along with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), wholesale supplier and neighboring water agencies identified a number of projects, which combined with Michael Brandman Associates 69
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\s-Mnd FINAL, AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL._I.de1123 0014_IS MND_(th/inal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration EMWD efforts, will ensure reliable long-term water supplies for existing and future demands. Therefore, no capital improvements on the existing water supply infrastructure are required in addition to any associated fees and thus the project-related impacts to water supply will be less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments
Less than Significant Impact. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) through its regional reclamation facility will provide wastewater treatment services to a project at this site. EVMWD has 310 miles of sewer pipeline, which collects and conveys wastewater generated by homes and businesses within its service area to the treatment facilities. The plant's design treatment capacity is 1.5 million gallons per day.

The proposed project would introduce approximately 927 -1,065 residents and 120 employees in the project area. The wastewater generation rate for the proposed project is estimated to be approximately 70 gallons per resident per day and approximately 100 gallons per employee per day. Based upon EVMWD demand rates, at buildout, the project would generate roughly 76,890-86.550 gallons of wastewater per day; 64,890- 74,550 gallons from residents
(70 gallons per resident per day x 927-1,065 residents within the project) and 12,000 gallons from commercial uses (100 gallons per employee per day x 120 employees). The reclamation facility treatment capacity is 1.5 millions gallons per day; the proposed project's potential incremental increase in wastewater treatment facility is approximately five percent of the maximum throughput (0.077 million gallons per day / 1.5 million gallons per day). In addition, the proposed project will be required to obtain a will serve letter from the EVMWD indicating that the district has adequate capacity to serve the project. Therefore, as per the above discussion, the impacts related to wastewater treatment is less than significant.

D) Be served by a landfill with suficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Murrieta contracts with Waste Management to provide waste collection recycling and disposal services. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) indicated that the solid waste generation rate for the City of Murrieta is one pound per resident per day (approximately 0.18 ton per resident per year) and 17.8 pounds per employee per day (approximately 2.9 ton per employee per year). The project includes a General Plan Amendment, and Zone change and does not contemplate any development at this time. The project analysis was based Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL_I.doel423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initia/ Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation on future development of 307 units of multi-family residence and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of commercial uses in the project area. The project if built as proposed would generate roughly 515 tons of solid waste annually or 1.4 tons daily; 166.8 tons from residents (0.18 ton per resident a year x 927 residents within the project) and 348 tons from commercial uses (2.9 tons per employee a year x 120 employees). Solid waste from the City of Murrieta is transported to the El Sobrante Landfill. The landfill has a maximum throughput of 10,000 tons per day; the proposed development would have an incremental increase in waste of aproximately 0.01 percent of the maximum throughput (1.4 tons per day / 10,000 tons per day). In addition, the El Sobrante Landfill has 495 acres of permitted land for disposal activities with more than 120 million cubic yards of remaining capacity. Therefore, the solid waste generated by the proposed project would not have significant impacts relative to solid waste disposal. The impacts in this regard will be less than significant (The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.) g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The project will be required to abide by all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The proposed project does not contemplate or anticipate any activities/uses that would exceed or otherwise require special consideration in relation to compliance with relevant solid waste handling/disposal statues and regulations. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.

3.18 - Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Habitat Assessment Report prepared in December 2005 (TLC 2005a) indicated that although no BUOW individuals or occupied ground borrows were present on the project site, there is suitable habitat elements (grassland and vacant ground squirrel burrows) for the BUOW. Accordingly, mitigation measures MM BR-la and MM BR-1b (Refer to "a" in the biological section for further Michael Brandman Associates 71
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL 1deel423 0014 IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration discussion) were identified, the implementation of which will reduce the potential impacts to less than a significant level.

The Jurisdictional Delineation Report prepared in October 2005 (TLC 2005b) indicated that approximately 0.0723 acre would fall under the jurisdiction of the State and 0.0261 acre under federal jurisdiction. TLC indicated that a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required to autorize filing of jurisdictional waters of the State. (Refer to "c" in biological section for further discussion.) With the proposed mitigation measure, the impact related to federally protected wetlands is expected to be less than significant. Additionally, the report stated that; "no Riparian/Riverine habitat was identified onsite, therefore, no Riparian/Riverine study and no Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report will need to be prepared."
A Tree Appraisal Report (TLC 2006) prepared for the project site indicated that 184 live trees within the project site fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (16.42). Any development at this site shall require compliance with Tree Preservation Ordinance 16.42. (Refer to "e" in biological section for further discussion.) The Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment (JAK 2009) prepared for the project indicated that no cultural resources of prehistoric or historic origin were observed on the project site. However, the cultural resource assessment noted that 22 archaeological sites have been found within a one-mile radius of the project site. Therefore, although unlikely, it is possible that currently unknown cultural resources could be found. It is recommended that in the event this occurs, discovery grading be halted or diverted away from the affected area of the project site until the finding can be evaluated to determine its significance. (Refer to mitigation measure MM CR-1, in cultural resources section for further discussion.)
Accordingly, as discussed above, the potential impacts to biological and cultural resources from the proposed project will be less than significant after the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures.
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)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Several of the potential impacts identified in this Initial Study were mitigated to less than significant level with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures. As discussed in earlier sections, Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN\1423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL_I.doe1123 0014_IS-MND_Ihfinal3 9-dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation the project would not result in considerable cumulative impacts in regards to air quality, climate change or transportation and circulation. At the present time, there are no major development projects in the immediate project area that would contribute to cumulative impacts, although eventual growth according to the General Plan will have cumulative impacts in the future that have been anticipated in the City's General Plan EIR._-(The project was amended and will allow for an estimated 354 residential units and approximately 30,000 square-feet of commercial uses. The project is within the scope of the analysis and no further changes are required.)
As such, the project would not result in cumulative impacts in air quality, climate change or transportation and circulation.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed earlier in the air quality section, the project will not expose sensitive receptors including human beings to substantial pollutant concentrations during the construction or operational phase. In addition, the Initial Study does not identify or anticipate that the project will produce significant environmental impacts, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant.

Michael Brandman Associates 73
H:\WPWINIClient PN-JNI1423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10xls-Mnd FINAL I.dee|123 0014_ IS MND 4thfinn|3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers SECTION 4: LIST OF PREPARERS

4.1 - IS/MND Project Team Personnel
Lead Agency
City of Murrieta... ..Paul Swancott, Associate Planner
Project Applicant / Development Team
Granite Homes...

BJ Delzer, Project Manager
Consultant Team
Environmental Impact Report
Michael Brandman Associate ................ ..... Bob Prasse, Senior Project Manager Charles Holcombe, Environmental Planner
George Checkal, GIS Technician
Nancy Van Westbroek, Project Administrator
Dawn Scoggan, Project Administrator
Air Quality/Climate Change Consultant
Michael Brandman Associates Vince Mirabella, Senior Air Quality Scientist Cori Wilson, Air Quality Project Manager
Biological Resources Consultant
Thomas Leslie Corporation Thomas A. Leslie, Principal Investigator Nadya Leslie, Project Biologist
Cultural Resources Consultant
Jean A. Keller Jean A. Keller, Ph.D.

Geology and Soils Consultant
LGC Inland, Inc. .Mark Bergmann, President
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Consultant
LGC Inland, Inc. . Mark Bergmann, President
Hydrology and Water Quality Consultant
Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. Aida Hercules-Dodaro, Principal Engineer Traffic Consultant
Kunzman Associates, Inc. ... William Kunzman, Principal Engineer Carl Ballard, Associate
Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\Is-Mnd FINAL_AMENDED 8-17-10xts-Mind FINAL-I.dee|123-0014 IS-MND_4thfina|3-9-dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
List of Preparers Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 - Persons Consulted
City of Murrieta Fire Department
Fire Chief Paul Christman
Murrieta Public Library
Director of Library Services . Loretta McKinney
City of Murrieta Community Services Department
Assistant City Manager/Community Services Director Jim Holston City of Murrieta Land Use and Planning Department
Office Specialist Mellissa Couden
City of Murrieta Police Department
Chief of Police. Mark Wright
City of Murrieta Public Works and Engineering Department Public Works Director/City Engineer . Pat Thomas
Eastern Municipal Water District
Person of Contact Linda Peterson
76 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\ls-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s Mnd FINAL. 1.deel 123-0014_IS MND_4ihfinal3-9.dee City of Murrieta - Mitchell Crossing Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers SECTION 5: REFERENCES
Text Reference Citation
HA 2006a Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.

April 15, 2006.

HA 2006b Drainage Study for Tentative Tract Map 34051. Hunsaker & Associates, Inc.

August 11, 2006.

JMR 2005a Lead Investigation Conducted at Granite Homes Murrieta Project. JMR Environmental Services, Inc. September 24, 2009.

JMR 2005b Asbestos Investigation Conducted at Granite Homes Murrieta Project. JMR Environmental Services, Inc. September 24, 2009.

JAK 2009 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Mitchell Crossing. Jean A. Keller.

July 2009.

KA 2009 City of Murrieta Mitchell Crossing Focused Traffic Impact Analysis. Kunzman Associates, Inc. July 27, 2009.

LGC 2006 Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development Tentative Tract 34051 At Clinton Keith Road and Mitchell Road, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, CA. LGC Inland Inc. September 22, 2006.

LGC 2005 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 10-parcel "Murrieta 30" Proposed Inland, Inc. July 3, 2005. Residential Development Property, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, CA. LGC TLC 2005a Habitat Assessment Report, Including the Result of a Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability Assessment, Narrow Endemic Plant Species Habitat Assessment and Jurisdiction Delineation for Tentative Tract Map No. 34051. Thomas Leslie Corporation. October 4, 2005.

TLC 2005b Results of Four Protocol Winter, Non-breeding Season Burrowing Owl Field Surveys Performed Over the Entirety of the 26.80-acre Tentative Tract Map 34051. Thomas Leslie Corporation. December 28, 2005.

TLC 2006a Tree Appraisal Report for Tentative Tract Map 34051 Murrieta, CA.Thomas Leslie Corporation. January 27, 2006.

TLC 2006b Results of Four Focused Breeding Season Burrowing Owl Field Surveys Conducted Within Over the Entirety of the 26.80-acre Tentative Tract Map 34051 Thomas Leslie Corporation. April 24, 2006.

TLC 2009 2009 Evaluation of Biological Conditions of Tract Map No. 34051. Thomas Leslie Corporation. June 30, 2009
Michael Brandman Associates 77
HAWPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murricta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL I.deel423-0014_IS-MND_4thfina13-9.dee Websites
CMGP 1994 City of Murrieta General Plan
http://www.murrieta.org/uploads/forms/parks/General%20Plan%20PDF%20Files/ TitlenTOC.pdf
CDC 1987 California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Mines and Geology. 1987. Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area, Special Report 143, Part VII, Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas.

CDF 2008 The California Department of Finance. E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2008, Revised 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark.

CNDDB 2009 California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base.

Sacramento, California. February 2009
CDFFP 2009 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, Fire Resource and Prevention Program www.tire.ca.gov/php
DOT 2009 California Department of Transportation (DOT), The California Scenic Highway Program. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm EMWD 2005 Eastern Municipal Water District, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan http://www.scag.ca.gov/tcp/pdf/uwmp/Riverside/EMWD2005UWMP.pdf MFD 2009a City of Murrieta Fire Department
http://www.murrieta.org/services/fire/index.asp
MPD 2009b City of Murrieta Police Department
http://www.murrieta.org/services/police/index.asp
MPD 2009c City of Murrieta Community Services Department http://www.murrieta.org/services/rec/index.asp
MPD 2009d City of Murrieta Land Use and Planning Department http://www.murrieta.org/dev/planning/index.asp
MUSD 2009 Murrieta Unified School District
http://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/mvusd/site/default.asp
SCAG 2008 The Southern California Association of Governments. 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. www.scag.ca.gov
SCDC 2007 The State of California Department of Conservation. 2007. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx 78 Michael Brandman Associates
H:WPWINIClient PN-JN11423-Murrieta\Is-Mnd FINAL AMENDED 8-17-10x/s-Mnd FINAL_I.d0e1423-0014_IS MND_4thfinal3-9.dee

MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
PROJECT NAME: General Plan Amendment 009-2770 and Zone Change 009-2771 Mitchell Crossing.

DATE: August 17, 2010
PROJECT MANAGER: Paul Swancott, Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed project commonly referred to as Mitchell Crossing, is for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change changing the existing 28-acres of Rural Residential zoning to 12.2-net acres Multi-Family 1, Residential (MF-1), 9.5-acres Multi-Family 2, Residential (MF-2), and 5.5-net acres Neighborhood Commercial (NC).

PROJECT LOCATION:

The proper is ce re in it ad an a 20, and is baded by us, ad to te went and west of siera Lane, aproximarely o0 mile CONTACT PERSON: BJ Delzer (Melia Homes, LLC)
PHONE NUMBER: (949) 394-3760

MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCE
Section RESPONSIBILITY VERIFICATION COMMENTS

3.4 Biological Resources FOR IMPLEMENT.

MM BR - 1. A clearance survey for the BUOW shall be conducted no CITY OF MURRIETA Study submitted to Community INITIAL STUDY Development Department and
more than 30 days prior to clearing, grubbing, grading or any other Public Works Department for ground disturbing activities on the site. If the BUOW are present, Departments additional measures and actions will be required pursuant to the CDFG review prior to any ground Code and the MBTA to avoid nesting burrowing owls and the disturbance activity permit potential take of active nests. issuance.

Bring, Constern or l be cans died pain a city ton or any impact any isolated waters identified in the most current jurisdictional Development Department Public Works Department and delineation prepared for the project site. If the CDFG determines that any ground
activity permit
issuance.

MM BR-4. Offsets for the removal of trees on the project site shall be Prescation viance: Generaly, is ma be accompisted y Preservation Ordinance. Departmery Declopment applying the appraised value of the trees to be removed by either