Addendum
Mitigated Negative Declaration
to the
CarMax Auto Superstore
for the
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project
(SCH No. 2015061002)
(DP-2023-00063 / CUP-2023-00022)
Prepared for:
City of Murrieta
1 Town Square
Murrieta, CA 92562
Contact: Roderick Salazar
(951) 461-6216
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, California 92501
December 2024
RECEIVED 12/10/2024
Murrieta Planning Division
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 i
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 ☐ Land Use/Planning
☒ Air Quality ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Agricultural and Forestry Resources ☒ Noise
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Population/Housing
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Public Services
☐ Energy ☐ Recreation
☒ Geology/Soils ☒ Transportation
☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☒ Utilities/Service Systems ☒ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Wildfire
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 is required.
I find that the amended project has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document.
Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous documentation adequate to cover the project which are documented in this ADDENDUM to the earlier CEQA document (CEQA Section 15164).
CERTIFICATION:
Signature (Lead Agency) Date
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 ii
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 iii Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Setting and Location............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Description ..........................................................................................................2-1 Parking and Access..........................................................................................2-1 Landscaping .....................................................................................................2-2 Grading and Utility Infrastructure ...................................................................2-2
3.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT APPROVALS ............... 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................3-2 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis................................................3-2 Analysis of Proposed Project...........................................................................3-2
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................3-4 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis................................................3-4 Analysis of Proposed Project...........................................................................3-4
3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................3-6 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis................................................3-6 Analysis of Proposed Project...........................................................................3-6
3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................3-19 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-19 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-19
3.5 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................3-23 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-23 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-23
3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................3-27 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-27 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-27
3.7 Geology and Soils...........................................................................................................3-29 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-29 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-29
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change) ...............................................................3-34 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-34 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-34
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................3-37 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-37 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-37 City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 iv Table of Contents
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................3-41 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-41 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-41
3.11 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................3-44 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-44 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-44
3.12 Mineral Resources.........................................................................................................3-45 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-45 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-45
3.13 Noise ..............................................................................................................................3-46 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-46 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-46
3.14 Population and Housing.................................................................................................3-49 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-49 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-49
3.15 Public Services................................................................................................................3-51 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-51 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-51
3.16 Recreation......................................................................................................................3-53 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-53 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-53
3.17 Transportation ...............................................................................................................3-54 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-54 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-54
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources...............................................................................................3-58 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-58 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-58
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems.........................................................................................3-60 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-60 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-60
3.20 Wildfire ..........................................................................................................................3-64 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis..............................................3-64 Analysis of Proposed Project.........................................................................3-64
4.0 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION .................................. 4-1
5.0 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 6-1 City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 v Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................................................................2-1 Table 2: Short-Term Construction Emissions Comparison ........................................................................3-8 Table 3: Long-Term Operational Emissions Comparison.........................................................................3-10 Table 4: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Comparison ...................................................3-14 Table 5: Maximum CO Concentration from Mobile Sources...................................................................3-17 Table 6: Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison .............................................3-35 List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2: Local Vicinity Map.......................................................................................................................2-7 Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................................2-9 Figure 4: Preliminary Landscape Plan ......................................................................................................2-11 Figure 5: Preliminary Grading Plan ..........................................................................................................2-15 Figure 6: Preliminary Utility Plan .............................................................................................................2-17 Attachments
Attachment A – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: CarMax Auto Superstore #6002 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment B – Standard Conditions of Approval for the Previously Approved Project Appendices
Appendix A – CarMax Murrieta MND Addendum Operational Air Quality Memorandum Appendix B – Western Riverside County MSHCP Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment Appendix C – Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E – Noise Analysis
Appendix F – Traffic Scoping Agreement and Traffic Memorandum City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 vi Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Introduction
1.0 Purpose of the Addendum
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 1-1 Purpose
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Murrieta (City). The City is the lead agency under the CEQA.
Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND (SCH No. 2015061002) (“Previously Approved Project” or “Approved 2015 ISMND”) was approved by the City on July 21, 2015 and consisted of the General Plan Amendment (GPA 2015-531), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2015-533), Development Plans (DP 2015-532 and DP 2015-535), Tentative Tract Map (TTM) (2015-534), and environmental review for the development of approximately 46 acres of land located north of the intersection of Madison Avenue and Guava Street.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 1-2 Purpose
The City has received an application for the CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project (Project) totaling approximately 4.62 acres of land and is located north of the intersection of Madison Avenue and Guava Street. The Project site was graded and developed with stormwater infrastructure to support the Previously Approved Project and as such were analyzed for impacts related to grading and stormdrain construction and operations in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Stormdrain improvements generally consisted of underground stormdrain infrastructure and above ground infiltration basins. It is important to note that the Approved 2015 ISMND did not specifically analyze development of the Project site beyond the grading and stormdrain infrastructure. However, the Project site, having been included in the previously CEQA analysis and being within the scope of the Previously Approved Project will be analyzed for consistency with the Approved 2015 ISMND and thus Section 15164 of the state CEQA Guidelines applies.
The Project consists of the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acre of landscaping to support the existing CarMax Auto Supercenter #6002 development located at 25560 Madison Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92563. The Project would expand existing facilities related to car carrier parking stalls, expand the available spaces for vehicle sales staging, and expand the available workin-progress (WIP) storage for processing vehicles for sale. The Project would construct seven new trailer stalls and 596 new standard sized stalls (9-foot by 18-foot standard size) for new sales staging and WIP storage with associated infrastructure. There would be two paved areas in total, a smaller northern lot and a larger southern lot. The northern lot would be used for WIP operations, while the southern lot would be used for both WIP and sales staging operations. No building expansions are proposed as part of the Project.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts identified for the Project site in the ISMND for the Previously Approved Project and those that would be associated with development of the Project as proposed herein. As identified above, pursuant to provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City is the “Lead Agency” charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve development on the Project site. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those previously disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for in the ISMND.
Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the Project created new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated for in the ISMND. New threshold guidelines did not constitute “new information” requiring additional environmental review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, if the City finds that major revisions to the ISMND are not necessary and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of subsequent or supplemental MND (SMND) are triggered.
As detailed herein, the Project would not result in any new significant impacts and/or substantially more severe impact that were not disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated for in the ISMND for the Previously Approved Project. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the potential impacts associated with the Project would either be the same or less than those described in the Approved 2015 ISMND. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or substantially more City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 1-3 Purpose
severe significant environmental impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum to the previously certified ISMND is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision-making body must consider the whole of the data presented in the Approved 2015 ISMND and the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as augmented by this Addendum.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 1-4 Purpose
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Project Description
2.0 Description of the Proposed Project
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-1 Project Description
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 PROJECT SETTING AND LOCATION
The Project is located in the City of Murrieta (City) at the existing CarMax Auto Superstore #6002. The Project site is comprised of three parcels totaling approximately 4.62 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 910-490-001, 910-490-002, 910-490-013, and 910-490-016). The Project includes minor improvements to the Previously Approved Project site, approximately 0.24 acres for a total Project size of
4.86 acres. Refer to Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map and Figure 2: Local Vicinity Map for Project location information. The subject parcels were graded and developed with stormwater infrastructure to support the Previously Approved Project. Improvements included underground storm drain infrastructure and above ground infiltration basins. The site is bounded by the Previously Approved Project on the north and east, Madison Avenue and vacant and undeveloped land to the south, and commercial and hospitality uses to the west. The Project site fronts Madison Avenue. The Project site is designated as Commercial (C) in the City’s 2035 General Plan (GP) Land Use Map and is zoned as Community Commercial (CC). A small portion of the northwestern portion of the Project site is located within a Transit Oriented Development Overlay for the City. For existing developments, land uses, and zoning surrounding the Project site, refer to Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses.
Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Existing Uses General Plan Designation Zoning
North CarMax Auto Superstore #6002
Commercial (C) Community Commercial (CC)
South Vacant and Undeveloped
East CarMax Auto Superstore #6002
West Commercial and Hospitality
Source:
City of Murrieta. 2020. General Plan 2035 Land Use Map. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4373/Murrieta-Land-UseMappdf (accessed August 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2020. Murrieta Zoning Map. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4374/Murrieta-Zoning-Mappdf (accessed August 2023).
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the existing CarMax Auto Supercenter #6002 development located at 25560 Madison Avenue. The Project would expand existing facilities related to car carrier parking stalls, expand the available spaces for vehicle sales staging, and expand the available WIP storage for processing vehicles for sale. The Project would construct seven new trailer stalls and 596 new standard sized stalls (9-foot by 18-foot standard size) for vehicle sales staging and WIP storage with associated infrastructure.
There would be two paved areas in total, a smaller northern lot and a larger southern lot. No building expansions are proposed as part of the Project. Refer to Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan.
Parking and Access
Access to the Project site would be provided via internal private drive aisles that currently exist on the Previously Approved Project site. Access to the Project site would be restricted to employees of the Previously Approved Project only. A 20-foot driveway with a security drop beam gate would be installed City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-2 Project Description
on the northern portion of the southern lot. The northern lot would be accessed via the existing staging area of the Previously Approved Project. The existing driveways that serve the Previously Approved Project would not be altered as part of the Project. However, the internal circulation to the Previously Approved Project would be altered slightly. The existing security gate on the western portion of the Previously Approved Project would be relocated to be in-line with the existing northern private driveway along Madison Avenue.
The Project would relocate an existing screen wall adjacent to the existing vehicle carrier truck stalls to allow for the addition of seven new trailer parking stalls. These stalls would be constructed within the private driveway areas of the Previously Approved Project and allow for pull-through parking of truck trailers. The northern lot would provide 154 spaces. The southern lot would provide 442 spaces for WIP operations sales staging operations. The Project would provide a total of 596 spaces.
Landscaping
Landscaping on the Project site would primarily consist of ornamental landscaping and would include trees, shrubs, and various types of ground cover. The trees to be planted would consist of 24-inch and 36- inch mature box trees along the Project frontage to Madison Avenue, property lines, and within the Project site. Additionally, a bench/street furniture would be provided on the Project site along Madison Avenue for pedestrians. The Preliminary Landscaping Plan show that 137 trees of various species would be planted throughout the Project site, however, the final number is subject to change. Underneath these trees, shrubs would be planted. Shrubs would be planted along the Project frontage to Madison Avenue and in interior spaces where paving is not occurring. In total, approximately 1.04 acres of the Project site would be landscaped, or approximately 21 percent of the Project site. Refer to Figure 4: Preliminary Landscape Plan.
Grading and Utility Infrastructure
The Project site is relatively flat and gently slopes towards the southeast. Elevations on site range from ±1,103 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to ±1,090 feet amsl. There are two existing above ground stormwater infiltration basins on-site fronting Madison Avenue. These basins would be filled, and the site graded to accommodate the new paved areas. As such, it is currently anticipated that grading operations would consist of 2,631 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 16,116 CY of fill, for a net fill of 13,485 CY. Additionally, two retaining walls would be constructed to allow for grade breaks across the Project site. One wall would be constructed along the southern boundary of the northern lot, and the second wall would be constructed between the Previously Approved Project and the southern lot. Refer to Figure 5: Preliminary Grading Plan.
The proposed paved areas would be sloped to allow stormwater runoff to be collected into storm drain infrastructure consisting of stormwater inlets, underground storm drain, and sub-surface stormwater chambers and would be designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. These sub-surface chambers would replace the existing on-site stormwater basins. There is an existing storm line on the western boundary of the Project site that currently provides inter-flow between the stormwater basins and would be protected in place. New storm drain infrastructure would tie into this existing storm line to maintain the existing operations. Storm drain bypass lines would be constructed, connecting the proposed City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-3 Project Description
sub-surface basins to the City’s stormwater network in the event that overflow occurs. Refer to Figure 6:
Preliminary Utility Plan. The Project does not propose the construction, extension, or expansion of other wet utilities on the Project site.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-4 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
San M ate o Creek
15 79
79 74
15 215
MURRIETA
HOT SPRINGS
MENIFEE
WINCHESTER
WILDOMAR
SUN CITY
CANYON
LAKE
TEMECULA
LAKE
ELSINORE
M U R RIE T A
S16
RAINBOW
FALLBROOK
EGAN
EAST HEMET
Skinne r
Rese r voi r
S age Rd
Temecula
Pkwy
3 79
Pechanga
Reservation
RAMONA
BOWL
RADEC
SAGE
Not to scale
FIGURE1: Regional Vicinity Map
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta Project Location City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-6 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Madison Ave
Madison
Marketplace
IHOP
7-Eleven
Denny's
Wells Fargo
Residence Inn
Marriott
Shell
Walmart Madison Ave
Jefferson Ave
Temecula Valley Fwy
64 Monroe Ave
Guava S t
Approximate Project Site
Previously Approved Project
Not to scale
FIGURE2: Local Vicinity Map
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-8 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Site Plan
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta
S
S
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
E
S
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
MH
D
MH MH MH MH MH
42 42
NORTH
LEGEND: EASEMENT NOTES GENERAL NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-10 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
FIGURE 4: Preliminary Landscape Plan
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONHER' / MAJESTIC BEAUTY® FRUITLESS OLIVE
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA / LONDON PLANE TREE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONHER' / MAJESTIC BEAUTY® FRUITLESS OLIVE
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA / LONDON PLANE TREE
S
D
D
E
S
D
S
PROPERTY
LINE
R/W
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING CARMAX
FACILITY
MADISON AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE CIVIL PLANS (TYP.)
PROPOSED SECURITY GATE - SEE CIVIL PLANS
PROPOSED PAVING - SEE CIVIL PLANS
PROPOSED PAVING - SEE CIVIL PLANS NOT A PART
PROPOSED LIGHTING - SEE LIGHTING PLANS (TYP.)
EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN, PROTECT
IN PLACE (TYP.)
SUB-SURFACE CHAMBER SYSTEM - SEE UTILITY
PLANS (TYP.)
SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE PER
CITY OF MURRIETA STANDARD
214 EXISTING OLIVE TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.) EXISTING ROW LANDSCAPE TO BE REPLACED. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ADJACENT ROW LANDSCAPE IS RESTORED TO A FULLY PLANTED, HEALTHY CONDITION (TYP.) EXISTING SITE LIGHT TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.) EMWD SEWER EASEMENT INST. 2005-0878652 CITY OF MURRIETA PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT INST. NO. 2013-0037067 EXISTING FIRE WATER STRUCTURES TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.) PROPOSED BENCH - SEE SITE
FURNISHING SCHEDULE
2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAD
CITY OF MURRIETA RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT INST. NO
2015-0410657
CHANNEL ACCESS
EASEMENT INST. NO. 36943
EMWD SEWER
EASEMENT INST. 2005-0878652
SOCAL GAS
EASEMENT INST. NO. 2016-058-1173
CHANNEL ACCESS
EASEMENT INST. NO. 36943
EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN
- PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.)
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS WISLIZENI / INTERIOR LIVE OAK ENTRY CORNER SHRUBS
ALOE STRIATA / CORAL ALOE
BULBINE FRUTESCENS / BULBINE
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `ALBA` / WHITE TRAILING LANTANA
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
TRICHOSTEMA LANATUM / WOOLLY BLUE CURLS
VERBENA LASIOSTACHYS / WESTERN VERVAIN
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS WISLIZENI / INTERIOR LIVE OAK ENTRY CORNER SHRUBS
ALOE STRIATA / CORAL ALOE
BULBINE FRUTESCENS / BULBINE
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `ALBA` / WHITE TRAILING LANTANA
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
TRICHOSTEMA LANATUM / WOOLLY BLUE CURLS
VERBENA LASIOSTACHYS / WESTERN VERVAIN
INTERIOR SHRUBS
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA 'CANYON GREY' / CANYON GREY CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS MARITIMUS `VALLEY VIOLET` / VALLEY VIOLET MARITIME CEANOTHUS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
SALVIA CLEVELANDII / CLEVELAND SAGE WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'GREY BOX' / DWARF COAST ROSEMARY LID PLANTS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' / BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA OFFSITE LANDSCAPE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' / DWARF ROSEMARY PERIMETER WALL SHRUBS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON
INTERIOR SHRUBS
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA 'CANYON GREY' / CANYON GREY CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS MARITIMUS `VALLEY VIOLET` / VALLEY VIOLET MARITIME CEANOTHUS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
SALVIA CLEVELANDII / CLEVELAND SAGE WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'GREY BOX' / DWARF COAST ROSEMARY LID PLANTS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' / BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA OFFSITE LANDSCAPE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' / DWARF ROSEMARY PERIMETER WALL SHRUBS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON
GROUND COVERS
2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE ROCK COBBLE EXISTING
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO REMAIN
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO BE REPLACED
GROUND COVERS
2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE ROCK COBBLE EXISTING
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO REMAIN
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO BE REPLACED
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME NORTH
LANDSCAPE NOTE: THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS BASED ON CLIMATIC, AESTHETIC, AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE
PREPARED WITH APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, FERTILIZERS AND
APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTS BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE SITE. DECOMPOSED GRANITE SHALL FILL IN BETWEEN SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FROM THE SUN, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, AND RUN-OFF. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A 3" DEPTH TO HELP CONSERVE WATER, LOWER SOIL TEMPERATURE, AND REDUCE WEED GROWTH. THE SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GROW IN THEIR NATURAL FORMS. ALL
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF MURRIETA MUNICIPAL CODE.
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN. MICHAEL P. MADSEN, LLA 5798 IRRIGATION NOTE: AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE 100% COVERAGE FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE WATER SUPPLY FOR THIS SITE IS A POTABLE WATER CONNECTION AND A DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER WILL BE PROVIDED. LOW VOLUME
EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT WATER FOR PLANT GROWTH WITH NO WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER CONTROLLERS, AND OTHER NECESSARY IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL POINT SOURCE SYSTEM SHALL BE ADEQUATELY FILTERED AND REGULATED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED DESIGN PARAMETERS. ALL IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF MURRIETA MUNICIPAL CODE. MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L1.2 PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET L1.0 FOR COMPLETE PLANT SCHEDULE) D
EXISTING WATER LINE
EXISTING SANITARY
SEWER LINE
EXISTING ELECTRICAL
LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
PROPOSED WATER LINE
PROPOSED FIRE WATER
LINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
LINE
UTILITY LEGEND: PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER LINE
PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL LINE
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-12 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
FIGURE 4: Preliminary Landscape Plan
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta
RTH
S
D
D
S
S
S
S
PROPERTY
LINE
R/W
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING CARMAX FACILITY
PROPOSED PAVING - SEE CIVIL PLANS
PROPOSED CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE CIVIL PLANS (TYP.) PRIVATE DRIVE EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.)
PROPOSED MWS-L-8-12 UNIT - SEE UTILITY PLANS (TYP.)
PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE - SEE UTILITY PLANS (TYP.) SUB-SURFACE CHAMBER SYSTEM - SEE UTILITY PLANS (TYP.)
PROPOSED STORM
INLET - SEE UTILITY
PLANS (TYP.)
SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE PER
CITY OF MURRIETA STANDARD 214 EXISTING OLIVE TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.)
MADISON AVENUE
ELEVATION A
SEE SHEET L1.3 A
SEE SHEET L1.3
A
EXISTING ROW LANDSCAPE TO BE REPLACED. CONTRACTOR TO
ENSURE ADJACENT ROW LANDSCAPE IS RESTORED TO A FULLY
PLANTED, HEALTHY CONDITION (TYP.)
EXISTING SITE LIGHT TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE (TYP.)
PROPOSED GUARDHOUSE - SEE CIVIL PLANS (TYP.) PROPERTY EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT - SEE UTILITY PLANS (TYP.) CITY OF MURRIETA DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT INST. NO
2013-0043554
SIGNAGE, UTILITY, AND ACCESS
EASEMENT INST. NO
2015-0406116 CITY OF MURRIETA RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT INST. NO 2015-0410657
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONHER' / MAJESTIC BEAUTY® FRUITLESS OLIVE
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA / LONDON PLANE TREE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONHER' / MAJESTIC BEAUTY® FRUITLESS OLIVE
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA / LONDON PLANE TREE
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS WISLIZENI / INTERIOR LIVE OAK ENTRY CORNER SHRUBS
ALOE STRIATA / CORAL ALOE
BULBINE FRUTESCENS / BULBINE
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `ALBA` / WHITE TRAILING LANTANA
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
TRICHOSTEMA LANATUM / WOOLLY BLUE CURLS
VERBENA LASIOSTACHYS / WESTERN VERVAIN
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS WISLIZENI / INTERIOR LIVE OAK ENTRY CORNER SHRUBS
ALOE STRIATA / CORAL ALOE
BULBINE FRUTESCENS / BULBINE
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `ALBA` / WHITE TRAILING LANTANA
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
TRICHOSTEMA LANATUM / WOOLLY BLUE CURLS
VERBENA LASIOSTACHYS / WESTERN VERVAIN
INTERIOR SHRUBS
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA 'CANYON GREY' / CANYON GREY CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS MARITIMUS `VALLEY VIOLET` / VALLEY VIOLET MARITIME CEANOTHUS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
SALVIA CLEVELANDII / CLEVELAND SAGE WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'GREY BOX' / DWARF COAST ROSEMARY LID PLANTS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' / BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA OFFSITE LANDSCAPE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' / DWARF ROSEMARY PERIMETER WALL SHRUBS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON
INTERIOR SHRUBS
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA 'CANYON GREY' / CANYON GREY CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH CEANOTHUS MARITIMUS `VALLEY VIOLET` / VALLEY VIOLET MARITIME CEANOTHUS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY
SALVIA CLEVELANDII / CLEVELAND SAGE WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'GREY BOX' / DWARF COAST ROSEMARY LID PLANTS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' / BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA OFFSITE LANDSCAPE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' / DWARF ROSEMARY PERIMETER WALL SHRUBS
FRANGULA CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON
GROUND COVERS
2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE ROCK COBBLE EXISTING
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO REMAIN
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO BE REPLACED
GROUND COVERS
2" DEPTH DECOMPOSED GRANITE ROCK COBBLE EXISTING
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO REMAIN
EXISTING LANDSCAPE / TO BE REPLACED
SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME NORTH MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L1.1
LANDSCAPE NOTE: THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS BASED ON CLIMATIC, AESTHETIC, AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE
PREPARED WITH APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, FERTILIZERS AND
APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTS BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE SITE. DECOMPOSED GRANITE SHALL FILL IN BETWEEN SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FROM THE SUN, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, AND RUN-OFF. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A 3" DEPTH TO HELP CONSERVE WATER, LOWER SOIL TEMPERATURE, AND REDUCE WEED GROWTH. THE SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GROW IN THEIR NATURAL FORMS. ALL
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF MURRIETA MUNICIPAL CODE.
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN. MICHAEL P. MADSEN, LLA 5798 IRRIGATION NOTE: AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE 100% COVERAGE FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE WATER SUPPLY FOR THIS SITE IS A POTABLE WATER CONNECTION AND A DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER WILL BE PROVIDED. LOW VOLUME
EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT WATER FOR PLANT GROWTH WITH NO WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER CONTROLLERS, AND OTHER NECESSARY IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL POINT SOURCE SYSTEM SHALL BE ADEQUATELY FILTERED AND REGULATED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED DESIGN PARAMETERS. ALL IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF MURRIETA MUNICIPAL CODE.
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET L1.0 FOR COMPLETE PLANT SCHEDULE) D
EXISTING WATER LINE
EXISTING SANITARY
SEWER LINE
EXISTING ELECTRICAL
LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
PROPOSED WATER LINE
PROPOSED FIRE WATER
LINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
LINE
UTILITY LEGEND: PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER LINE
PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND
ELECTRICAL LINE
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED SANITARY
SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-14 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
FIGURE 5: Preliminary Grading Plan
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta
42 42
S
S
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
S
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
MH
D
MH MH MH MH MH
ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES EASEMENT NOTES LEGEND:
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-16 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Not to scale
FIGURE 6: Preliminary Utility Plan
CarMax Murrieta Expansion Project, City of Murrieta
LEGEND: EASEMENT NOTES
42 42
S
S
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
D
E
S
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
S
MH
D
MH MH MH MH MH
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 2-18 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
and Project Approvals
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-1 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND PROJECT
APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the Project is set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Project when compared to the Previously Approved Project as set forth in its ISMND. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the ISMND was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes proposed for the Project would result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impact.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum. It should be noted that while Section 15164 does not specifically mention Negative Declarations in the text of the Section, Negative Declarations are covered by Section 15164. Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.” This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the ISMND was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of an SEIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Project does not propose substantial changes to the Previously Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances would occur which would require major revisions to the ISMND, and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of ISMND that would result in either new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted as a part of the ISMND that minimized impacts associated with implementation of the Previously Approved Project. The previously adopted ISMND Mitigation Measures (MM or MMs) applicable to the Previously Approved Project will be imposed as conditions of the Project, and the MMRP, as applicable to the Previously Approved Project, is provided in Appendix A.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-2 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.1 AESTHETICS
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND found that the Previously Approved Project site has no important or valuable scenic resources and implementation would result in no significant impact regarding aesthetic resources.
There would be no impact to scenic vistas, scenic highways, and the visual character and lighting of the area. All construction and operations would adhere to the City’s design and lighting standards as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code (MC).
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Threshold (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Threshold (c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Threshold (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Additionally, the Project would construct 6-foot-tall masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the northern and southern lots. Since construction and operations would be largely similar to that of the Previously Approved Project, the Project would not have a greater impact to aesthetic resources than what was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND, and no new mitigation is required. Construction of the 6-foot-tall masonry screen walls would not impact views of the Santa Rosa Plateau, as the structure height does not exceed development standards as outlined in the City MC Section 16.22.030.1In addition, as discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Previously Approved Project site does not contain any rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and since the Project site is within the Previously Approved Project site no additional impacts would occur. The closest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway to the Project site is a portion of State Route (SR) 74, approximately 25 miles to the northeast of the Project site.2Lastly, the Project would be consistent with City MC Section 16.18.100 which requires exterior lighting to be directed downward and shielded, not blink/flash, 1 City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.22.030 General Height Limitations. Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-25458 (accessed December 2023). 2 Caltrans. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-3 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals or be unusually bright and would be appropriate in height, intensity, and scale.3 Additionally, lighting would be designed to limit the amount of spillover lighting into adjacent uses.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics. 3 City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.18.100 Lighting. Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-25195 (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-4 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that buildout of the Previously Approved Project would have no impact regarding agricultural or forestry resources. The Previously Approved Project is located within a moderately urbanized area that does not have valuable forest or farmland and there were no timber production/harvesting operations on the property. Additionally, the Previously Approved Project site construction and operations would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, forest land, or timberland production. Thus, implementation would not involve changes that would eliminate existing agricultural or forest land uses. No agricultural or forest resources or uses occur within the general vicinity.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Threshold (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Threshold (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Threshold (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Threshold (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Since construction and operations would be largely similar to that of the Previously Approved Project, the Project would not have a greater impact to agricultural or forestry resources, and no mitigation is required. As noted in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Previously Approved Project site is identified as Farmland of Local Importance; the Approved 2015 ISMND found no evidence that agricultural activity has ever been practiced on the Project site. Additionally, as discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Previously Approved Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not located within forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-5 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural and forestry resources.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-6 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would not produce emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Regarding air quality, the Approved 2015 ISMND found that the Previously Approved Project would have a less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and NAAQS.
Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 and 2022 Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving the CAAQS and NAAQS. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. EPA. The pollutant control strategies in the AQMPs are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMPs are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMPs. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-7 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with the CAAQS and NAAQS.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As discussed in Threshold b (cumulative net increase in air emissions), the Project would not exceed construction or operational emissions standards. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contain air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project would not result in a change of land use designations reflected in the AQMPs. Therefore, the Project is assumed to be consistent with the AQMPs regional emissions inventory for the SCAB. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.
Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND and the Project consists of similar construction processes and operational processes as those of the Previously Approved Project. The Project does not propose new uses/operations that do not currently exist within the Previously Approved Project area and would not consist of any new information of substantial importance. In addition, as described below under Threshold (b), the Project combined with the Previously Approved Project would not exceed thresholds and as a result would not violate an existing plan and would be consistent. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact.
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.
The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include ozone (O3)-precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxide [NOX]), as well as coarse particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-8 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques would minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, construction emissions associated with the Previously Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds. Notwithstanding, the Approved 2015 ISMND implemented MM 3-1 and MM 3-2 to ensure SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance and reduce combustion emissions. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Project construction would be similar to that which occurred as a result of the implementation of the Previously Approved Project; while no development was sought or approved for the Project site as part of the Previously Approved Project, the overall development of the Project would consist of construction that is smaller in nature and less intensive than that of the Previously Approved Project. The Previously Approved Project was found to not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, empirically, the Project would not have a greater impact than was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
To demonstrate this, Table 2: Short-Term Construction Emissions Comparison shows the estimated Project construction emissions. As shown in Table 2, peak daily emissions for all criteria air pollutants are well below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance and are below the peak daily emissions of the Previously Approved Project. It is important to note that peak daily emissions of the Previously Approved Project and the Project cannot be added together as the data are presented as maximum pounds per day and the emissions would occur at different times. It should be further noted that the peak daily emissions indicate the worst-case scenario for the amount of emissions on any given day. The average rate of pollutants emitted would be less than that which is shown in Table 2. As such, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to construction emissions, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Table 2: Short-Term Construction Emissions Comparison
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Previously Approved Project (PAP) – Construction Emissions1 Demolition 4.6 49 38 0.044 2.88 2.38
Site Preparation 5.3 57 44 0.042 10.3 6.7
Grading 6.9 79 52 0.065 7.4 5
Building Construction 9.9 63 100 0.19 12.3 5.1
Architectural Coating 56 3.5 12 0.023 1.83 0.65
Paving 3.6 22 16 0.024 1.47 1.25
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-9 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Peak Daily Emissions 66 79 110 0.21 14 6.7
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Project – Construction Emissions2
Demolition 0.55 5.82 4.51 0.005 0.34 0.28
Site Preparation 0.63 6.77 5.23 0.005 1.22 0.80
Grading 3.72 42.61 28.05 0.035 3.99 2.70
Building Construction 0.09 0.54 0.86 0.002 0.11 0.04
Architectural Coating3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paving 0.46 2.80 2.04 0.003 0.19 0.16
Peak Daily Emissions 3.72 42.61 28.05 0.035 3.99 2.70
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
PAP or Project with
Highest Peak Daily
Emissions?
PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP PAP
1. Source: Refer to Attachment A, Table 3-7.
2. Construction emissions for the Project were calculated based on linear scaling of the PAP’s emissions values. Scaling values applied were determined based on comparing the Project components against the PAP. Site Area: PAP – 38.9 ac, Project – 4.62 ac (11.88%). Parking areas: PAP – 30 ac, Project – 3.82 ac (12.73%). Building area: PAP – 2.03 ac, Project – 0.017 ac (0.86%). Grading quantity (for modeling purposes): PAP – 25,000 CY, Project – 13,485 CY (53.94%).
3. The Project does not propose the construction of any buildings which would require architectural coating. Any proposed structures are to be prefabricated and assembled on-site during construction.
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g. landscape maintenance equipment), energy sources, and mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicles). Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources. The long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project and of the Previously Approved Project are summarized and compared in Table 3: Long-Term Operational Emissions Comparison. The operational emissions sources are described below.
• Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to landscape maintenance equipment.
• Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated from natural gas consumption. The proposed Project consists of expanding the existing auto sales facility to include an extra staging lot, parking lot, and landscape area. Therefore, the Project would not consume natural gas and no energy source emissions would occur. • Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-10 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, carbon monoxide (CO) tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Memorandum for the Murrieta CarMax Expansion Project in the City of Murrieta (Traffic Memo), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (dated August 3, 2023) and have been incorporated into California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod), as recommended by SCAQMD. Per the Traffic Memo, the Project would generate 287 total daily vehicle trips, which includes 17 daily truck trips.
Table 3: Long-Term Operational Emissions Comparison
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Previously Approved Project (PAP) – Operational Emissions Area Source Emissions 36 <0.001 0.013 0 <0.001 <0.001
Energy Emissions 0.087 0.79 0.66 0.005 0.06 0.06
Mobile Emissions 11 25 100 0.23 15 4.3
Total Emissions 47 25 100 0.23 15 4.4
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
Project – Operational Emissions
Area Source Emissions 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile Emissions 1.37 1.53 12.98 0.03 2.59 0.67
Total Emissions 1.40 1.53 12.98 0.03 2.59 0.67
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
Total Emissions PAP + Project 48.4 26.53 112.98 0.26 17.59 5.07 Exceeds SCAQMD Threshold
(PAP+Project)? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Note: Total values are from CalEEMod and may not add up 100% due to rounding.
1. The highest values between summer and winter results were used as a worst-case scenario.
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less As shown in Table 3 and discussed above, operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants, nor would the Project’s emissions combined with the Previously Approved Project’s emissions. Compliance with all applicable SCAQMD Rules, such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, would further reduce criteria pollutants, specifically particulate matter emissions. Therefore, the Project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant.
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined operational emissions associated with the Previously Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Notwithstanding, the Approved 2015 ISMND implemented MM 3-3 to ensure gas hearths would be utilized. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded implementation of the Previously Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact with the incorporation of City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-11 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals MM 3-3. Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur.
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable.
As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, construction emissions associated with the Previously Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Notwithstanding, the Approved 2015 ISMND implemented MM 3-1 and MM 3-2 to ensure SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance and reduce combustion emissions. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Project construction would be similar to the Previously Approved Project. Therefore, the Project would not have a greater impact than was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulative Operational Emissions
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of CAAQS or NAAQS. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
Table 3 shows that Project operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, Project operational emissions would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, cumulative operational impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative operational air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-12 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
MM 3-1 Fugitive Dust
▪ Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas. ▪ Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan.
▪ Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. ▪ Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas.
▪ Cover all stockpiles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. ▪ Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. ▪ Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
▪ Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
▪ Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.
MM 3-2 Exhaust Emissions
▪ Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
▪ Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment. ▪ Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.
MM 3-3 Operational/Occupancy Emissions
▪ Utilize gas hearths rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use. (This mitigation is not applicable as the Project would not include hearths.) Threshold (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing local significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction and operations. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4).
The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The appropriate source receptor area (SRA) for the localized significance thresholds is the Temecula Valley (SRA 26) since this area includes the Project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the Residence Inn located approximately 300 feet to the northwest and a single-family residence located approximately 320 feet to the southeast.
Localized Construction Emissions
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined localized construction emissions associated with the Previously Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds. Notwithstanding, the Approved 2015 ISMND City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-13 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals implemented emission control measures through MM 3-1 and MM 3-2. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Project construction would consist of processes similar to those completed for the Previously Approved Project, however the Project would have a reduced scope when compared to the Previously Approved Project. The Previously Approved Project was found to have less than significant impacts, therefore, empirically, the Project would not have a greater impact than was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Localized Operational Emissions
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. Since the Project includes the expansion of the vehicle staging area and parking lot, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and mobile source emissions. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the closest receptor is located approximately 91 meters (300 feet) to the northwest of the proposed expansion area, the LST thresholds for 50 meters were utilized in this analysis. Additionally, the 3-acre LST threshold was conservatively utilized as the proposed Project site encompasses 3.82 acres.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Comparison, conservatively include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and 100 percent of the Project-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site. Table 4 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, Table 4 provides the emissions calculated for the Previously Approved Project in the Approved 2015 ISMND and compares them to those of the Project. It should be noted that including mobile emissions for the Previously Approved Project, to provide for a consistent comparison between the Previously Approved Project and the Project, the emissions for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would increase by a factor of 20 (refer to Table 3-9 of Attachment A). Scaling the Project’s emissions down by a factor of 20 to compare with the Previously Approved Project’s on-site emissions to mobile source emissions ratio would result in the Project’s emissions being well below the Previously Approved Project’s on-site emissions. Therefore, localized operational emissions would be less than significant.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-14 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Table 4: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Comparison Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Previously Approved Project (PAP) – Operational Emissions On-Site Emissions 1.3 5.0 0.75 0.22
LST Thresholds1 407 2,564 8.8 2.8
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
On-site and Mobile Source Emissions2 26.3 105 15.75 4.52 Project – Operational Emissions
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions 1.53 12.98 2.59 0.67 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 3 acres at 50 meters) 322 1,953 7 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Total Emissions (PAP+Project) 2.83 17.98 3.34 0.84
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Note: NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less.
1 – Please note, LST Thresholds identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND are higher than those identified in this table for the Project. As such, the Project’s identified thresholds represent more stringent requirements for the determination of significance. 2 – Please note, the Approved 2015 ISMND did not include mobile emissions within its localized impacts analysis as mobile emissions are not localized emissions. However, to provide a comparison with the Project and to account for the fact that CalEEMod does not separate on-site emissions from mobile emissions for localized emissions, mobile emissions have been added to the on-site emissions.
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined localized operational emissions associated with buildout of the Previously Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Notwithstanding, the Approved 2015 ISMND implemented MM 3-3 to ensure gas hearths would be utilized. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded implementation of the Previously Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact with incorporation of MM 3-3. Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783).
The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based NAAQS.4 The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the 4 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR
51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-15 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.
As discussed above, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were found to be less than significant. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable CAAQS or NAAQS. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The CAAQS and NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been included in Appendix A. As shown above, Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not exceed the CAAQS or NAAQS or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutant levels in excess of the health-based CAAQS or NAAQS.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the 1-hour or 8-hour CO NAAQS or CAAQS. Localized CO hotspots are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles.
It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO vehicle emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.
Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO NAAQS or CAAQS.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 parts per million (ppm), which is well below the 35-ppm NAAQS. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. According to the Traffic Memo, the Project would generate 287 daily vehicle trips.
As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections in the Project vicinity resulting from 287 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project.
Notwithstanding, an analysis of CO hotspots was conducted for the Project to confirm Project-generated CO emissions would not exceed the CAAQS or NAAQS at the direction of the Lead Agency. It should be City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-16 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals noted that the Approved 2015 ISMND did not conduct a CO hotspot analysis. The CO hotspot analysis uses a screening analysis based on generated traffic volumes to determine if the Project could result in localized CO hotspots. CO hotspot thresholds ensure that emissions of CO associated with traffic impacts from a project in combination with CO emissions from existing regional traffic do not exceed CO CAAQS or NAAQS. CO concentrations may be considered substantial if Project-generated CO concentrations cause a localized violation of the 35 ppm 1-hour CO NAAQS, 20 ppm 1-hour CO CAAQS, or the 9 ppm 8-hour CO NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are set to protect the health of sensitive individuals. If the NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded, then the sensitive individuals would not be substantially affected.
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling was performed to estimate maximum on- and off-site CO concentrations from Project mobile source emissions using the U.S. EPA dispersion model AERMOD, version 11.2.0. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources.
AERMOD estimates hourly concentrations for each source/receptor pair and calculates concentrations for user-specified averaging times, including an average concentration for the complete simulation period.
AERMOD includes atmospheric dispersion options for both urban and rural environments and can address flat, gently rolling, and complex terrain situations. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.5 The parameters used in AERMOD include the following:
• Meteorological Data. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, atmospheric stability, and mixing height. The latest 5-year meteorological data set from the Lake Elsinore (ELSI) Monitoring Station (Station 33158) was obtained from the SCAQMD.6 Surface and upper air meteorological data from this station was selected as being the most representative for meteorology based on proximity to the Project site as well as terrain, surrounding land use and surface characteristics. • Project Sources. The model’s emission sources consist of line volume sources (comprised of smaller adjacent volume sources) for passenger car and truck operations. ADT from passenger car and truck traffic to the Project site were obtained from the Traffic Memo. Existing ADT along Madison Avenue were obtained from the City of Murrieta General Plan Environmental Impact Report.7 An emission rate for CO was calculated using trip data and a CARB 2021 EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model run for Riverside County; refer to Appendix A. 8 EMFAC generates emission factors
in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed and type. The model was run for passenger cars and heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling along Madison Avenue, as well as heavy-duty diesel trucks circulating the Project site and idling at proposed parking stalls. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance, accessed December 2023. 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Meteorological Data for Dispersion Modeling, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/meteorological-data, accessed December 2023. 7 City of Murrieta, General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.4 traffic and Circulation, Exhibit 5.4-5 8 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2021 Web Database, www.arb.ca.gov/emfac, accessed December 2023.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-17 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals • Terrain Characteristics. As recommended by the SCAQMD, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD. • Averaging Times. AERMOD was run to obtain the peak 1‐hour and 8-hour concentration in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of CO.
Table 5: Maximum CO Concentration from Mobile Sources provides the CO hotspot analysis results for the Project area. The modeling results are compared to the 35 ppm (40,000 µg/m3) 1-hour CO NAAQS, 20 ppm (23,000 µg/m3) 1-hour CO CAAQS, and the 9 ppm (10,000 µg/m3) 8-hour CO NAAQS and CAAQS. As shown in Table 5, CO concentrations would be well below the CAAQS and NAAQS. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5: Maximum CO Concentration from Mobile Sources
Pollutant Averaging
Time
Maximum
Modeled
Concentration
(μg/m3)
Background
Concentration
(μg/m3)
1 Total Ground
Level
Concentration
(μg/m3)
Threshold (μg/m3)
2 Threshold
Exceeded?3
CO
1-hour 7.27 1,031.05 1,038.32
23,000 (state) No
40,000 (federal) No
8-hour 4.78 687.37 692.15 10,000 (state/fed) No
1. Background concentrations are from the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station.
2. Ambient air quality thresholds are the NAAQS and CAAQS. All thresholds are shown in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for comparison to modeled concentrations.
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined CO concentrations as a result of the Previously Approved Project would be well below the CAAQS and NAAQS. As a result, the Approved 2015 ISMND concluded CO Hotspot impacts associated with implementation of the Previously Approved Project would be less than significant.
Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Mitigation Program
Refer to MM 3-1 and MM 3-2, above.
Threshold (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-18 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals The Approved 2015 ISMND determined operational odors associated with buildout of the Previously Approved Project would be less than significant. Air quality impacts related to the proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND regarding odors. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-19 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that the Previously Approved Project would have a less than significant impact regarding biological resources with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Previously Approved Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Southwest Plan Area. Although no evidence was found that the site was occupied by the Burrowing Owl (BUOW; Athene cunicularia), the MSHCP requires that MM 4-1 is implemented to enact a Western BUOW Survey 30 days prior to the initiation of grading to confirm that BUOWs have not occupied any portion of the site. Additionally, MM 4-2 will be implemented as a contingency to protect nesting birds, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), that may occupy the Project area during construction.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Previously Approved Project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Southwest Plan Area. The Previously Approved Project site was not found to be identified within a MSHCP criteria area cell, group, or linkage area. With respect to special status wildlife species, the Project site was identified having the potential to contain suitable habitat for the BUOW. The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that there were no BUOW present on the Previously Approved Project site. However, as it was possible for BUOW to burrow on-site between the assessment and construction, MM 4-1 was implemented as a contingency, detailed below. To assess whether BUOW exist on site, a MSHCP BUOW Habitat Assessment Survey was conducted by Cadre Environmental on July 28, 2023. The MSCHP BUOW Assessment Survey determined that the proposed construction and operations of the Project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to the BUOW, as no burrows were documented within or adjacent to the Previously Approved Project site and the site would not result in in direct or indirect impacts to the BUOW. Although no evidence was found that the site was occupied by the BUOW, the mitigation measures of the Approved 2015 ISMND MM 4-1 and MM 4-2 would be implemented. MM 4-1 would require a Western Burrowing Owl Survey 30 days prior to the initiation of grading to confirm that BUOWs have not occupied any portion of the site. MM 4-2 is a contingency mitigation measure to protect nesting birds protected by the MBTA that may occupy the Project area during construction.
Mitigation Program
MM 4-1 Within 30 days prior to the initiation of any grading or clearing activities, a subsequent Western Burrowing Owl Survey shall be performed to confirm that burrowing owls have not occupied any portion of the site. In the event that a portion of the site has been occupied by the burrowing owl, the survey biologist in consultation with the City Planning Department shall establish no disturbance areas around the burrow and related foraging City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-20 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals area to ensure that no impacts to the burrowing owl occur. The subsequent survey will comply with the survey protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If burrowing owl are encountered, land disturbance activities shall not commence until the biologist has implemented appropriate management measures in accordance with current CDFW burrowing owl management, including relocation protocols.
MM 4-2 Impacts to nesting bird species shall be avoided at all times, but the period from approximately 15 February to 31 August is the expected breeding season for bird species occurring in the Project area. If Project activity or vegetation removal must be initiated during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall check for nesting birds prior to such activity. If active nests are found, they must be avoided until after the young have fledged.
While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted, the CDFG generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100 – 300 feet for songbirds, but this is decided on a case by case basis by the qualified biologist.
Threshold (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Threshold (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that the Previously Approved Project site does not have any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. The Approved 2015 ISMND also determined that the Previously Approved Project site contains two streams within the site that should be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States and State of California. However, the Previously Approved Project design did not alter these channels nor would the proposed Project. Additionally, as discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the aerial photograph in Figure 3 shows there are no portions of the identified streams within the footprint of the proposed Project and therefore no impact to protected waters or wetlands would occur. Consistent with the findings of the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Project would have the same impacts to biological resources, including protected waters or wetlands. The Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to the biological resources of protected waters or wetlands during construction or operations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-21 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Threshold (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND the Previously Approved Project site is not located in an area where wildlife movement occurs. However, the Project site could contain nesting birds, which could be adversely impacted. All native bird species are protected by the federal MBTA. The Project site developers are required by law to comply with the MBTA and perform site work to avoid impacts to birds. To ensure nesting bird protection is implemented during construction, Project site developers would be required to comply with MM 4-2 above. Therefore, with mitigation Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact. Consistent with the ISMND findings, the Project would not 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.
Mitigation Program
Refer to MM 4-2 above.
Threshold (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Threshold (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Approved 2015 ISMND noted that the Previously Approved Project site contained mature trees which required a Tree Removal Permit. The Project site developer would also comply with the Tree Preservation Section of the City Development Code (Title 16, Section 16.42).9Furthermore, based on an evaluation of the trees on the property, the tree varieties proposed for removal were not considered significant because of their size, lack of variety, condition, and they did not have historical significance. Additionally, as discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Previously Approved Project site did not contain any protected plants or other species of concern to the City or the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Previously Approved Project site is also located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP, but it is not located within a Criteria Area, Criteria Cell, or Conservation Area. Furthermore, the only biological resource in the Previously Approved Project site checklist consists of the BUOW, however, the BUOW were not located within the Previously Approved Project site. Thus, the Previously Approved Project site would not have had any adverse impact on locally protected species. The Project would be consistent with the findings of the Previously Approved Project.
Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant. 9 City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.42 Tree Preservation. Available at: https://encryptedtbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuyc7WjAA7lP3WG3HvfJZ1kwOrMp6KsO_eyw&usqp=CAU (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-22 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-23 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that the implementation of the Previously Approved Project would have the potential to disturb unknown Native American cultural remains during implementation of the Previously Approved Project. However, with compliance with MM 5-1 through MM 5-3 impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Threshold (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was as part of the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that the implementation of the Previously Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. As part of this Project, an additional Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was completed by Kimley-Horn on January 18, 2024, and is provided in Appendix E.
According to the CRA, the Project site and surrounding area has low potential for surface and buried archaeological material. Additionally, no existing cultural resources as part of the Phase I CRA were identified. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F to this Addendum MND), artificial fill covers the Project site at depths ranging from 8 to 10 feet below grade. There would be a net import of soils across the Project site to meet the grading needs for Project implementation with a maximum fill depth of 5 feet. Excavation for utility, wall, fence, or paving construction would be at most 8 feet below grade (inclusive of grading cuts and excavation for construction of Project features). Due to this combined with the facts that there will be a net import of soil to the Project site and that the depth of existing artificial fill on the Project site is known, monitoring would not be required. However, the inadvertent or unanticipated discovery could still occur, as such, the Project would implement MM 5-2 and MM 5-3 outlined in the Approved 2015 ISMND. If a cultural resource is discovered during grading and excavation activities, these mitigation measures ensure that all further earth-disturbing activities are halted until a Tribal representative can assess the resource(s) found. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to cultural resources during construction or operations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings. It should be noted that MM 5-1 is not applicable to the Project as there is a low potential for the occurrence of tribal cultural resources within the Project site due to the presence of artificial fill and the previous construction activities that have occurred within the Project site.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-24 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
Mitigation measures 5-2 and 5-3 are applicable to the Project. All mitigation measures identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND related to this resource area are listed below.
MM 5-1 A Native American Monitor and Qualified Archaeologist shall be present during any earthmoving construction activities. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, separate agreements between the Developer/Applicant and the Qualified Archaeologist and the Developer/Applicant and a Native American Monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe shall be developed regarding prehistoric cultural resources and shall identify any monitoring requirements and treatment of cultural resources so as to meet both the requirements of CEQA and those of the Luiseño Indian Tribe. The agreements shall also address roles and responsibilities of the Native American Monitor and the Archaeologist.
The Native American Monitor agreement shall also detail treatment and final disposition of any Native American cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. In compliance with MM 5-1, discovery and treatment of human remains shall be in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The executed agreements shall be provided to the City of Murrieta Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A report, prepared by the Archeologist, documenting monitoring activities conducted by the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. If no cultural resources are identified during the monitoring activities, a letter report will be completed within 30 days of the completion of grading. It will document the type of monitoring activities conducted, report any problems or issues that occurred and state clearly that no resources were identified. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Murrieta, Eastern Information Center and the appropriate tribe(s). (This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as there is a low potential for the occurrence of tribal cultural resources within the Project site due to the presence of artificial fill and the previous construction activities that have occurred within the Project site.)
MM 5-2 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-meter radius of the area of discovery. The Project cultural resources professionals shall evaluate the significance of the find and appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and which shall take into account tribal preferences and sensitivity concerns. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated and cleared by the City, the Project cultural resources professional and, if applicable, the Native American monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe, work in the area may resume. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-25 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Native American Monitor cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseño Indian Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
MM 5-3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Engineering/Public Works Department shall confirm that the following note is included on Contractor Specifications: “Should any cultural/scientific resources be discovered during earth-moving activities, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to evaluate and protect these resources.” This condition and the approved provisions/ recommendations as determined in the agreement prepared under MM 5-2 and/or outlined in an Evaluation Plan, shall be incorporated on the cover sheet of the grading plan. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities.
If potentially significant features or sites are discovered, an Evaluation Plan shall be developed by the Project archaeologist and a representative of Luiseño Indian Tribe and shall contain, at a minimum, a research design and field methodology designed to recover data amenable to testing the site’s ability to yield answers to questions of interest to the public and/or scientific community. If a site is determined to be significant, data recovery excavations may be necessary unless the resource is avoided and preserved/protected in place. Evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or individuals that meet either the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as a qualified Prehistoric Archaeologist, as a Historic Archaeologist (as applicable), and/or as a Registered Professional Archaeologist(s) with similar qualifications.
Threshold (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project site was graded in 2016 as part of grading for the Previously Approved Project. Therefore, the potential for encountering human remains is very low. If human remains are accidentally exposed during site grading, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires a contractor to immediately stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and notify the County Coroner. The Coroner must then determine whether the remains are human and if such remains are human, the Coroner must determine whether the remains are or appear to be of Native American origin. If deemed potential Native American remains, the Coroner contacts the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of determination. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC then identifies and contacts the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the human remains. Upon notification, the MLD and landowner confer regarding the appropriate disposition City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-26 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals of the human remains. Since this process is established in law and is mandatory, no additional mitigation is required to ensure that the impacts to human remains will be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to disturbance of human remains during construction or operations. Additionally, no new information of substantial important was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to cultural resources.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-27 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.6 ENERGY
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
In the Approved 2015 ISMND, energy was not analyzed in a separate topic, but was discussed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Utilities and Service Systems sections. The Previously Approved Project has incorporated energy efficiency into the design by incorporating energy efficiency building insulation, electric vehicle charging stations, energy star equipment, light emitting diode (LED) lighting, and energy management systems. Additionally, based on the land use types, CalEEMod is able to estimate usage of natural gas, electricity, and annual vehicle miles traveled which correlates with the amount of fuel consumed. Consequently, the Previously Approved Project would not result in significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Threshold (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Construction and operations of the Project would be largely similar to the Previously Approved Project. Energy consumption associated with construction activities would include short term gasoline and diesel consumption related to heavy duty construction equipment and vehicle trips, and generators would be used for any activities requiring electricity.
Operational energy consumption would include use of LED outdoor lighting and fuel used from vehicular trips. As the Project would have the same construction and operational characteristics assumed in the Previously Approved Project, the Project would not have a greater impact that was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
The Air Quality analysis of the Approved 2015 ISMND found construction emissions to include long-term emissions to primarily include energy consumption from residences and future vehicle trips by future residences of the Previously Approved Project. Operation emissions would be generated by a mix of activities that include consumer products, landscape equipment, energy consumption, solid waste management and project-related mobile sources. Furthermore, while operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, the Project would comply with the Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding energy conservation and green building standards.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-28 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to energy.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-29 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. The Previously Approved Project site is not within an AlquistPriolo zone nor does it have any active faults within the planning area. However, the site has the potential for high expansive silty/clayey layers within the Pauba formation which could be exposed during ground disturbing activities associated with construction, such as grading and excavation. To minimize impacts to geology and soils to a less than significant impact, MM 6-1 would be implemented.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. A Geology Investigation was conducted as part of the Approved 2015 ISMND for the Previously Approved Project site. The Geology Investigation found that no active faults are present on the Project site, and not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Geology Investigation for the Previously Approved Project noted that there is a County of Riverside Fault Zone located along the northwest property boundary, beyond the proposed building construction. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that due to this there is a very small potential for ground rupture on the site due to an earthquake. In regard to ground shaking, the Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that strong ground shaking can be expected, because this is common to virtually all of southern California. Additionally, the Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that the Previously Approved Project site and the Project site has a very low potential for liquefaction and landslides. Lastly, the Geology Investigation conducted for the Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that the Project site has a high potential for expansive silty/clayey layer within the Pauba formation. However, with MM 6-1 potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to geology and soils. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-30 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
MM 6-1 Based upon the comprehensive geotechnical investigation (Appendix 5 of the Approved 2015 ISMND), all of the recommended design and construction measures identified in Appendix 5 of the Approved 2015 ISMND shall be implemented by CarMax.
Implementation of these specific measures will address all of the identified geotechnical constraints identified at the Project site, including future ground shaking effects on future project-related structures.
Threshold (b) Result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: Potential impacts regarding erosion and sedimentation are also discussed in Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would include buildout in the same site as the Previously Approved Project. The existing geological and soil conditions have not changed since these topical areas were evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project site developer would comply with City grading standards, and best management practices (BMPs) established in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, erosion of the onsite soils is a potential impact during excavation, grading, fill and compacting operations. However, compliance with City standards as required by MM 9-1 would ensure that potential impacts to erosion onsite and within roadway alignments would be controlled and be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to erosion or the loss of topsoil. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
MM 9-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at the time grading is proposed. The Best Management Practices contained in these plans shall control the volume of discharge and the pollutants in accordance with the adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS-4) standards in place at the time of project implementation during construction and over the long-term following development.
Threshold (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?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: As discussed above under threshold (a) the Geology Investigation conducted for the Previously Approved Project concluded that impacts due to unstable soils or liquefaction are anticipated to be less than significant. The Geology Investigation conducted for the Previously Approved Project determined that the potential for settlement or subsidence at the site would be limited with implementation of MM 6-1 and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to unstable soils. Additionally, no new information of City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-31 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
Refer to MM 6-1 above.
Threshold (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: As discussed above under threshold (a) the Geology Investigation conducted for the Project concluded that the Pauba formation underlying the Project site may contain high expansive silty/clayey layers. However, with compliance with MM 6-1 potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to unstable soils. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
Refer to MM 6-1 above.
Threshold (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?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project, and does not propose uses that would require the use of septic tanks. However, the Approved 2015 ISMND noted that the Previously Approved Project would be connected to the regional wastewater collection system and it would not utilize any subsurface septic tank. Therefore, no impact to underlying soil from wastewater disposal can occur and no mitigation is required. The Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: Threshold (f) was not discussed as part of the Geology and Soils section of the Approved 2015 ISMND, however, it was addressed within the Cultural Resources section of the Approved 2015 ISMND and determined to result in less than significant impacts with the City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-32 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals incorporation of mitigation measures. The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site that was analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. A Paleontological Resources Assessment (PRA) was conducted for the Previously Approved Project site and the surrounding area. The report indicated that the Project site is situated on sediments of the Pauba Formation (Pleistocene) and Young Alluvial Channel Deposits. The Pauba Formation has the potential to contain paleontological resources. The PRA concluded that the Previously Approved Project site has a “high sensitivity” for paleontological resources due to recorded resources being found in the City and in areas surrounding the Project site. Thus, the Previously Approved Project would comply with the mitigation measures MM 5-4 through MM 5-6 outlined in the Approved 2015 ISMND. These mitigation measures will implement the use of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) and paleontological monitors. If a paleontological resource is discovered during grading and excavation activities, these mitigation measures also ensure that all further earth-disturbing activities are halted until the monitor can assess the resources. These mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project and therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to paleontological resources during construction or operations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
MM 5-4 A paleontologist listed on the County of Riverside Paleontology Consultant List shall be hired to develop and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the Project area beginning on the ground surface with the Pauba Formation and at depths of ten feet beneath the original ground surface in areas mapped as Young Alluvial Channel Deposits. The PRIMP shall include procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report of findings at the conclusion of active ground disturbance.
MM 5-5 If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance under CEQA. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, catalogued, and curated into the permanent collections of an accredited scientific institution. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program.
MM 5-6 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not on site, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be collected from the field and the paleontologist shall make recommendations for monitoring, curation, and reporting.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-33 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to geology and soils.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-34 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CLIMATE CHANGE)
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND found no significant impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to implementation of the Previously Approved Project. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that although the implementation of the Project Design Features (PDFs) within the Previously Approved Project would achieve an approximate 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions in the waste and water categories, and an approximate eight percent reduction in the energy category, the mobile source emissions are unaffected by the PDFs and would, therefore, remain the same. Additionally, the Project’s GHG emissions are determined by comparing the consistency of the Previously Approved Project with the City of Murrieta Climate Action Plan (CAP), where the Previously Approved Project’s CAP measures are applicable to the Project and the Project’s consistency with those measures. Furthermore, with the implementation of the PDFs 1 through 10 and application of regulatory requirements, the Previously Approved Project would remain consistent with the City’s CAP goals and would, therefore, not conflict with the implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the Governor’s EO S-03-05, and other strategies to help reduce GHGs to State levels.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: GHG emissions associated with Project implementation include short-term emissions from construction activities primarily from equipment exhaust, and longterm emissions related to the addition of new project-related vehicular trips and stationary sources emissions. Additionally, the Approved 2015 ISMND found that emissions caused by the Previously Approved Project would not have cumulative effects and impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Refer to Table 6: Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison for details relating to the 30-year amortized construction emissions and long-term operational emissions of the Previously Approved Project, refer to Table 7-4 of Attachment A, and for the long-term operational emissions of the Project. The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that the overall GHG emissions of the Previously Approved Project would produce approximately 0.0039 million metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year (MMTCO2e/yr). The GHG emissions for the Southern California Association of Governments area was estimated at the time to be 176.79 MMTCO2e/yr. The Previously Approved Project would result in a de minimis contribution to the overall emissions of the region (less than 0.01 percent). The Project proposes the construction of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. While the development of the Project was not specifically considered in the modeling completed for the Previously Approved Project, the Project would have the similar construction and operational characteristics assumed in the Previously Approved Project. However, the Project would not include the construction of a building and would occur over a smaller area than that of the Previously Approved Project and with reduced operational intensity when compared to the Previously Approved Project. As such, the Project would not have a greater impact that was identified in the Approved 2015 City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-35 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals ISMND. In fact, the Project would result in approximately 529 MTCO2e annual emissions. This combined with the emissions of the Previously Approved Project would result in total GHG emissions of 0.0044 MMTCO2e/yr and would constitute a de minimus contribution the regional annual emissions of 176.79 MMTCO2e/yr.
As the Previously Approved Project was determined to have a de minimis contribution to the regional greenhouse gas emissions, its combination with the emissions of the Project (with fewer emissions) could not result in new significant impacts, especially with the implementation of all application mitigation measures and PDFs identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was adopted is available that would change the prior findings.
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison Source
Pollutant Emissions (MT/year)
Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Previously Approved Project
Construction Emissions amortized over 30 years 0 67 67 0.0059 0 67 Operational Emissions
Area 0 0.0031 0.0031 0.00001 0 0.0033
Energy 0 710 710 0.029 0.008 710
Mobile 0 3,000 3,000 0.13 0 3,000
Waste 51 0 51 3.0 0 120
Water 2.1 38 40 0.22 0.0055 47
Total Previously Approved Project Emissions 53 3,800 3,900 3.4 0.014 3,900 Project – Operational Emissions
Area - 0 0 0 0 0
Energy - 28 28 0 0 28
Mobile - 493 493 0.02 0.02 501
Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Project Emissions 0 521 521 0.02 0.02 529
Total Emissions w/ Project and PAP 53 4,321 4,321 3.42 0.0314 4,429 Source: Table 7-4 of the Approved 2015 ISMND (Attachment A) and Appendix B to this MND Addendum.
Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding of all numbers to two significant digits.
Bio-CO2 = Biologically generated CO2
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
MT = Metric Tons
MT/year = metric tons per year
N2O = nitrous oxide
NBio-CO2 = Non-biologically generated CO2
PAP = Previously Approved Project
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-36 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to GHG emissions.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-37 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would have less than significant impacts on hazards and hazardous materials with the incorporation of mitigation measures relating to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and for a potential significant hazard through upset or accident. Implementation of MM 8-1 and MM 8-4 would be implemented to ensure impacts are less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would expand existing facilities related to parking stalls and areas for vehicle staging. As the Project would have the same construction and operational characteristics assumed in the Previously Approved Project, the Project would not have a greater impact that was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Additionally, MM 8-1 would address potential impacts to releases of hazardous materials during construction and MM 8-2 would allow for procedures to be set in place for operational impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to hazardous materials.
Mitigation Program
MM 8-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.
MM 8-2 CarMax shall prepare a Business Plan, with a Spill Prevention Control Counter measures Plan, and submit this document to the City Fire Department for review and approval. All hazardous materials that may be used at the project site shall be identified (including quantities); methods of storage shall be defined; measure to prevent release of the hazardous materials to the environment shall be defined; and management procedures for disposal of hazardous waste, including proper manifesting, shall be identified. The City Fire Department shall review and approve this plan prior to movement of any hazardous materials onto the site.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-38 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Threshold (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The closest school to the Project site is Murrieta Elementary School, located approximately 1.25 miles to the northeast. Additionally, according to the Murrieta Unified School District (MUSD) no schools are proposed within one-quarter mile of the Project site.10 The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to hazardous materials. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would include buildout in the same site as the Previously Approved Project. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted for the Previously Approved Project. The Phase 1 ESA concluded that there was no evidence of historic recognized environmental conditions (HREC) or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC) at the Previously Approved Project site but did identify a soil stockpile. Mitigation was implemented for the Previously Approved Project to test and remediate the soil stockpile prior to construction of the Previously Approved Project. As this was previously completed by the fact that the Previously Approved Project was constructed, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project. Further, a Phase I ESA was completed for the Project by Leighton on April 27, 2023, and is included as Appendix F to this MND Addendum. The Phase I ESA completed for the Project concluded that the Project site did not contain evidence of RECs, HRECs, or CRECs. Further, the Project site is not located on the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to hazardous materials. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was certified is available that would change the prior findings.
Mitigation Program
MM 8-3 If the soil stockpile is not removed prior to initiation of ground disturbance, CarMax shall conduct sampling of the stockpile for Title 22 metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, semivolatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and Organochlorine pesticides. If the stockpile contains any contamination above commercial screening levels, the soil shall be removed from the site and disposed of at a properly licensed disposal or recycling facility or blended to a level that does not exceed this threshold. Documentation verifying 10 City of Murrieta. 2017. Murrieta Unified School District Map 2016-2017. Available at:
https://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/cms/lib/CA01000508/Centricity/Domain/32/District%20Map%202016-2017.pdf (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-39 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals proper management of the stockpile shall be submitted to the City prior to initiating ground disturbing activities.
(This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as there are no existing soil stockpiles present on the Project site. Additionally, this mitigation measure was required for the implementation of the Previously Approved Project.) Threshold (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The closest airport to the Project site is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately five miles northeast of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts and there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: Similar to the Previously Approved Project and as discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Project would have minimal activities within Madison Avenue and Guava Street, where most utilities are located. To ensure impacts would be less than significant and to ensure that emergency access and evacuation can be maintained, the Project site developer would comply with MM 8-4. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
MM 8-4 At all times during construction of the Madison Avenue and Guava Street improvements, the site developer shall ensure that emergency fire or medical vehicles are able to access all areas along the project alignment during construction. The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to serve emergency functions (including emergency response and emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent project roadways and throughout the project site.
(This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as improvements to Madison Avenue and Guava Street are not proposed as part of the Project.) City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-40 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Threshold (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New or Substantially More Severe Project: For additional information refer to Section 4.20: Wildfire.
Per the City GP EIR, the Project site is not located within a high fire zone.11 The Project would include buildout in the same site as the Previously Approved Project. The Project site is previously disturbed and per the Approved 2015 ISMND has a low fuel load. Additionally, the Project would comply with all local, state, and federal rules, standards, and regulations regarding fire safety design. As such, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to wildfire.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. According to Exhibit 5.17-1, High Fire Hazard Zones, of the GP EIR, the Project site is not located within a high fire zone. Due to past disturbance of the project site, it presently has a low fuel load. The City’s Fire Department has reviewed the Project site and would implement the necessary code requirements in order to reduce any potential wildland fire hazard impacts to a less than significant level. This is a standard condition and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazards and hazardous materials. 11 RBF Consulting. 2011. Murrieta General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.17: Fire Protection. Page 5.17-5. Available at:
https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/762/05-17---Fire-Protection-PDF (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-41 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that the Previously Approved Project would have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality with the implementation of MM 9-1. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that with the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), no significant adverse impacts to water quality would occur. Thus, MM 9-1 would be implemented to ensure that the SWPPP and WQMP are implemented.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Approved 2015 ISMND noted that the Previously Approved Project has the potential for discharge of surface water runoff into the local drainage system, which eventually flows into Murrieta Creek. The Previously Approved Project site is within the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) jurisdiction. The Approved 2015 ISMND stated that the Regional Board issued the urban stormwater (MS-4) permit for the Santa Margarita River Watershed of which Murrieta Creek is one of the major tributaries. The MS-4 permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for control of pollutants during construction and a WQMP for control of pollutants during operation of the Project site. Additionally, the City and County have adopted a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to control discharges of surface runoff during construction and operation. Similar to the Previously Approved Project, the Project would be required to implement a SWPPP and WQMP for construction and operational activities to mitigate any adverse impacts to water quality. Through implementation of MM 9-1, which ensures the use of SWPPP and WQMP, water quality impacts of the Project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
MM 9-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at the time grading is proposed. The Best Management Practices contained in these plans shall control the volume of discharge and the pollutants in accordance with the adopted MS-4 standards in place at the time of project implementation during construction and over the long-term following development.
Threshold (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would not deplete groundwater supplies that would substantially affect the water availability for existing or planned land uses. The Approved 2015 ISMND noted that the development of the Previously Approved Project may result in a slight reduction in the City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-42 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals amount of recharge associated with natural runoff, this reduction was expected to be offset/replaced by increased infiltration from the detention basins, flow through planters, and underground infiltration/detention basins. The Project proposes paved areas that would be sloped to allow stormwater runoff to be collected into storm drain infrastructure consisting of stormwater inlets, underground storm drain, and sub-surface stormwater chambers and would be designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event. The sub-surface chambers would replace the existing on-site stormwater basins. New storm drain infrastructure would tie into this existing storm line to maintain the existing operations. Storm drain bypass lines would be constructed, connecting the proposed sub-surface basins to the City’s stormwater network in the event that overflow occurs. Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: Similar to the Previously Approved Project, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to significantly change the volume of flows downstream of the Project site, and would not be anticipated to change the amount of surface water in any water body in an amount that could increase erosion or sedimentation. As discussed above under threshold (a) the Project site drainage would capture runoff from the Project site generated from Project development.
Additionally, the Project would conform with City standards and would not contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As a condition of approval, the Project applicant would submit final design of the Project site drainage plan and WQMP to the City Public Works Department prior to grading permit issuance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no new mitigation measures would be required.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-43 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would include buildout in the same site as the Previously Approved Project. As discussed in the Approved ISMND, the Previously Approved Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area based on the City GP and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No. 06065C2715G, effective August 28, 2008.
12 The Project site is approximately 25 miles from the coastline and is, therefore, not within a risk zone for tsunami. The possibility of seiches and tsunamis impacting the City is considered remote due to the great distance to large bodies of water. The nearest large bodies of water include Lake Elsinore, located 12 miles northwest of the Previously Approved Project site, and Diamond Valley Lake, located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the Previously Approved Project site. Thus, no impacts are anticipated to occur from either of these lakes. While the Approved 2015 ISMND identified that there was the potential for mudflow to occur with future flood events, the overall Project site does not contain steep slopes which could contribute to the conditions that would enable mudflow. As such, the Project site is not near large standing bodies of water such as oceans, lakes, or reservoirs, and the Project is not within a seiche zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no new mitigation measures are necessary.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: As discussed above, the Project site is located in the Santa Margarita River Watershed. The Project site’s related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Regional Board’s requirement to prepare and adhere to a project specific SWPPP and WQMP. As discussed above, the Project proposes paved areas that would be sloped to allow stormwater runoff to be collected into storm drain infrastructure. Therefore, none of the Project components would obstruct or prevent implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
As such, impacts would be less than significant and no new mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to hydrology and water quality.
12 FEMA. 2021. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-44 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would have no impact regarding land use and planning. The Previously Approved Project is located on land that is surrounded by compatible uses and did not divide an established community. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Physically divide an established community? Threshold (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. The Previously Approved Project is located on land that is surrounded by compatible uses. To the east is Interstate 15, to the north is Wal-Mart and the Murrieta Springs Plaza, to the west is a new hotel, and to the south is a mix of undeveloped land, residences, a church, and industrial facilities. The Previously Approved Project did not divide an established community; therefore, neither would the Project. Additionally, the Previously Approved Project site is designated for Commercial development and zoned for Community Commercial land use. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project, and is consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation of the Project site. There would be two additional paved areas in total, a smaller northern lot and a larger southern lot.. No building expansions are proposed as part of the Project. As such, the Project would comply with existing land uses and zoning, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use and planning.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-45 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that construction and use of the Previously Approved Project would have no impact regarding mineral resources or mineral resource values. Most of the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) are classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3a, an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Therefore, there was not a potential impact to mineral resources or mineral resource values from implementation of the Previously Approved Project.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
Threshold (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. The Project does not propose the development of mineral extraction facilities. The Geotechnical Study for the Previously Approved Project concluded that the Previously Approved Project site did not contain any aggregate or crushed stone mineral resources. Therefore, there was not a potential impact to mineral resources or mineral resource values from implementation of the Previously Approved Project. Additionally, the City GP EIR noted that the City is designated as MRZ-3a, indicating an area of undetermined mineral resource significance.
13 The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and
1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. No building expansions or increased land use intensity are proposed as part of the Project. As such, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. No impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral resources. 13 RBF Consulting. 2011. Murrieta General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.12: Mineral Resources. Page 5.12-4. Available at: https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/757/05-12---Mineral-Resources-PDF (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-46 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.13 NOISE
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that construction and operation of the Previously Approved Project would expose people and sensitive receptors in the vicinity to noise. The Previously Approved Project would increase ambient noise levels in the area above levels existing without the Previously Approved Project, and would create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the area above levels without the project. However, with MM 12-1 through MM 12-15 impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Threshold (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project proposes the construction and use of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. There would be two new paved areas in total, a smaller northern lot and a larger southern lot. The Project would construct 6-foot-tall masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the northern and southern lots. These operational uses would consist of vehicles moving around the Project site and does not suggest operational uses that are known to cause excessive noise levels. The Project does not propose any building expansions or increased land use intensity. The Project would have the same construction and operational characteristics as the Previously Approved Project, so the Project would not have a greater impact related to noise than what was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND, and with compliance with MM 12-1 through MM 12-15 impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, a Noise Analysis was prepared for the Project and is available as Appendix G. This Noise Analysis identified noise impacts associated with construction and operations of the Project. It was determined that construction noise would not exceed the noise thresholds set by the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual or the thresholds as identified in the Murrieta Municipal Code Section 16.30.130.14 As a result, a less than significant impact would occur regarding construction noise levels. Operational noise generated by the Project were determined to be well below thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. Refer to Appendix G for calculations and data. Lastly, the Previously Approved Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip 14 City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.30 Noise. Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-26313 (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-47 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals and would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard.
Mitigation Program
MM 12-1 The developer shall install a sound barrier with a minimum height of 8 feet along the project southern boundary as shown on Figure 12-2. Alternatively, the developer may coordinate mitigation sufficient to meet the requirements of following performance standard, as long as it can be demonstrated that the solution will not cause the background noise level of approximately 70 dBA CNEL to be increased more than one decibel at the residence. The final sound attenuation design selected shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
(This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as the Project does not propose construction adjacent to the areas identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Additionally, the Project itself proposes the construction of screening masonry walls which would have a secondary effect of noise abatement.)
MM 12-2 The developer shall incorporate sound attenuation at the office facilities onsite that may include an air conditioning system or a system of baffles to reduce noise in buildings that are directly exposed to I-15 noise.
(This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as the Project does not propose the construction and operation of office facilities.)
MM 12-3 The developer shall require large deliver trucks arriving after 7 p.m. and before 6 a.m. to utilize the roadway along the northern property boundary and park in the parking lot adjacent to I-15 before unloading cargo during daylight hours.
MM 12-4 CarMax shall use noise reducing barriers and other devices to reduce exterior noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor to 70 CNEL or less during the day-time construction hours. This shall include installation of a temporary construction barrier between the construction activities and the nearest sensitive noise receptors, during those periods when possible noise exposure will cause the 70 CNEL background threshold to be exceeded.
(This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as the Project does not propose construction activities which are known to generate excessive background noise levels within a distance to sensitive receptors that would cause significant impacts. Additionally, the Project itself proposes the construction of screening masonry walls which would have a secondary effect of noise abatement.)
MM 12-5 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 7 pm through 7 am, Monday through Saturday and at no time shall construction activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.
MM 12-6 Stationary construction equipment that generates noise shall be placed behind a 12-foot temporary construction barrier if located within 400 feet of sensitive noise receptors.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-48 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals MM 12-7 CarMax shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 70 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the applicant will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.
MM 12-8 CarMax will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities.
MM 12-9 Equipment not in use for two minutes shall be shut off.
MM 12-10 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.
MM 12-11 Where available, electric-powered equipment shall be used rather than diesel equipment and hydraulic-powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic power.
MM 12-12 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measures, including no unnecessary revving of equipment.
MM 12-13 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.
MM 12-14 Public notice shall be given prior to initiating construction by installing a sign on the project site. This notice shall identify the dates of construction and the name and phone number of a construction supervisor (contact person) in case of complaints. One contact person shall be assigned to the project. The public notice shall encourage the adjacent residents to contact the supervisor in the case of a complaint. Residents would be informed if there is a change in the construction schedule. The supervisor shall be available 24/7 throughout construction by mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contact person shall take all actions to remove the sound source causing the complaint.
MM 12-15 In the event that a noise complaint cannot be resolved, CarMax shall provide the option of relocating the complainant until the source of the noise causing the complaint is no longer occurring at the project site.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to noise.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-49 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND found that the City would have sufficient housing inventory to accommodate a population increase generated by the Previously Approved Project. Additionally, there were no occupied residences located on the Previously Approved Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant as it relates to population and housing due to the implementation of the Previously Approved Project.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Threshold (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. The Approved 2015 ISMND found that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would create between 200 and 225 new full-time jobs and up to 400 part time jobs over a 24-hour period, and the City would have sufficient housing inventory to accommodate a population increase of 200 to 225 people. Additionally, there were no occupied residences located on the Previously Approved Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant as it relates to population and housing due to the implementation of the Project.
Additionally, the Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. The Project does not propose any building expansions or increased land use intensity, as such the Project does not require additional employees. The Project would be constructed and operated as envisioned in the initial study for the Previously Approved Project and would not displace housing or persons. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-50 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to population and housing.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-51 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would have less than significant impact on fire protection services, police protection services, school services, parks, and other public facilities. The development of the Previously Approved Project required that Development Impact Fee’s (DIF) be paid to offset any potential impacts on these public services and facilities.
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Threshold (a) 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:
(i) Fire protection
(ii) Police protection
(iii) Schools
(iv) Parks
(v) Other Public Facilities
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project proposes the construction and operation of
3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project.
There would be two new paved areas in total, a smaller northern lot and a larger southern lot.
Additionally, a 20-foot driveway with a security drop beam gate would be installed on the northern portion of the southern lot. The Project does not propose any building expansions, increased land use intensity, or residential development. Access to the Project site would be restricted solely for employees and not open to the public. As such, no further increased risks to the general public would result from Project implementation.
The Project site would be served by Murrieta Fire Department (MFD). The closest station to the Project site is Murrieta Station No. 1 located at 41825 Juniper Street, approximately 1.18 miles to the northwest.
The next closest station to the Project site is Murrieta Station No. 3 located at 39985 Whitewood Road, approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast . Additionally, the Project site would be served by the Murrieta Police Department (MPD). The closest station to the Project site is located at 2 Town Square, approximately 1.2 miles to the northwest. Additionally, Project site lighting would be installed and operational at night. Lastly, the Project proposes development of parking areas which would not generate any new direct demand for Murrieta Unified School District (MUSD) schools or City parks. Thus, expansions to public services would not be necessary. Further, the Project design would be subject to plan check/review to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and standards. As such, the Project would have less than significant impact on public services and facilities.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-52 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to public services.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-53 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.16 RECREATION
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that development of the Previously Approved Project would not 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. Therefore, it was determined that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would not have an impact on recreational facilities or resources.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold (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?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project proposes the construction and operation of
3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. No building expansions or increased land use intensity are proposed as part of the Project. Additionally, the Project does not propose residential development, and thus, would not increase the demand on existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. As a result, no physical adverse effect on the environment would occur. Further, the Project would be constructed and operated as envisioned in the initial study for the Previously Approved Project. Thus, the Project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on recreational resources.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. No impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to recreation.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-54 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Approved 2015 ISMND determined that implementation of the Previously Approved Project would have a less than significant impact with the implementation and incorporation of mitigation measures.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Threshold (b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Previously Approved Project and the Approved 2015 ISMND were prepared prior to Senate Bill (SB) 743 coming into force. As such, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were not analyzed and the basis of determination of environmental impacts under CEQA relied on a level of service (LOS) analysis. Due to SB 743, LOS is no longer used as a basis for the determination of significance of environmental impacts under CEQA and as such is provided for information uses only. The Approved ISMND determined that under existing plus Previously Approved Project Condition, all of the study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS “D” or better and ramp intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS “E” or better. To address the Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue intersection operating at LOS “E”, the Previously Approved Project implemented MM 16-1 to operate at LOS “D” or better. In addition, the mitigation measures prescribed a Transportation Management Plan to be prepared as part of the construction specifications. All previous mitigation measures of the Approved 2015 ISMND are available in Appendix A. A Traffic Memorandum was prepared for the Project. It was used for this analysis and is available as Appendix H.
According to the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Preparation Guidelines, a Project would be required to complete an LOS study should the Project demonstrate that there would be more than 100 peak trips in the AM or PM hours. A trip generation table was prepared and is included as Table 1 of Appendix H.
According to that table, the peak hour would result in a maximum of 25 trips. As such, an LOS study is not required, and it is assumed that the Project would have less than significant impacts related to this topical area.
Regarding VMT, the City’s TIA Preparation Guidelines provide details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts without completing a more detailed analysis. There are two screening thresholds that the City provides in its TIA Preparation Guidelines. They are the: (1) Project type screening, and; (2) General Plan Comparison.
Project Type Screening
The City presumes various usages, assumed to be local serving in nature, as having a less than significant impact absent of substantial evidence to the contrary. The following uses are considered:
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-55 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals • 11 single family housing units
• 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units • 10,000 sf of office
• 15,000 sf of light industrial
• 63,000 sf of warehouse
• Local-serving retail that primarily serves the City and/or adjacent cities • Office and other employment-related land uses reducing commutes outside the local area • Local-serving day care centers, pre-K, and K-12 schools • Local parks and civic uses
• Local-serving gas stations, banks, and hotels
• Local-serving community colleges that are consistent with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) assumptions
• Student housing projects
The proposed Project includes the expansion of an existing CarMax site that provides a locally-serving used car dealership to serve the City of Murrieta and adjacent cities. Therefore, the Project would satisfy the Project Type screening.
General Plan Comparison
In the City of Murrieta General Plan, the Project site is zoned as Community Commercial. As noted previously, the Project consists of the construction of two staging lots on 3.82 acres as an expansion of an existing local serving used car dealership. The density of the proposed Project is within the land use and zoning assumptions in the City’s General Plan and would not generate more VMT than what was analyzed in the General Plan. Based on the City’s Guidelines, the Project’s VMT impact would be considered less than significant, and no further VMT analysis would be required.
The Project is consistent with findings of the Approved 2015 ISMND and would have lesser impacts to transportation when compared to the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would not result in any new impacts with respect to transportation resources during construction or operations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Approved 2015 ISMND was certified is available that would change prior findings.
Mitigation Program
MM 16-1 The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue proposed mitigations include extending the northbound right turn lane and restriping a through lane to a shared through-right turn lane. The eastbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a shared through right turn lane. The westbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane. The northbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, a shared through-right turn lane, City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-56 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals and right turn lane. The southbound direction will provide two left turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through right turn lane.
(This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as the improvements identified in the mitigation measure have been completed as part of the implementation of the Previously Approved Project.)
MM 16-2 The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue proposed mitigations include the addition of the northbound approach, an eastbound right turn lane, dual westbound left turn lanes, and restriping of a southbound right turn lane to a through lane. The eastbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a shared through right turn lane. The westbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane. The northbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, and right turn lane. The southbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, and right turn lane. The construction of the recommended traffic mitigation would be the responsibility of the identified approved projects. (This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as the improvements identified in the mitigation measure have been completed as part of the implementation of the Previously Approved Project.)
Threshold (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New or Substantially More Severe Impacts: The Project is located on the Previously Approved Project site. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. The Project would not construct new roadways and would not result in a more severe new impact as it pertains to geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Additionally, the Project site would be restricted to CarMax employees and would not be accessible by the public nor would public motorists be allowed access to the Project site. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant and no new mitigation measures would be required.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project proposes the construction and operation of
3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the City fire and police departmentsrequire adequate emergency access to the site including sufficient turning radii to accommodate fire and engine trucks. The Project does not propose new roadways or public access points, but during construction adequate emergency access and control of construction hazards would be accomplished by implementing a short-term traffic management plan. Additionally, MM 16-3 through MM 16-6 from the Approved 2015 ISMND would ensure that impacts are less than significant.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-57 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
MM 16-3 The construction contractor will time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic (6-8 am and 4-6 pm) and so as to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site.
MM 16-4 The construction contractor will provide adequate traffic management resources as determined by the City, such as protective devices, flag persons or police assistance for traffic control, to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times.
MM 16-5 The above measures will be incorporated into a Transportation Management Plan to be prepared as part of construction specifications and approved by the City prior to construction.
MM 16-6 All roadway construction effects shall be repaired and returned to operation in a condition comparable to that which existed prior to initiating construction. The City shall verify the acceptability of all temporary and permanent roadway repairs.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts with mitigation were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to transportation.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-58 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
At the time of the preparation and adoption of the Approved 2015 ISMND, Tribal Cultural Resources were not analyzed separately but were discussed within Cultural Resources. The Approved 2015 ISMND included a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA); this study is provided as Appendix E.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: Comments from tribal representatives consulted during the Cultural Resources study indicated that the Previously Approved Project site lies in an area of some sensitivity for Native American cultural resources, and tribal organizations expressed concerns for potential disturbance of Native American cultural remains during Project implementation. Based on this comment, mitigation measures were implemented to ensure that no Native American resources of value would experience significant adverse impacts. MM 5-2 would allow the contractor to cease all earthdisturbing activities within a 100-meter radius of the area of discovery. As a result, if potentially significant features or sites are discovered, MM 5-3 further emphasizes and expands on MM 5-2, and requires an Evaluation Plan to be developed and included in the grading plan. These mitigation measures are provided in Section 3.5: Cultural Resources of this MND Addendum.
A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment (CRA) was conducted for the Project site. The results indicated that the Project area has low potential for surface and buried archaeological material. Additionally, no existing cultural resources as part of the Phase I CRA were identified. The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project proposes the construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. Consequently, the Project could potentially expose archaeological resources or human remains through grading and excavation during construction. Thus, the Project would comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the 2015 ISMND. To ensure a less than significant impact would occur relating to Tribal Cultural Resources, MM 5-1 though MM 5-3 would be implemented as described above.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-59 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Mitigation Program
Refer to MM 5-1 through MM 5-3 above in Section 4.5: Cultural Resources.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. A less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to tribal cultural resources.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-60 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Previously Approved Project’s 2015 ISMND concluded that the Previously Approved Project would result in a need for additional utilities and service systems that could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service levels. However, with MM 17-1 and MM 17-2 impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact:
Wastewater and Stormwater
The Project would be implemented on a portion of the same site analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, however the Approved 2015 ISMND did not analyze specific development of the Project site beyond grading and storm drain infrastructure. As discussed in the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Previously Approved Project site would generate surface runoff from the site and nonpoint source storm water runoff that could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Board. However, per the Approved 2015 ISMND, the surface runoff and nonpoint source storm water runoff from the Previously Approved Project Site would be managed in accordance with the WQMP discussed in Section 3.10: Hydrology and Water Quality. By treating the stormwater before discharge during construction and operation the Project would not exceed or violate any wastewater treatment requirements. Additionally, the wastewater generated by the Project would be collected by Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and delivered through Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sewers to EMWD’s Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Treated effluent at EMWD’s Reclamation Facility meets discharge requirements established by the Regional Board. No other sources of wastewater are anticipated to be produced by the Project, and the Project would not exceed or violate any wastewater treatment requirements. As the Project does not propose uses that would utilize wastewater infrastructure, it would not construct wastewater infrastructure. All stormwater infrastructure to be installed would be local to the Project site and would not require regional capital improvements. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Electricity
Electric power is provided to properties within the City by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE maintains and operates the transmission and distribution infrastructure necessary to provide electricity to end users throughout its entire service area.15 The Project would install security lighting. All lighting fixtures to be installed as part of Project implementation would be specified to use energy efficient bulbs and to comply 15 City of Murrieta. 2020. Murrieta General Plan Update – Chapter 6 Infrastructure Element, page 6-4. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4360/06---Infrastructure-Elementpdf. (accessed January 2024).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-61 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals with all current California Building Code and City MC requirements. Additionally, a growing percentage of the energy supplied by SCE is from renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, solar, biomass, and small hydroelectric.16 As the electrical demand for the Project site was analyzed as part of the Approved 2015 ISMND and did not result in significant unavoidable impacts, and the Project consists of a lower intensity development and would not result in the relocation or construction of new electric power infrastructure, a less than significant impact would occur.
Natural Gas and Telecommunication
The Project would not implement natural gas or telecommunication infrastructure, nor would there be an increased demand for the need of natural gas or telecommunication. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: WMWD would serve the Project site for water and sewer services. According to the Approved 2015 ISMND, the WMWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan determined that water supplies would be available to serve the Previously Approved Project and the whole WMWD service area, when the water shortage contingency plan and demand management measures are taken into account. Based on the substantiating data, provision of domestic water supply can be accomplished without causing significant impacts on the existing water system or existing entitlements. Consistent with the Previously Approved Project analysis, the City’s projections and the 2020 version of the WMWD Urban Water Management Plan, future water demand will be met through regional and local management measures.
According to the 2020 WMWD Urban Water Management Plan, the WMWD has a diverse water supply portfolio used to meet wholesale and retail demands, including imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water.17 Additionally, the WMWD is capable of water demands in normal, single dry, and multiple-dry years through 2045, followed by a drought risk assessment for 2021 and 2025, and the consecutive five years. Furthermore, WMWD’s diverse water supply portfolio coupled with the system’s flexible operations render the supply reliable in all year types including reasonable planned growth through 2045, and has the ability to sustain greater water demands, if needed.18 The Project’s only demand for water would be as a result of landscaping which is required to be drought tolerant as required by MM 17-2 of the Approved 2015 ISMND, which the Project would implement. MM 17-2 requires CarMax to minimize the use of conventional turf for landscaping and instead, utilize drought tolerant plants and xeriscaping in the landscape plan. Additionally, irrigation would be installed to provide a more efficient watering system at the base of the plants. Overall, the Project would result in a trivial increase to the 16 Ibid.
17 Western Municipal Water District. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, page 4-5. https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentCenter/View/5339/Western-2020-UWMP_Public-Draft_20210518?bidId=. (accessed January 2024). 18 Ibid, page 11-1.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-62 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals Previously Approved Project’s estimated water demands. Thus, the Project’s water demand would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. As such, no new or substantially more severe impacts relative to water supply from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Program
MM 17-1 If recycled water becomes available at the project site, CarMax shall connect to this system and utilize recycled water for landscape irrigation and, if feasible, for the car wash. (This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Project as there is no recycled water available on the Project site that would use recycled water for landscape irrigation or other services. Additionally, no carwash uses are proposed by the Project).
MM 17-2 CarMax shall minimize conventional turf from landscaping and utilize only drought tolerant plants and xeriscaping in its landscape plan. Where feasible, drip irrigation shall be incorporated into the watering system along with a smart irrigation control system. All plumbing fixtures shall meet federal Environmental Protection Agency high-efficiency standards, i.e., 15% below current Title 24 standards. The car wash shall utilize the most efficient water recovery system commercially available.
Threshold (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Project proposes to expand surface vehicle storage for existing operations on site of the Previously Approved Project. The expansion of vehicle storage would not increase employee count or cause an increase to customer demand. As such, there would be no increase to wastewater treatment, and therefore, no new impacts would occur.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Threshold (d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that the Previously Approved Project would generate demand for solid waste service system capacity and has a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on the solid waste system. The Project proposes the construction and operation of a 3.7-acre parking area and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate additional demand for solid waste service system capacity beyond what was anticipated for the Previously Approved Project. Additionally, the Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that the Previously Approved Project would generate wastes such as used oil, other than the typical commercial municipal solid waste. All of the City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-63 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals special wastes would be sold or disposed of at existing specialty waste handling systems. Therefore, the Project would not have a greater impact than what was identified in the Previously Approved Project’s Approved 2015 ISMND.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. A less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated was identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to utilities and service systems.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-64 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals
3.20 WILDFIRE
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
At the time of preparation and adoption of the Approved 2015 ISMND, wildfire was not analyzed as its own impact section, however impacts related to wildfire were discussed in Public Services. The Approved 2015 ISMND concluded that the Previously Approved Project site is just north (outside) of the designated wildland fire hazard area and that fuel load on the site is relatively low. The Previously Approved Project's Site was not considered to be susceptible to wildland fires at the time of the preparation of the Approved 2015 ISMND and impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Threshold (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Threshold (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No New or Substantially More Severe Impact: The Approved 2015 ISMND found that the Previously Approved Project site is just north (outside) of the designated wildland fire hazard area and that fuel load on the site is relatively low. Additionally, the Previously Approved Project site is served by MFD, the closest station is Station No. 1 approximately 1.18 miles from the Project site, and Station No. 3 also located approximately 1.4 miles from the Project site. Thus, the Previously Approved Project site is within a distance where future calls can be responded to within 6.5 minutes. In addition, based on the FEMA FIRM Panel No. 06065C2715G, the Previously Approved Project site, the site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.19 Per the Approved 2015 ISMND, the Previously Approved Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, impacts from flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff and post-fire slope instability would be less than significant.
The Project proposes construction and operation of 3.82 acres of parking areas and 1.04 acres of landscaping to support the Previously Approved Project. The Project site is not located in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.20 Additionally, the Project would comply with all local, state, and federal 19 FEMA. 2021. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd (accessed December 2023). 20 CAL Fire. 2023. FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 3-65 Environmental Analysis and Project Approvals rules, standards, and regulations regarding fire safety design. As such, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to wildfire.
Mitigation Program
None identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts. Less than significant impacts were identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. The Project would be consistent with the analysis contained in the Approved 2015 ISMND. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required for issues related to wildfire.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Determination
4.0 Determination
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Determination
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 4-1 Determination
4.0 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and provides justification for the City to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The City proposes to implement the Project within the context of the City GP, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND would occur.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
As documented herein, no circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the Project have substantively changed beyond what was evaluated in the Approved 2015 ISMND; and none of the Project elements would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified. No major revisions to the Approved 2015 ISMND are required. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the Approved 2015 ISMND were identified.
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
Significant Project-related effects previously examined would not be substantially more severe than were disclosed in the Approved 2015 ISMND as a result of the Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas would be the same as or less than disclosed in the Approved 2015 ISMND.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 4-2 Determination
Implementation of the Project within the context of the City GP would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or No mitigation measures or alternatives were found infeasible in the Approved 2015 ISMND. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Subsequent to adoption of the ISMND in 2015, additional technical analyses were performed for the Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects, nor would it increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Approved 2015 ISMND. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent MND (SMND). (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Project. No SMND is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
As described above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a SMND have occurred.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 4-3 Determination
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a SMND would occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, an addendum to the adopted ISMND is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the FEIR or adopted negative declaration.
This Addendum will be attached to the Approved 2015 ISMND and maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the FEIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
The City will consider this Addendum with the Approved 2015 ISMND prior to making a decision on the Project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
This document provides substantial evidence for City records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the Project.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 4-4 Determination
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Conclusion
5.0 Conclusion
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Conclusion
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 5-1 Conclusion
5.0 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines to document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of an ISMND, pursuant to Section 15162 and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, exist in connection with the Project. No major revisions would be required to the ISMND prepared for the CarMax Auto Superstore as a result of the Project. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified.
Since the adoption of the ISMND, there has been no new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible or showing that there are feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those analyzed in the Approved 2015 ISMND that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of an ISMND is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the Project is this Addendum to the Approved 2015 ISMND. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 5-2 Conclusion
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 References
6.0 References
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 References
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 6-1 References
6.0 REFERENCES
CAL Fire. 2023. FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed December 2023).
Caltrans. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2020. General Plan 2035 Land Use Map. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4373/Murrieta-Land-Use-Mappdf (accessed August 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.22.030 General Height Limitations. Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-25458 (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.18.100 Lighting. Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-25195 (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.30 Noise. Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/murrieta/latest/murrieta_ca/0-0-0-26313 (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2023. 16.42 Tree Preservation. Available at: https://encryptedtbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuyc7WjAA7lP3WG3HvfJZ1kwOrMp6KsO_eyw&usqp=C AU (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2017. Murrieta Unified School District Map 2016-2017. Available at:
https://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/cms/lib/CA01000508/Centricity/Domain/32/District%20Map% 202016-2017.pdf (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta. 2020. Murrieta Zoning Map.
https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4374/Murrieta-Zoning-Mappdf (accessed August 2023).
FEMA. 2021. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Available at: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd (accessed December 2023).
RBF Consulting. 2011. Murrieta General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.12: Mineral Resources. Available at: https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/757/05-12--- Mineral-Resources-PDF (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 6-2 References
RBF Consulting. 2011. Murrieta General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.13:
Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality. Available at:
https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/758/05-13---Hydrology-Drainage-andWater-Quality-PDF (accessed December 2023).
RBF Consulting. 2011. Murrieta General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.17: Fire Protection. Available at: https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/762/05-17---FireProtection-PDF (accessed December 2023).
City of Murrieta Addendum to the CarMax Auto Superstore ISMND December 2024 Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
INITIAL STUDY /
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002
Lead Agency:
City of Murrieta
One Town Square
24601 Jefferson Avenue
Murrieta, California 92562
Project Applicant:
CarMax #6002 Murrieta, CA
POC: Heath Kennedy
Prepared by:
Tom Dodson & Associates
2150 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
(909) 882-3612
June 2015
PH1, ATT 11
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page ii
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................ vi I. Background Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 II. Project Assessment..................................................................................................................... 1 III. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ................................................................................ 11 IV. Determination .............................................................................................................................. 12 V. Environmental Checklist
1. Aesthetics....................................................................................................................... 15
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources.............................................................................. 17
3. Air Quality....................................................................................................................... 19
4. Biological Resources...................................................................................................... 36
5. Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 39
6. Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................... 43
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 46
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................. 54
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 57
10. Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................. 63
11. Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 65
12. Noise .............................................................................................................................. 66
13. Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 79
14. Public Services............................................................................................................... 80
15. Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 82
16. Transportation / Traffic ................................................................................................... 83
17. Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................... 93
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 97
19. Earlier Analyses ............................................................................................................. 98 VI. Summary of Mitigation Measures................................................................................................ 99 VII. Initial Study Source List............................................................................................................... 105 TABLES
Table 3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................................................... 21 Table 3-2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants .................................................................. 23 Table 3-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitored in the Project Vicinity.................................................. 25 Table 3-4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts .............................................................. 26 Table 3-5 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin........................ 30 Table 3-6 Diesel Construction Equipment Utilized by Construction Phase ................................ 31 Table 3-7 Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions............................................................ 31 Table 3-8 Construction Localized Impacts Analysis.................................................................... 32 Table 3-9 Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions ......................................................... 33 Table 3-10 Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis .................................................. 33 PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page iii
TABLES (continued)
Table 6-1 2013 CBC Seismic Coefficients per USGS General Procedure................................. 44 Table 7-1 Global Warming Potential at Greenhouse Gases....................................................... 47 Table 7-2 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................. 51 Table 7-3 Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Without PDFs ......................... 51 Table 7-4 Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions With PDFs .............................. 52 Table 9-1 Summary of Results.................................................................................................... 58 Table 12-1 Existing Traffic Noise Levels....................................................................................... 68 Table 12-2 Existing With Project Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................. 70 Table 12-3 2015 Traffic Noise Levels Without Project.................................................................. 71 Table 12-4 2015 Traffic Noise Levels With Project....................................................................... 72 Table 12-5 RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors ...................... 74 Table 16-1 Project Trip Generation............................................................................................... 85 Table 16-2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ‒ Existing + Project Condition.................................... 86 Table 16-3 Roadway Segment Analysis ‒ Existing + Project Condition....................................... 87 Table 16-4 Intersection Capacity Analysis ‒ Background Condition ............................................ 87 Table 16-5 Intersection Capacity Analysis ‒ 3rRMeFt &RPSOetiRQ ................................................. 88 Table 16-6 Intersection Capacity Analysis ‒ &uPuOatiYe &RQditiRQ .............................................. 89 Table 16-7 Roadway Segment Analysis ‒ *eQeraO 3OaQ 8Sdate ................................................. 90
FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location
Figure 2 Site Location
Figure 3 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4a Site Plan, page 1
Figure 4b Site Plan, page 2
Figure 4-1 Existing Biological Resources with Project Impacts Figure 9-1 Existing Conditions Hydrology Map
Figure 9-2 Developed Conditions Hydrology Map
Figure 10-1 General Plan 2035 Circulation Map
Figure 12-1 Noise Monitoring
Figure 12-2 Required Property Line Wall
Figure 16-1 Vicinity Map
Figure 16-2 Site Plan
Figure 16-3 Existing Condition Traffic Volumes
Figure 16-4 Trip Distribution
Figure 16-5 General Plan Update Volumes
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page iv
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Engineering Drawings
Appendix 2 Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas
Appendix 3a MSHCP Consistency
Appendix 3b Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix 4a Cultural Resources
Appendix 4b Paleontological Resources
Appendix 5 Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix 6 Phase 1 ESA
Appendix 7a Preliminary Drainage Study
Appendix 7b Preliminary WQMP
Appendix 8 Noise Analysis
Appendix 9 Traffic Impact Study
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page v
This page left intentionally blank for pagination purposes.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page vi
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
ARB Air Resource Board
CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resource Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Critical Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibel
DIF Development Impact Fee
d.u. dwelling units
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GP General Plan
GPA General Plan Amendment
GWP Global Warming Potential
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineering
LOS Level of Service
LST Level of Significance Threshold
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MSHCP Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MVUSD Murrieta Valley Unified School District
NNG Non-Native Grass
OPR Office of Planning and Research
ORP Office and Research Park
PC Professional Commercial
ROW right-of-way
RUE Residential/Urban/Exotic
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF-2 Single-Family 2
SRA Source Receptor Area
SRF Single-Family Residential
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TTM Tentative Tract Map
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
TVUSD Temecula Valley Unified School District
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USGS U.S. Geology Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZC Zone Change
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 1
CITY OF MURRIETA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Project Title: CarMax Auto Superstore #6002: Required Entitlements: General Plan Amendment (GPA 2015-531), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2015-533), Development Plans (DP 2015-532 and DP 2015-535), and Tentative Tract Map (2015-534)
2. Lead Agency: City of Murrieta
Address: One Town Square, 24601 Jefferson Avenue
Murrieta, CA 92562
3. Contact Person: Mr. Chris Carnes, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (951) 461-6046
4. Project Location: The project site is located in south-central Murrieta. The site occupies approximately 46 acres located north of the intersection of Madison Avenue and Guava Street. Figure 1 shows the
regional location and Figure 2 shows the site location on the USGS Murrieta 7.5’ Topographic Map. Figure 3 shows the site on an aerial photograph. The site is located in an unsectioned portion of the original Temecula Rancho. The site is located within Township 7 South, Range 3 West at approximately
33o 32' 45" North Latitude and 117o 11' 05" West Longitude.
5. Project Sponsor: Centerpoint Integrated Solutions
1240 Bergen Parkway, Suite A-250
Evergreen, CO 80439
II. PROJECT ASSESSMENT
1. Project Description
Introduction
The CarMax Corporation through its project sponsor, Centerpoint Integrated Solutions (collectively the project applicant), is proposing to establish a regional car marketing facility (CarMax Auto Superstore #6002) within the City of Murrieta. The proposed site in Murrieta will serve as a central location to CarMax’s Southern California market strategy for both sales and Quality Certification of vehicles. This proposed project site is large enough to accommodate the size of the proposed facility and has the geographic proximity (regional market and access) necessary to serve CarMax’s market strategy. The proposed site also has the necessary access to major transportation networks.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 2
CarMax’s primary function is to provide Quality Certified pre-owned vehicles to consumers through a transparent process that is easy and fun – without hassle. A core part of CarMax’s business is the renewal of pre-owned vehicles. The company invests time and money to improve the quality and lifespan of all of the pre-owned vehicles they retail. • CarMax offers tens of thousands of pre-owned vehicles across the country. • Every car they sell has a low, no-haggle price.
• Their vehicles are superior in quality. Only the best cars meet their high standards. • CarMax will buy your car whether you buy from them or not. • A customer gets friendly customer service.
CarMax, the nation’s largest retailer of pre-owned vehicles, has grown to more than 140 stores across the country, sold more than 4 million cars, and appraised more than $16 million. CarMax is listed on the FORTUNE® 500 list, has been named one of FORTUNE's "100 Best Companies to Work For" eleven years running, and provides an exceptional work environment for their Associates.
The proposed facility in Murrieta will provide another option for consumers in the region wishing to purchase a vehicle. Additionally, this facility will allow for other CarMax Auto Superstores in the region to source vehicles that are Quality Certified at this site.
List of all applications
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2015-531: Amend the General Plan Circulation Element to delete two industrial collector streets and bike lanes)
2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-533: Required to allow operation of a car sales facility on property zoned Commercial
3. Development Plans (DP) 2015-532 and 2015-535: Required to permit the proposed project improvements at the site, such as site buildings and landscaping; and to permit a comprehensive sign program
4. Lot Line Adjustment: Required to define five parcels along Madison Avenue that will be rearranged via lot line adjustments
5. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 2015-534 and Final Parcel Map: Required to assign parcels on the property
6. Environmental Assessment (EA) 2015-504 – Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND):
Required for CEQA compliance
7. Tree Removal Permit
Project Characteristics
The site is vacant with the exception of one residential mobile home. CarMax proposes to demolish the existing structures and few site improvements that exist on the property. All of the facilities identified in the following text are shown on Figures 4a and 4b (Site Plan) of this document.
The proposed development consists of the construction of a CarMax pre-owned automobile dealership, retail service facility, Quality Certification service facility, wholesale auction facility, non-public carwashes, private fuel dispensing and vehicle accessory sales and installations with associated access drives, parking lots, and security gates. The proposed project will include a PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 3
sales building with an attached presentation area and retail service building, a stand-alone Quality Certification service building, an auction/quality control building, non-public carwashes and a gatehouse. An additional non-public carwash is being planned for future construction as needed.
Below is a summary of the proposed buildings and square footages. Due to the preliminary building design status, a 5% factor has been included to allow for flexibility in the final design and should be utilized in all analyses.
Building Square Feet w/ 5% Increase
Sales 10,564 11,092
Service (Retail) 6,150 6,458
Presentation 2,118 2,224
Service (Quality Certification) 61,047 64,099
Carwash 936
(Future – 1,872)
983
(Future – 1,966)
Auction/Quality Control 12,210 12,821
Gatehouse 589 618
Total 93,614
(Future – 94,550)
98,295
(Future – 99,278)
Site Acres (Approximate)
CarMax 38.9 (0.11 additional is possible)
Remainder Parcels (Hemancinto Commonwealth
Opportunity Fund, LP) 7.1 (5 total parcels)
Total 46
The following information outlines the proposed operations based on similarly operating CarMax facilities.
Hours of Operation
Store management prefers the flexibility to set operating hours closer to the opening date; however, the showroom (sales) areas are typically open to the public Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with reduced hours on Sundays. The retail service area is typically open to the public Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Associates will be present at the facilities several hours before and after the public operating hours. The Quality Certification service operations described below operate 24 hours a day Monday through Saturday with limited hours on Sunday. Wholesale auctions would typically occur 1 to 2 days per week, Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Actual auctions generally last 3-4 hours; however, dealers usually arrive 2-3 hours prior to the auction to view and inspect cars and spend 4-5 hours to remove purchased vehicles.
Sales and Presentation
The sales building contains a showroom, various offices and sales desks, a retail service area, and other ancillary spaces. The primary function is the sales and purchasing of vehicles along with vehicle appraisals. The presentation building includes overhead rollup doors and space for presenting vehicles upon purchase or checking in for retail service. The inventory for retail PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 4
sales is located in a separate parking area from the customer and employee parking lot.
Highway guardrail and embassy style security gates are utilized for loss prevention and vehicle tracking.
Retail Service and Quality Certified Service Operations CarMax currently offers limited retail vehicle service (primarily routine maintenance and service, tires, diagnostic, and mileage services) and provides repairs of vehicles covered by their extended service plans. All service work is performed inside fully-conditioned buildings equipped with rollup doors, providing associates with a great work environment and eliminating the need to conduct operations with open bay doors. Limited work outside of the service buildings may occasionally occur inside the staging area, including but not limited to items such as, windshield replacements, interior detailing, and upholstery cleaning.
An integral part of the CarMax consumer offer is the Quality Certified process that is performed on all vehicles offered for sale. The Quality Certified process serves to create sales inventory by refurbishing cars hand selected through CarMax’s vehicle purchase programs. This process includes a comprehensive Certified Quality inspection of the engine and all major systems.
Most routine mechanical and cosmetic repairs required to bring the vehicle up to the CarMax quality standard, including painting, are performed on-site within the Quality Certification service building. CarMax may engage third parties dedicated in specialized services either on or off-site.
Sourced vehicles are initially purchased on site or delivered to the site during regular business hours and stored in the non-public staging area. The vehicles are initially brought into the building for inspection followed by a test drive to create a refurbishment assessment that defines the Quality Certification path/sequence that each car will follow. The non-public staging area of the site is organized into zones related to specific refurbishment tasks. Each car moves from zone to zone in accordance with the Quality Certification sequence that has been assigned to it. These zones are staged and sized to manage workflow through the service building since the individual processes operate at different rates. As with the service work described above, all Quality Certification work occurs inside the building. Work is limited to routine maintenance, minor paint and body work in adherence with CarMax cosmetic policy requirements, and routine mechanical work. Each door on the building will open and close at different rates as they facilitate different tasks required to bring all vehicles up to CarMax Quality Certified standards.
During the nighttime hours all exterior lighting is reduced to maintain adequate security and surveillance of the property. Additionally, service associates use inventory maps and small flashlights to locate cars.
Retail service vehicles, Quality Certified service vehicles and vehicles awaiting transport off-site are stored in the secured non-public staging area on a temporary basis. As a visual screen and to provide security for these vehicles, the staging area is surrounded by a six-foot high masonry wall or a combination of chain-link fence with privacy slats and highway guardrail. Vehicular access to that area is strictly controlled through the use of embassy-style security gates.
Because the zones for staging and storage of vehicles within this area changes on a daily basis, parking spaces are not designated on the plan.
Carwash and Fuel Tank
The non-public carwash is located in the secured staging area and is used only by CarMax associates before vehicles are either placed in the vehicle display area, presented to customers, or placed into Quality Certification. An additional non-public carwash is being planned for future PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 5
construction as warranted. A recycle unit provides for approximately 80-85% reuse of water for every carwash cycle.
A 12,000 gallon below ground fuel storage tank with a non-public fuel dispenser is proposed for this site. The tank will be located in the customer and employee parking area while the dispenser will be located within the staging area to fuel vehicles as needed.
Wholesale Auctions
As an accessory use, vehicles purchased through the CarMax in-store appraisal process that do not meet the CarMax retail quality standards are sold through on-site non-public wholesale auctions. Auctions are generally held once or twice a week; however, frequency is determined by the number of vehicles to be auctioned. The auctions, including the processing of paperwork and payments, are conducted within the enclosed auction building. A non-public carwash is contained within this building. Participation in the wholesale auction is restricted to pre-qualified licensed automobile dealers only. While larger dealers may bring vehicle carriers to the sale to transport their purchased vehicles, many will bring drivers to take individual vehicles away.
CarMax’s policy requires that purchased vehicles be removed from the site within 48 hours.
The proposed gatehouse building will allow attendants to verify dealer credentials and operate the adjacent security gates.
Vehicle Loading/Unloading Area
A dedicated zone for the loading and unloading of vehicles is proposed near the gatehouse security gates. Vehicles being transported via car carriers to and from the proposed CarMax will be loaded and unloaded in this area.
Deliveries
The majority of parts and supplies are generally delivered once or twice a week. Specialty parts are delivered on an as needed basis which could occur more frequently. Chemicals, fuel, oil, and other items used to service vehicles are generally delivered once a week. Tires, battery cores, oil filters, waste oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals are generally picked up once a week by partner vendors that specialize in recycling and proper disposal of these materials.
Environmental Stewardship
CarMax actively looks for and implements new ways to use resources more efficiently and conscientiously.
• Daylight Harvesting - Sky lights, store front, dimmers. • Low emissivity glass - Reduces heat gain.
• White thermoplastic roof - Reflects light and reduces heat gain and electricity usage. • Energy efficient building insulation.
• Electric vehicle charging stations.
• Energy Star equipment and appliances (washer/dryer, fridge, printers, copiers). • Energy Star Member.
• Building mounted signage uses LED lighting to reduce energy use. • LED parking area lighting.
• Energy Management System - Manages operating times, use efficiency, and cost efficiency for lighting, HVAC systems and computer systems. Also manages power load during peak hours to minimize energy use (prevents utilities from having to provide temporary additional power during peak time).
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 6
• Lighting - Energy efficient T-5 fluorescent lighting in interiors spaces, motion sensors turn lights off when not needed. Bulbs use 40% less wattage. • HVAC - The system provides diagnostic information for energy efficiency. Innovative energy recovery wheels to re-circulate already heated and cooled air. • Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures – Faucets, toilets, urinals. • Water reclaim tanks for carwash.
• Water use monitoring.
• Recycling (Administrative) - Paper, cardboard, plastics, cans. • Recycling (Operational) - Oil, anti-freeze, oil filters, tires, battery cores, scrap metal on a case by case basis, paint waste.
• High efficiency hand driers to minimize paper towel waste. • Low VOC Emitting Materials - Interior paint, flooring, adhesives, sealants. • Tobacco Free environment.
• Demand ventilation CO2 monitoring.
• Utilize service building vehicle ventilation systems. • General Environmental Safety - Each store has an Environmental, Health & Safety (EH&S) Committee that includes managers and associates. The committee meets quarterly to conduct a 15 page audit and then devise action plans to resolve all noted issues.
The new buildings will be constructed of concrete masonry blocks with roof top screens. The sales building storefront will be aluminum framing with glass. Pitched roofs will be standing seam metal structures and flat roofs are thermoplastic polyolefin roofing membrane over steel bar joists. The proposed lighting at the facility will consist of an estimated 45 building mounted and 207 pole mounted lights. Height of light mountings will about 25’ in the customer and sales areas and up to 35’ in the staging area.
On-site and Off-site Improvements Summary
On-site improvements consist of buildings, parking areas, utilities, and landscaping/open space/stormwater measures as depicted on the site plan and contained in the application materials. An additional 0.11 acres could be added to the CarMax project via vacation of a triangular portion of the Monroe Avenue and I-15 antiquated right-of-way. Various easements will be vacated as part of a final parcel map, including right of way for Monroe Avenue, Addison Street and No Name Street. Five parcels along Madison Avenue will be rearranged via lot line adjustments and retained by one of the current property owners, Hemacinto Commonwealth Opportunity Fund, LP (Hemancinto). The total acreage of these parcels is approximately
7.1 acres (approximately 236’ depth x 1,300’ of total frontage). Approximately 0.68 acres of right of way for Madison Avenue will be dedicated from the Hemancinto parcels. As part of the onsite improvements, utilities and access drives will be extended from Madison Avenue to the CarMax project and adjacent to the Hemancinto parcels. The Hemancinto parcels will be rough graded concurrently with the CarMax site and stabilized using erosion control best practices.
The CarMax project does not include any proposed uses on the Hemancinto parcels.
Hemancinto will submit applications for development in the future which will require separate environmental review.
Off-site improvements by CarMax consist of the extension of up to 675 feet of Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) 12-inch water main in Guava Street and the undergrounding PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 7
of approximately 1,500 feet of existing Southern California Edison overhead power lines in Monroe Avenue to the perimeter of the site along the I-15 ROW. Additionally, approximately 600 feet Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) 18-inch sanitary sewer main will be extended from Guava Street, midway between Jefferson Avenue and Madison Avenue, to the intersection of Guava Street and Madison Avenue and approximately 660 feet of WMWD 8-inch sanitary sewer from the aforementioned intersection to the main CarMax entrance. EMWD is proposing to reimburse CarMax for the upsizing of the 18-inch line to pay for the difference in material costs. EMWD plans to continue the 18-inch line in Guava Street to the I-15 right-of-way for future service to other properties. CarMax will install approximately 800 feet of this extension as part of the project and receive full reimbursement from EMWD.
The project includes the applicant working with the City via a participation agreement or other method for the full improvement of Madison Avenue and partial improvement to Guava Avenue.
Site Statistics, Deliveries, Business Volume and Employees
Approximately 504 vehicle inventory spaces, 715 customer/employee parking spaces, and over 3,000 vehicle staging area space is proposed. Approximately 24 car carriers can be accommodated in the loading/unloading area and queuing zone along the staging area in the customer/employee parking lot.
Vehicle deliveries will occur on a daily basis, with the highest volume occurring on auction days.
Hazardous material deliveries/removal are expected to occur weekly. Parts deliveries and other normal and customary office supplies are expected to occur daily.
At store maturity, up to 200 customers per day are anticipated for retail sales and service and close to 460 retail vehicles per month are expected to be sold. Store maturity typically occurs after the 5th year of operation, but varies per market from 5-10 years. Approximately 10-15% of customer traffic will be for retail servicing. Approximately 530 vehicles are expected to be Quality Certified per week and over 800 vehicles are expected to be wholesale auctioned per week. Auctions will generate upwards of 550 customers while employees will range from 200-225. Non-auction days will require close to 200 employees. Total employees (part-time plus full-time, including all shifts) could total 400 by store maturity.
Project Timeframe
Construction of the facility is anticipated to start in the summer of 2016 and take approximately 12 months to complete. Store opening could occur as early as the summer of 2017. The waterline extension in Guava Street and undergrounding of overhead power lines along I-15 will occur as part of the on-site improvements and schedule.
Off-site improvements associated with the Madison Avenue widening is expected to begin at the end of 2015/start of 2016 and be completed by the end of 2016.
Proposed Construction Schedule
The estimated construction schedule and duration is:
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 8
Task Name Estimated Duration Estimated Start Estimated Finish Construction 12 months 5/2/16 5/1/17
Site Work 9 months 5/2/16 1/30/17
Grading 2-3 months 5/2/16 7/13/16
Fuel Tank & Equipment 3-4 months 9/13/16 12/29/16
Site Masonry Walls 4-5 months 7/18/16 12/2/16
Underground Utilities 6 months 7/18/16 1/9/17
Site Concrete 2 months 9/13/16 11/10/16
Site Lighting 2 months 10/13/16 12/22/16
Paving 3 months 11/9/16 1/30/17
Fencing / Guardrails / Security Gates 2-3 months 10/13/16 12/27/16 Landscaping 3 months 9/13/16 12/21/16
Offsite Work (Water, Sewer, Electrical) 5 months 7/18/16 12/9/16 Buildings 6 months 7/14/16 1/19/17
Footings, Steel, Masonry 4 months 7/14/16 11/22/16
Plaster 2 weeks 11/9/16 11/22/16
Roofing 1 month 11/23/16 12/20/16
Paint exterior 3 weeks 12/21/16 1/10/17
Tenant Improvements 5-6 months 11/02/16 4/10/17
Final Inspections 2 months 1/17/17 3/9/17
Final Punch List Items 1 month 4/10/17 5/1/17
Final CO 1 day 5/1/17 5/1/17
Construction Scenario
A vast array and quantity of construction equipment will be required; from scrapers, dozers, excavators and loaders to scissor lifts, paving machines, hand equipment, and sprayers. An estimated total of 100 workers could be expected on the project at the peak of construction.
Earthwork
The project earthwork will include about 350,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and fill onsite. The 350,000 cy of mass grading includes approximately 100,000 cy of over-excavation in areas under the buildings and certain parking lot areas where softer alluvial soils occur. The project design anticipates a balance of material onsite, but it may be necessary to have up to 25,000 cy of export or import that could include structural fill material and topsoil.
Paving
Paving will include: 3 inch of asphalt or an 8-inch base in the staging area, or about 836,514 square feet (sf); 4 inch of asphalt over an 11-inch base in the truck route/fire lane alignments (heavy duty paving, or about 103,315sf; 6-inch PCC pavement over about 56,277 sf; 3.5 inch of asphalt over a 7-inch base in the customer/employee parking area, or about 227,977 sf; and sidewalks about 10,271 sf.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 9
Fencing
New Fence: about 1,225 lineal feet (lf)
New Guard Rail: about 2,230 lf
Landscaping
Landscaping, including the water quality basins and planters, only on the CarMax parcel about 267,218 sf. Annual water demand for this landscaping is 9.8 acre-feet per year.
Buildings
The proposed buildings will be concrete masonry unit blocks with EIRS roof top screens; sales building storefront will be aluminum framing/glass; pitched roofs will be standing seam metal; flat roofs will be thermoplastic polyolefin roofing membrane over steel bar joists.
Lighting
The project proposes about 45 building mounted lights and about 207 pole mounted lights.
Light poles will be 25 feet in height in the sales area and about 35 feet in the staging area.
2. Description of the Project Site
The Project site is roughly a square parcel of land that is bounded by commercial uses to the northwest; Interstate 15 to the northeast; commercial uses to the west and a mix of residential and commercial uses to the south. The project site is highly disturbed from past uses, including existing disturbed areas on the southern portion of the property. The site topography can be described as low rolling hills and intervening swales. The property slopes generally to the south towards the intersection of Madison Avenue and Guava Street. The project site contains ruderal (weedy) vegetation and one single family residence. The site also contains a riparianwetland area (central portion of property, designated as Line D1 channel) created as mitigation for a previous project and an existing water well (northwest corner of the property) that provides irrigation water (not potable water) for the wetland area. The overall setting is that of a moderately urbanized location, in the process of becoming more highly urbanized. Refer to the aerial photograph in Figure 3 for a representation of the existing project site.
3. Surrounding Land Uses
North: Commercial and I-15
South: Residential and undeveloped land
East: I-15
West: Commercial and undeveloped land
4. General Plan Designation
Existing: Commercial, Monroe Avenue shown on General Plan Circulation Element Proposed: Retain Commercial designation, but remove two "Industrial Collector" streets from the City's Circulation Element Map and two corresponding bike lanes from the City's Master Plan of Bikeways
5. Zoning
Existing: Professional Commercial (PC), .50 Floor Area Ratio Proposed: No change in zone classification proposed
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 10
6. Other Agencies whose approval may be required
Based on an evaluation of the specific project location, the proposed project will not require many permits from other agencies to support development of the site as proposed by the CarMax applications. The amount of area to be disturbed by the whole project will be greater than one acre; therefore, the developer will be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for a General Construction permit to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The NOI is filed with the State Water Resources Control Board and enforced by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be implemented in conjunction with construction activities. It is not yet clear whether the proposed project will require an encroachment or other permit from Caltrans District 8 for signs adjacent to Interstate 15. No other permits or agency requirements have been identified in association with the proposed project.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 11
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, there are no "Potentially Significant Impacts” associated with implementation of the proposed project that cannot be reduced to “Less than significant” with mitigation incorporated. An “X” next to an issue area in the following table indicates where mitigation is included to reduce impacts from “Potentially Significant” to “Less than significant”.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources X Air Quality
X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology and Soils X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Hazards and Hazardous
Materials X Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources X Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
X Transportation / Traffic X Utilities and Service Systems X Mandatory Findings of Significance
PH1, ATT 11
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TIM INITIAL STUDY
IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a ''potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 is required. /'1 / /1 If ( ( !IJv //lUI fii/Zf !; :2 0 I'--
Signature / / -
0 I Chris Carnes Date
Senior Planner
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 12
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 13
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be crossreferenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 14
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 15
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
1. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (1,2,3,6)
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway? (6,8)
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (2,3,4,7,10)
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (3,6,7)
X
Substantiation
a. Less Than Significant Impact – The Project site is located within a moderately urbanized visual setting and is highly visible from southbound Interstate 15 with views across the property to the east wall of the Santa Rosa Plateau, an important local view with a large number of viewers on the freeway. The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 but the existing undeveloped property, flanked on the north by the Wal-Mart shopping center, does not contain any distinctive or unique natural resource or other resource scenic values. Thus, the foreground view to the Santa Rosa Plateau is already dominated by the man-made features associated with commercial development along Madison Avenue and these visual elements interrupt, but do not prevent visual access to the Santa Rosa Plateau (the visual background looking west from I-15. The elevation of the freeway adjacent to the project site ensures visual access to the Plateau, and it will continue to provide visual access because the structures on the site will not exceed 30 feet in height. Thus, the view across the project site will change, but based on the primary view of drivers on Interstate 15, it will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Note also that any views east of the Interstate will also not be substantially altered because the proposed CarMax development will be shielded by the elevated portion of Interstate 15. Overall, the proposed project’s impact on scenic vistas is concluded to be a less than significant impact.
b. Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is bounded by I-15 to the east; Guava Street on the south; on the west by Madison; and on the north by the Wal-Mart shopping center. Although I-15 is identified in the County and City General Plans as eligible for designation as a scenic highway, neither jurisdiction has petitioned the State for this designation. Therefore, the proposed project cannot affect any scenic resources within a state scenic highway corridor. The site itself does not contain any rock outcroppings or historic buildings. It does contain a few non-native trees, but overall the site does not contain any important or valuable scenic resources. It is primarily an undeveloped parcel with non-native vegetation bounded immediately on the north, west and east by man-made features, including buildings and a freeway corridor. Based on the site condition and immediate surroundings, the project site itself does not contain substantial scenic resources.
Therefore, the impact from implementing the proposed project is considered a less than significant impact.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 16
c. Less Than Significant Impact – The City General Plan has designated the project site for commercial use in the City General Plan. Based on the findings of the General Plan regarding aesthetic issues, the City did not envision retaining the project site in its present condition for aesthetic purposes and concluded that a proposed project’s compliance with the Murrieta Municipal Code, Development Code (Title 16), which requires high quality planning and design, will conserve and protect the quality of the City’s visual setting. Thus, it is anticipated that the proposed scale, architectural design and articulation of the development on the site will both complement and enhance the site and surrounding development. Project perimeter and streetscape landscaping will also serve to integrate the Project into the existing development fabric of the surrounding commercial uses. Thus, even though the on-site existing visual setting will be altered in the future, the proposed change to the visual setting is not forecast to cause significant adverse degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the Project area. In addition, compliance with the requirements of Development Code commercial design and landscaping standards (Municipal Development Code Chapter (MDC, 16.10) will also ensure that the development on the Project site is developed in a manner consistent with the City’s aesthetic standards. Thus, the design elements incorporated in the Project and the implementation of the City’s design standards will mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level without imposition of any mitigation measures.
d. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed project will create new sources of light, during the operational phases of the Project. Night lighting standards are established in the City’s Development Code (MDC16.18.100) and require that the project control light and glare from such lighting so that it is directed to remain within the project site. In addition, the City mandates that each Project’s lighting conform to the Palomar lighting requirements as established in the City’s Municipal Code Section 16.18.110 (Mount Palomar Lighting Standards) which restricts the use of certain light fixtures so as to reduce nighttime glare and maintain dark skies for the purpose of astronomical observation. No additional mitigation is required to ensure that light and glare impacts are controlled to a nonsignificant level of impact. Additional artificial light sources are typically associated with security lighting for this project site. General Plan policies that limit night lights to the property (including no glare for vehicles on I-15) ensure that any light pollution will be limited to the project site. No additional mitigation is required for this project to meet all light and glare control requirements. Thus, light and glare impacts are considered a less than significant impact.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 17
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (2,6,28,44,45,59) X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act contract? (2,6,44,45) X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))? (2,6,44,45)
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? (2,6,44,45) X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use? (2,6,10,44,45,59)
X
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 18
Substantiation
a. Less Than Significant Impact – The General Plan identified a total of 2,234 acres within the City Limits as supporting agricultural or mining uses. According to Figure 5.11-1, Important Farmland (2008) of the GPEIR, the proposed Project site is identified as Farmland of Local Importance. The General Plan 2035 and GPEIR acknowledge that land used for agricultural production identified on Figure 5.11-1 was far less than the important farmland identified on this map. However, based on the data in Figure 5.11-1, additional investigation was conducted regarding the agricultural value of project site. First, the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA, Appendix 6) was reviewed to determine historical uses of the property. There is no evidence that agricultural activity has ever been practiced on the property. The historic use over the past 100 years is identified as vacant, undeveloped land until residential structures were developed on the property in the late 1900’s.
Second, the “Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California” identifies the soils onsite as Ramona and Buren loams with a land use capability classification ranging between IVe and Vie.
Thus, the onsite soils are not considered prime or important agricultural soils. The only prime soils in the City are located in the northern portion of the City, not in the project area. Finally, the definition of Farmlands of Local Importance (refer to Chapter 5.11 of the GPEIR) states that they consist of lands of importance to the local agricultural economy. It is apparent from the data available regarding the site’s use history that the project site has not functioned as land of importance to the local agricultural economy. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project and conversion of the project site to the proposed CarMax facility will not pose any significant adverse impact to agricultural resources or values. No mitigation is required. b. No Impact – Implementation of the proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. According to Figure 5.11-2 Williamson Act Farmland (2006) of the GP EIR, the proposed project site is not part of a Williamson Act contract. Please reference the discussion in 2.a., above. Based on this information, the proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
c. No Impact ‒ The project site is not located within forest land, timberland or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
d. No Impact – The project site is not located within forest land and has no timber on the property; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest production use. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. e. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed project will not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of valuable farmland to non-agricultural use or forest to non-forest uses. No agricultural or forest resources or uses occur within the general vicinity of the proposed project site (reference Figure 3, Aerial Photo) and no agricultural activities were identified on this site based on the data in the ESA prepared for this project site. No significant adverse impacts to agricultural, forest or timberland resources will result from project implementation and no mitigation is required PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 19
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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? (1,3,6,7,44,45,53)
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (1,3,6,7,44,45,53)
X
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)? (1,3,6,7,44,45,53)
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (1,3,6,7,27,44,45,53) X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (1,3,6,7,27,44,45
and 53)
X
Substantiation: The Air Quality Analysis CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center No. 6002 City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California (revised May 2015) prepared by LSA was utilized for the following analysis. This technical study is provided as Appendix 2 to this document.
Background
Climate
The climate of the Murrieta area, technically called an interior valley subclimate of Southern California's Mediterranean-type climate, is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. The clouds and fog that form along the area's coastline occasionally extend as far inland as San Jacinto Valley, and if they do, they usually burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern is associated with the warm season airflow across populated area of the Los Angeles Basin that brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality when the fringes of this "urban smog cloud" extend to the project site during the summer months.
In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high-pressure cell over the ocean to the west.
This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. For additional information regarding climate refer to the detailed AQ Study in Appendix 2.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 20
Ambient Air Quality Standards
In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed CarMax TTM 2015-534 project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard.
National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 3-1.
Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 3-2.
Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment.
Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8-hour standard. The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non-attainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard.
As part of EPA’s 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM-2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM-10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal annual standard for PM-2.5 was reduced from 15 µg/m3 to 12 µg/m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin’s non-attainment status for PM-2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM-2.5 attainment.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 21
Table 3-1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Average Time
California Standards 1 National Standards 2
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Ozone (O3)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry
8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(147 µg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
150 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 –
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour – – 35 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 15 µg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) –
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
8 Hour 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
–
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 g/m3) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2) 8
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3 )
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(118 pg/m3) –
Gas Phase
Annual Chemiluminescence
Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) 9
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196 pg/m3) –
Ultraviolet
Flourescense;
Spectrophotometry
(Paraosaniline
Method)
3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for certain
areas) 9
–
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
– 0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas) 9
–
Lead 8 10,11
30-Day
Average 1.5 µg/m3
Atomic Absorption
– – –
Calendar
Quarter –
1.5 µg/m3
(for certain
areas) 11 Same as
Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Absorption Rolling
3-Month Avg – 0.15 µg/m3)
Visibility
Reducing
Particles 12
8 Hour See footnote 12
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3) Gas Chromatography
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 22
Footnotes
1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter – PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year, with a 24-hour average concentration above ȝJP, is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of ࡈC and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of ࡈC and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. 8 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to
0.100 ppm.
9 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 10 The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
11 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 j.tg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
12 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
Source: California Air Resources Board (6/4/13)
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 23
Table 3-2
HEALTH EFFECTS OF MAJOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
• Incomplete combustion of fuels and
other carbon-containing substances,
such as motor exhaust.
• Natural events, such as decomposition
of organic matter.
• Reduced tolerance for exercise.
• Impairment of mental function.
• Impairment of fetal development.
• Death at high levels of exposure.
• Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
• Motor vehicle exhaust.
• High temperature stationary combustion.
• Atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory illness.
• Reduced visibility.
• Reduced plant growth.
• Formation of acid rain.
Ozone
(O3)
• Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
• Plant leaf injury.
Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction.
• Behavioral and hearing problems in children.
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-10)
• Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
• Construction activities.
• Industrial processes.
• Atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function.
• Aggravation of the effects of gaseous
pollutants.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardio
respiratory diseases.
• Increased cough and chest discomfort.
• Soiling.
• Reduced visibility.
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-2.5)
• Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
• Residential and agricultural burning.
• Industrial processes.
• Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants, including
NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.
• Increases respiratory disease.
• Lung damage.
• Cancer and premature death.
• Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
• Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil
fuels.
• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
• Industrial processes.
• Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
• Reduced lung function.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Reduced visibility.
• Plant injury.
• Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 24
In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8-hour standard. Draft standards were published. The anticipated future 8-hour standard was 0.065 ppm. Environmental organizations generally praised this proposal. Most manufacturing, transportation or power generation groups opposed the new standard as economically unwise in an uncertain fiscal climate. In recognition of the fact that a stronger ozone standard could adversely impact employment, that proposal has been placed on indefinite hold.
A new federal one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has also recently been adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SO2 is typically not a problem pollutant.
Baseline Air Quality
Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Lake Elsinore facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Perris Valley station. The closest data resource for other particulate species is in Riverside. Table 3-3 summarizes the last three years of monitoring data from a composite of available data resources.
1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels often exceed standards but data obtained from the newly opened Winchester/Temecula station shows ozone levels are much lower than near Lake Elsinore. The 1-hour state standard was violated on 16 percent of all days in the last five years near Lake Elsinore but only once a year near Winchester. The 8-hour state ozone standard has been exceeded 6 percent of all days in the two years near Winchester. The Federal eighthour ozone standard has averaged around 9 percent of the time during this period at Lake Elsinore but only 2 percent near Winchester. While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago.
2. Carbon monoxide (CO) measurements at the Lake Elsinore station have declined throughout the last decade. Federal and state CO standards have not been exceeded in the last 10+ years. Despite continued basin-wide growth, maximum one- or 8-hour CO levels at the closest air monitoring station average less the 10 percent of their most stringent standards because of continued vehicular improvements. These data suggests that baseline CO levels in the project area are generally healthful and can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected.
3. PM-10 levels as measured at Perris, periodically exceed the state 24-hour standard, but no measurements in excess of the national 24-hour particulate standard has been recorded in the last five years. Particulate levels have traditionally been high in Riverside County because of agricultural activities, dry soil conditions and upwind industrial development. State PM-10 standards are exceeded an average of 7 percent of all days per year.
4. A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Year 2010 showed the fewest violations in recent years. Both the frequency of violations of particulate standards, as well as high percentage of PM-2.5, are air quality concerns in the project area. Slightly less than 3 percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m3 .
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 25
Table 3-3
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORED IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Pollutant Standard 2011 2012 2013
Carbon Monoxide (CO) ‒ taken from Elsinore Station
Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) 2.7 2.7 3.3
Number of days exceeded:
State: >20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: >35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm) 0.67 0.52 0.80
Number of days exceeded:
State:
SSP 0 0 0
Federal:
SSP 0 0 0
Ozone (O3) ‒ taken from Elsinore Station
Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) 0.133 0.111 0.102
Number of days exceeded: State: >0.09 ppm 19 10 6
Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm) 0.106 0.089 0.089
Number of days exceeded:
State: >0.07 ppm 45 32 25
Federal: >0.075 ppm 281 17 12
Coarse Particulates (PM10) ‒ taken from Elsinore Station Maximum 24-hr concentration (µg/m3) 99.8 65.5 112.3
Number of days exceeded:
State: >50 µg/m3 4 3 1
Federal: >150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) ND ND ND Exceeded for the year: State: >20 µg/m3 ND ND ND
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) ‒ taken from Elsinore Station Maximum 24-hr concentration (µg/m3) 40.7 24.9 37.4
Number of days exceeded: Federal: >35 µg/m3 2 0 2
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 10.8 10.5 ND Exceeded for the year:
State: >12 µg/m3 No No ND
Federal: >15 µg/m3 No No ND
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ‒ taken from Elsinore Station
Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm) 0.050 0.048 0.047
Number of days exceeded: State: >0.18 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.009 0.10 ND Exceeded for the year:
State: >0.030 ppm No No ND
Federal: >0.053 ppm No No ND
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) ‒ taken from Riverside-Rubidoux Station Maximum 24-hr concentration (ppm) 0.001 0.001 ND
Number of days exceeded:
State: >0.04 ppm 0 0 ND
Federal: >0.14 ppm 0 0 ND
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.000 ND ND Exceeded for the year: Federal >0.030 ppm No ND ND
Sources: EPA and ARB websites: www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html and www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html (full 2013 data not yet available)
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 26
1 The exceedance of the federal 8-hr CO3 standard area based on the old 0.08 ppm standard. In April 2008, the EPA revised the standard to 0.075 ppm.
ARB = California Air Resources Board EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hr = hour µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ND = no data available PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size ppm = parts per million _____
5. More localized pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, lead, etc. are very low near the project site because background levels even near downtown Riverside never exceed allowable levels, and there are only limited sources of such emissions near the project site. There is substantial excess dispersive capacity to accommodate localized vehicular air pollutants such as NOx without any threat of violating the applicable standards.
Air Quality Planning
The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SoCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 3-4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.
Table 3-4
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN EMISSIONS FORECASTS (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2008a 2010b 2015b 2020b
NOx 917 836 667 561
ROG 632 596 545 525
CO 3,344 3,039 2,556 2,281
PM-10 308 314 328 340
PM-2.5 110 110 111 113
a 2008 Base Year.
b With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009 The SCAQMD adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 27
measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one-hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8-hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated.
With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to “slip” from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard.
Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on “blackbox” measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls.
In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SoCAB PM-2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM-2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified issues. The recently adopted 2012 AQMP being readied for ARB submittal to EPA as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM-2.5 planning deficiencies.
The federal Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one-hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked around eight years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the one-hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now forced to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one-hour federal ozone standard.
Projects such as the proposed commercial development do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant only because consistency with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis.
Significance Thresholds Used in This Document
Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact.
Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 28
c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants 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. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Primary Pollutants
Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the SoCAB for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction.
Secondary Pollutants
Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact.
Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.
DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993 Rev.
Additional Indicators
In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows:
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 29
• Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s buildout year. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Except for the small diameter particulate matter (“PM-2.5”) fraction of diesel exhaust generated by heavy construction equipment, there are no secondary impact indicators associated with residential project construction and subsequent occupancy.
For diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions, adopted policies require the gradual conversion of delivery fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of cleaner diesel engines whose emissions are demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Similarly, off-road equipment used in construction activities is also becoming progressively cleaner every year. If phased project development occurs in the more distant future, DPM emissions from project construction equipment will be correspondingly less. Because health risks from toxic air contaminants (TAC’s) are cumulative over an assumed 70-year lifespan, measurable off-site public health risk from diesel TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion of a project lifetime, and only in dilute quantity.
Sensitive Receptors
Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease).
Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. Schools are similarly considered to be sensitive receptors. The closest existing sensitive uses to the proposed project site are the residences accessed from Whitaker Way, more than 300 feet to the east, and the residence to the southwest at approximately 200 feet.
Attainment Status
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Air Resources Board (ARB) designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards.
Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
Table 3-5 lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the basin.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 30
Table 3-5
ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Pollutant State Federal
O3 1-hour Nonattainment N/A
O3 8- hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment / Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment / Maintenance
NO2 Nonattainment Attainment / Maintenance
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment1 Attainment1
All others Attainment / Unclassified Attainment / Unclassified Source: California Air Resources Control Board (2014) (http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm) 1 Except in Los Angeles County
CO = carbon monoxide N/A = not applicable
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide O3 = ozone
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SO2 = sulfur dioxide ppm = parts per million
_____
Impact Analysis
a. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ Projects such as the proposed CarMax residential development do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use are the primary yardsticks by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. Based on the analysis in Section 10 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed project is consistent with the adopted City General Plan. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with regional planning forecasts maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional plans. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant only because of consistency with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. As the analysis of project-related emissions provided below indicates, the proposed project will not cause or be exposed to significant air pollution, and is, therefore, consistent with the applicable air quality plan.
b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ Air pollution emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over both a short and long-term time period. Short-term emissions include fugitive dust from construction activities (i.e., demolition, grading, and exhaust emission) at the proposed Project site. Long-term emissions generated by future operation of the proposed project primarily include energy consumption at the residences and future vehicle trips by future residents of the Project. Specifically, long-term emissions include vehicle exhaust traveling to and from the project site, and electricity and natural gas use in the future residences. The construction and operational emissions were estimated and compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds using the CalEEMod model (Version 2013.2.2).
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 31
Construction Emissions
The list of construction equipment utilized by construction phase is shown on Table 3-6. Utilizing the model and the construction equipment, the model forecasts the following emissions during construction activities. Refer to Appendix 2 for all assumptions used in the modeling.
Table 3-6
DIESEL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY CONSTRUCTION PHASE Construction Phase Off-Road Equipment Type
Off-Road
Equipment
Unit Amount
Hours Used
Per Day Horsepower
Load
Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Excavators 3 8 162 0.38
Rubber-Tired Dozers 2 8 255 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber-Tired Dozers 3 8 255 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 2 8 162 0.38
Graders 1 8 174 0.41
Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 8 255 0.40
Scrapers 2 8 361 0.48
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7 226 0.29
Forklifts 3 8 89 0.20
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37
Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Paving Pavers 2 8 125 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 130 0.36
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38
Source: CalEEMod Default equipment based on project plans.
The forecast construction emissions are summarized in Table 3-7. As the data in the table indicated, none of the construction emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. The forecast emissions do incorporate feasible control measures which are listed below as mitigation measures.
Table 3-7
SHORT-TERM REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction
Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2e
Demolition 4.6 49 38 0.044 0.38 2.5 0.081 2.3 4,500
Site Preparation 5.3 57 44 0.042 7.2 3.1 3.9 2.8 4,400
Grading 6.9 79 52 0.065 3.6 3.8 1.5 3.5 6,800
Building
Construction 9.9 63 100 0.19 9.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 18,000
Architectural
Coating 56 3.5 12 0.023 1.6 0.23 0.42 0.23 2,000
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 32
Construction
Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5 CO2e
Paving 3.6 22 16 0.024 0.17 1.3 0.045 1.2 2,500
Peak Daily
Emissions 66 79 110 0.21 14 6.7 20,000
SCAQMD
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
No
Significant Threshold
Emissions? No No No No No No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
Note: Peak daily emissions are based on a worst case assumption that the Building Construction and Architectural Coating phases would overlap.
CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size CO2 = carbon dioxide PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District lbs/day = pounds per day SOx = sulfur oxides
NOx = nitrogen oxides VOC = volatile organic compounds
_____
Table 3-8 addresses the construction Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) applicable to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix 2 for all assumptions used in the modeling. There are sensitive receptors located in the project vicinity. The model evaluation indicates that LST Thresholds are not exceeded, so there will not be any significant effects on the nearby sensitive uses. As noted above, feasible emission control measures are listed below.
Table 3-8
CONSTRUCTION LOCALIZED IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Emissions Sources NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 79 51 10 6.7
LST Thresholds 407 2,564 35 9.6
Significant Emissions? No No No No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
SRA: Temecula Valley, 5 acres, 150-foot distance for residents CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides
lbs/day - pounds per day PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size LST = local significance threshold PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size _____
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are generated by a mix of activities that include: consumer products, landscape equipment, energy consumption, solid waste management and project-related mobile sources. The traffic study estimates the project will generate an estimated 3,023 weekday and 2,635 week average daily trips (ADT), which includes an estimated six vehicle carrier trips per day. The forecast operational emissions are summarized in Table 3-9. The data indicate that the proposed project operational emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Table 3-10 summarizes the LST model findings for project operations and these values fall far below the identified thresholds.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 33
Table 3-9
OPENING YEAR REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
ROC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 36 0.00013 0.013 0 0.00005 0.00005
Energy Sources 0.087 0.79 0.66 0.0047 0.06 0.06
Mobile Sources 11 25 100 0.23 15 4.3
Total Project Emissions 47 26 100 0.23 15 4.4
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size CO2 = carbon dioxide PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size lbs/day = pounds per day ROC = reactive organic compounds NOx = nitrogen oxides SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SOx = sulfur oxides
Table 3-10
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL LOCALIZED IMPACTS ANALYSIS (lbs/days) Emissions Sources NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 1.3 5.0 0.75 0.22
LST Thresholds 407 2,564 8.8 2.8
Significant Emissions? No No No No
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
SRA: Temecula Valley, 5 acres, 150-foot distance for residents, onsite traffic 5 percent of total.
CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size lbs/day = pounds per day PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size NOx = nitrogen oxides
_____
Mitigation
Thus, based on the detailed analysis in Appendix 2, the proposed project will not cause emissions, project specific or cumulative, that exceed the regional thresholds. The project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, but it is often unclear which specific best available control technologies should be used for a project. The following Rule 403 measures shall be implemented. 3-1 Fugitive Dust
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas. • Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan.
• Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas.
• Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 34
• Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site
Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Suggested combustion emissions control includes:
3-2 Exhaust Emissions
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment. • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.
Operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds.
However, Appendix 2 indicates that the project must comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding energy conservation and green building standards. In addition, the following additional measure shall be implemented if the CarMax facilities envision the inclusion of a fireplace. 3-3 Operational/Occupancy Emissions
• Utilize gas hearths rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use.
With implementation of these measures the proposed project’s short- and long-term emissions can be controlled to a less than significant impact.
c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation – The evaluation presented in 3.c) above addresses cumulative impacts of project emissions and the findings remain the same as outlined in the preceding text.
d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Localized Significance Thresholds were evaluated for project construction and operation scenarios. With mitigation outlined under issue
3.b) LST impacts were reduced to a less than significant impact level. There are several other local impacts that are evaluated in Appendix 2.
Local Microscale Concentration Standards
The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the proposed Project are above or below State and federal CO standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, Project emissions are considered significant if they increase 1-hour CO concentrations by 1.0 ppm or more or 8-hour CO concentrations by 0.45 ppm or more. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 35
The SCAQMD recommends that a local CO hot spot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the following criteria: 1) the intersection is at level of service (LOS) D or worse and where the project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent, or 2) the project decrease at an intersection from LOS C to D.
Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment re-designation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels than anywhere in Murrieta. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds. No mitigation is required.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The proposed Project is located in Riverside County, which is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during Project construction is small and less than significant. No mitigation is required. e. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction will emit odors; however, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. Diesel combustion odors are noticeable, but they occur throughout the urban environment (large trucks and other vehicles) and will be transient during construction. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project. Therefore, the project will not result in significant odors.
During operations there could be some odors related to gasoline dispensing or vehicle operations.
However, due the large size of the site and the requirement to install gasoline dispensing apparatus with capture of volatile organic compounds (VOC), the potential for objectionable odors posing a health risk to humans on- or off-site is considered a less than significant impact.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 36
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (2,39,41,44,45,54,55)
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (2,39,41,44,45,54,55)
X
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? (2,39,41,44,45,54,55)
X
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? (2,39,41,44,45,54
and 55)
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (2,29,41,44,45,
54,55)
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
(2,29,41,44,45,54,55)
X
Substantiation: The following information utilized in this Section of the Initial Study was obtained from the “MSHCP Consistency Analysis Murrieta CarMax Facility City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California” prepared by LSA dated May 8, 2015 and provided as Appendix 3 to this document. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The site biology study, Appendix 3, determined the site vegetation consists of non-native grasslands. Refer to Figure 4-1 shows the plant communities located on the project site. Based on the site surveys, the project site does not contain any sensitive plant or animal species (candidate, sensitive or special status species) PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 37
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. No narrow endemic plants are expected at the project site and no vernal pools or fairy shrimp habitat was identified on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project will not have any adverse impact on such biological resources.
The site and surrounding area were carefully surveyed for presence of burrowing owl. No evidence was found that the site is occupied by burrowing owl even though the habitat was deemed suitable.
However, due to the suitability of the site as burrowing owl habitat, the MSHCP requires the following measure to be implemented:
4-1 Within 30 days prior to the initiation of any grading or clearing activities, a subsequent Western Burrowing Owl Survey shall be performed to confirm that burrowing owls have not occupied any portion of the site. In the event that a portion of the site has been occupied by the burrowing owl, the survey biologist in consultation with the City Planning Department shall establish no disturbance areas around the burrow and related foraging area to ensure that no impacts to the burrowing owl occur. The subsequent survey will comply with the survey protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. If burrowing owl are encountered, land disturbance activities shall not commence until the biologist has implemented appropriate management measures in accordance with current CDFW burrowing owl management, including relocation, protocols.
This is a contingency mitigation measure since the site does not contain any burrowing owls at present. This measure will ensure that if the site becomes inhabited between the time of the original survey and the preconstruction survey, any burrowing owl will be properly protected.
b. No Impact – The site biology study concluded that the project site does not have any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community indentified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations. The site does contain waters of the United States and State of California (refer to Figure 4-1). Therefore, the proposed project will not have any adverse impact on any sensitive plant community or habitat. No mitigation is required.
c. No Impact – The site biology study concluded that the project site contains two streams within the property boundary that should be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States and State of California. Refer to Figure 4-1 which shows the location of these two channels. Based on the project design, neither of these channels will be altered by project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any direct adverse impact on federal or state protected wetlands.
These existing channels will be maintained in their current condition by CarMax and through implementation of stormwater runoff during construction and over the long-term, no indirect adverse impacts on these channels will occur. No mitigation is required. d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project is not located in an area where wildlife movement occurs. This is due to the adjacent urban/suburban land uses to the north and to the presence of Interstate 15 on the east. However when development proceeds, the project site could contain nesting birds, which could be adversely impacted. All native bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Impacts to these other bird species are not permitted in any part of the MSHCP area. A variety of birds, which are protected by the MBTA, could nest in the proposed project area. The project is required by law to comply with the MBTA and perform site work to avoid impacts to birds, but to ensure nesting bird protection is implemented during construction, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
4-2 Impacts to nesting bird species shall be avoided at all times, but the period from approximately 15 February to 31 August is the expected breeding season for bird species occurring in the Project area. If Project activity or vegetation removal PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 38
must be initiated during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall check for nesting birds prior to such activity. If active nests are found, they must be avoided until after the young have fledged. While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted, the CDFG generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100 – 300 feet for songbirds, but this is decided on a case by case basis by the qualified biologist.
With the implementation of this Mitigation Measure, any impacts to nesting birds will be reduced to a less than significant level.
e. Less Than Significant Impact – The project site contains a few non-native trees associated with the existing residence on the property. This includes eucalyptus and pine trees that will be removed in conjunction with site grading and development. The City has a Tree Preservation Section of the Development Code (Title 16, Section 16.42) that applies to native trees, particularly oak trees, and “mature” trees. No native trees occur on the project site, but there are mature trees. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project has a potential to adversely impact these protected trees which will be removed during the preparation of the site for mass grading. Therefore, the site developer must obtain a “Tree Removal Permit” prior to removal of these trees. Based on an evaluation of the trees on the property, the varieties proposed for removal are not considered significant because of their size (not the largest), lack of variety (common), condition (neglected), and they do not have any known historical significance. Based on these findings, the potential loss of the trees onsite is considered to constitute a less than significant adverse impact. f. Less Than Significant Impact – The site does not contain any protected plants or other species of concern to the City or the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP, but it is not located within a Criteria Area, Criteria Cell or Conservation Area. Further, as indicated in Table C of Appendix 3, the only biological resource identified in the project checklist was the burrowing owl.
There are no burrowing owl located within the project site based on the presence absence survey conducted by the biologists. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any adverse impact on locally protected species. No mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 39
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5? (2,6,34,44,45,56,57)
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? (2,6,34,44,45,56,57)
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (2,6,34,44,45,56,57)
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? (2,6,34,44,
45,56,57)
X
Substantiation: The following information utilized in this Section of the Initial Study was obtained from the following technical studies: Cultural Resources Assessment CarMax Automotive Dealership, Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated April 2015 and Paleontological Resource Assessment, CarMax Automotive Dealership, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated April 2015. These studies are provided as Appendices 4a and 4b, respectively in this document.
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated – The project site was evaluated for cultural resources in 2015. The cultural report came to the following conclusion: “The results of these efforts re-located a previously documented historic period linear fence line within the project area; however, it was previously evaluated as not a “historical resource” under CEQA. Its resource value has been realized by previous recordation and evaluation. No other resources were identified within the project area or right-of-way of the associated off-site improvements. Therefore, due to the lack of significant cultural resources and severe disturbance, no further cultural resources investigations or monitoring is recommended.” However, comments from tribal representatives consulted during this study indicate that the project location lies in an area of some sensitivity for Native American cultural resources, and the tribal organizations expressed concerns for potential disturbance of Native American cultural remains during project implementation. Based on this recommendation, the following mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that no historical, archaeological or Native American resources of value will experience significant adverse impact.
5-1 A Native American Monitor and Qualified Archaeologist shall be present during any earth-moving construction activities. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, separate agreements between the Developer/Applicant and the Qualified Archaeologist and the Developer/Applicant and a Native American Monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe shall be developed regarding prehistoric cultural resources and shall identify any monitoring requirements and treatment of cultural resources so as to meet both the requirements of CEQA and those of the Luiseño Indian Tribe. The agreements shall also address roles and responsibilities of the Native American Monitor and the Archaeologist. The Native American Monitor agreement shall also detail treatment and final PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 40
disposition of any Native American cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. In compliance with MM 5-1, discovery and treatment of human remains shall be in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The executed agreements shall be provided to the City of Murrieta Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A report, prepared by the Archeologist, documenting monitoring activities conducted by the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. If no cultural resources are identified during the monitoring activities, a letter report will be completed within 30 days of the completion of grading. It will document the type of monitoring activities conducted, report any problems or issues that occurred and state clearly that no resources were identified. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Murrieta, Eastern Information Center and the appropriate tribe(s). 5-2 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-meter radius of the area of discovery. The Project cultural resources professionals shall evaluate the significance of the find and appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and which shall take in to account tribal preferences and sensitivity concerns. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated and cleared by the City, the Project cultural resources professional and, if applicable, the Native American monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe, work in the area may resume. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Native American Monitor cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseño Indian Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 5-3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Engineering/Public Works Department shall confirm that the following note is included on Contractor Specifications: “Should any cultural/scientific resources be discovered during earth-moving activities, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to evaluate and protect these resources.” This condition and the approved provisions/ recommendations as determined in the agreement prepared under MM 5-2 and/or outlined in an Evaluation Plan, shall be incorporated on the cover sheet of the grading plan. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 41
If potentially significant features or sites are discovered, an Evaluation Plan shall be developed by the Project archaeologist and a representative of Luiseño Indian Tribe and shall contain, at a minimum, a research design and field methodology designed to recover data amenable to testing the site’s ability to yield answers to questions of interest to the public and/or scientific community. If a site is determined to be significant, data recovery excavations may be necessary unless the resource is avoided and preserved/protected in place. Evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or individuals that meet either the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as a qualified Prehistoric Archaeologist, as a Historic Archaeologist (as applicable), and/or as a Registered Professional Archaeologist(s) with similar qualifications. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – A Paleontological Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed project site and surrounding area by LSA and the results are provided in Appendix 4b. This report indicates that the project site is situated on sediments of the Pauba Formation (Pleistocene) and some small amount of Young Alluvial Channel Deposits. Only the Pauba Formation has the potential to contain paleontological resources beginning on the surface.
There are no previously recorded paleontological resources within the boundaries of the proposed project site, but there are several localities known from the Pauba Formation that are located within a one-mile radius of the project area.
Based the finding that the site has “a high sensitivity” for paleontological resources due to recorded resources being found in the area of the project site, the following mitigation shall be implemented during site ground disturbing activities to ensure impacts are reduced to a less than significant impact level.
5-4 A paleontologist listed on the County of Riverside Paleontology Consultant List shall be hired to develop and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project area beginning on the ground surface with the Pauba Formation and at depths of ten feet beneath the original ground surface in areas mapped as Young Alluvial Channel Deposits. The PRIMP shall include procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report of findings at the conclusion of active ground disturbance.
5-5 If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance under CEQA. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, catalogued, and curated into the permanent collections of an accredited scientific institution. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program.
5-6 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not on site, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be collected from the field and the paleontologist shall make recommendations for monitoring, curation, and reporting.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 42
d. Less Than Significant Impact – Based on historic disturbance of the project site, the potential for encountering human remains is very low. If human remains are accidentally exposed during site grading, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires a contractor to immediately stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and notify the County Coroner. The Coroner must then determine whether the remains are human and if such remains are human, the Coroner must determine whether the remains are or appear to be of a Native American. If deemed potential Native American remains, the Coroner contacts the Native American Heritage Commission to identify the most likely affect tribe and to initiate property recovery of such remains. Since this process is established in law and is mandatory, no additional mitigation is required to ensure that the impacts to human remains will be less than significant. Note however that mitigation measure 5-1 provides onsite monitoring to ensure that the local Native American tribes are afforded adequate opportunity to observe the potential exposure of human remains and participate directly in the management of such resources if they are accidentally exposed during ground disturbing activities.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 43
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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:
1) 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. (2,6,11,28,44,45,58)
X
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? (2,6,11,28,
44,45,58) X
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2,6,11,28,44,45,58) X
4) Landslides? (2,6,11,28,44,45,58) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (2,6,11,28,44,45,58)
X
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
onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (2,6,11,28,
44,45,58)
X
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? (2,6,11,19,28,44,45,58)
X
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? (2,6,11,28,44,45
and 58)
X
Substantiation: The Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed CarMax Automotive Dealership Murrieta, California prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. dated October 3, 2014 (Geology Investigation) was utilized for the following analysis. This technical study is provided as Appendix 5 to this document.
Background
The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The province is characterized by northwest trending mountain ranges and alluvial filled basins separated by similar oriented faults. The Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the Temecula basin on a PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 44
sedimentary mesa. Late-Pleistocene-age, non-marine sediments of the Pauba Formation underlie the site. Surficial units consisting of undocumented artificial fill and topsoil mantle the Pauba Formation. A more detailed description of the geologic units found on the property is provided in Appendix 5. a. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated – According to the Geology Investigation (pages 6 and 7), no active faults are present on the proposed Project site, nor does the proposed Project site lie within the bounds of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Based on the findings in the Geology Investigation, a County of Riverside Fault Zone is located along the northwest property boundary, beyond the limits of any proposed building construction. As such, the potential for ground rupture on the site due to an earthquake is considered very small.
In terms of ground shaking, the Geology Investigation states (page 6) the following. Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region.
This is common to virtually all of Southern California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (sol type) characteristics. The site-specific seismic coefficients provided in this section are based on an interactive tool/program currently available on USGS website. Based on ASCE 7-10 as the Design Code Reference Document and site Class D, the seismic coefficients for this site are listed in the following table:
Table 6-1
2013 CBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS PER USGS GENERAL PROCEDURE CBC Categorization / Coefficient Design Value (g)
Site Longitude (-117.18971) Site Latitude (33.55249)
Site Class Definition D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 2.06 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0,84 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2 Period, Fa 1.00
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.50
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 2.06 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration a 1s Period, SM1 1.26 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.37 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 0.84 g = Gravity acceleration
The results of the analysis also indicate that the adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) for this site is 0.84g.
According to the Geology Investigation in Appendix 5, the proposed site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. The main geotechnical concern on this site is the potential for high expansive silty/clayey layers within the Pauba formation. However, we believe that the recommended remedial earthwork provided below will properly address this concern. Based on this finding, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 45
6-1 Based upon the comprehensive geotechnical investigation (Appendix 5 of this document), all of the recommended design and construction measures identified in Appendix 5 (Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7) shall be implemented by CarMax. Implementation of these specific measures will address all of the identified geotechnical constraints identified at project site, including future groundshaking effects on future project-related structures.
Based on the Geology Investigation (page 7), the soils on the site and the depth to groundwater (about 48 feet below the ground surface) beneath the site result in the potential for liquefaction hazards to be “very low.” Also, based on the Geology Investigation (pages 6 and 9), no landslides were observed on the property and with proper compaction both fill and cut slopes are forecast to be grossly stable. The potential for landslides on the property is very low and no mitigation is required. Other issues evaluated in the Geology Investigation include dry settlement, rock falls, and subsidence. These are considered “secondary” seismic hazards and all potential impacts related to these site constraints can be fully mitigated to a less than significant impact level with implementation of mitigation measures 6-1.
b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The issues of erosion and sedimentation are discussed under issue 9.a of this document (Hydrology and Water Quality). City grading standards, best management practices and the SWPPP and WQMP are required to control the potential significant erosion hazards. The topography would be changed to accommodate the development with an estimated 350,000 cubic yards of onsite grading and no material being exported. Erosion of the onsite soils is a potential impact during excavation, grading, fill and compacting operations.
However, compliance with City standards as required by Mitigation Measure 9-1 can ensure that the potential for significant erosion onsite and within the roadway alignments will be controlled and be less than significant.
c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Refer to the discussion under 6a above.
Potential instability associated with slope stability and liquefaction was determined to be less than significant. The potential for settlement or subsidence at the site was determined to be limited based on implementing the grading recommendations in the Geology Investigation. This is required by measure 6-1.
d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The soils on the property are not considered to be expansive, but the Geology Investigation indicates that the Pauba formation underlying the site may contain “high expansive silty/clayey layers.” Therefore, the Investigation proposes design and construction measures (remedial earthwork) to manage or reduce this potential constraint to a less than significant impact level. Mitigation measure 6-1 incorporates the requisite earthwork measures to ensure that any expansive silty/clayey layers will be managed to reduce potential adverse impacts due to this condition to a less than significant level. e. No Impact - This project will be connected to the regional wastewater collection system and it will not utilize any subsurface septic tank –leach system. Therefore, no impact to underlying soil from wastewater disposal can occur and no mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 46
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would
the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment? (1,3,6,7,44,45,53)
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases? (1,3,6,7,44,
45,53)
X
Substantiation: The Air Quality Analysis CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center No. 6002 City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California (revised May 2015) prepared by LSA was utilized for the following analysis. This technical study is provided as Appendix 2 to this document.
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact – The Earth’s climate has continually evolved over the last 500,000 years. Climate is generally defined as average weather over a long period of time, and as such climate change and weather are intertwined. The Earth’s climate is regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). As sunlight strikes the atmosphere, some of the infrared radiation passes through, but most is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by these greenhouse gas molecules and clouds. The effect of this is to warm the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. This effect is known as “greenhouse effect.”
Many Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from human sources are expected to increase as a result of urban development growth. In an effort to curtail emission levels, an ongoing effort of newer cleaner technologies and policies continue to be explored. These efforts extend from local municipalities to the national government all the way to international territories. At each agency level, GHG reduction and management measures are being formulated.
Global Warming Potentials
In an effort to help quantify GHG emissions, the EPA has constructed an index of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) based upon the radiative properties of each individual green house gas. GWP is based on a variety of factors including; radiative efficiency (relative to that of CO2) and the decay rate of each gas. The EPA has defined GWP, as the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon, resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas (the reference gas being CO2). One teragram of carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq) is the emission of the gas multiplied by the GWP.
The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced Global Climate Change (GCC) are listed in the following table.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 47
Table 7-1
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL AT GREENHOUSE GASES
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-Year Time Horizon)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 - 200 1
Methane (CH4) 12 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298
HFC-23 270 14,800
HFC-134a 14 1,430
HFC-152a 1.4 124
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800
Source: IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
HFC = hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
PFC = perfluorocarbons
GHG Inventory
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has compiled annual GHG data. According to the UNFCCC, in 2004 the U.S. contributed 7,074.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (nearly 35% of global emissions). A total of 20,135 Tg CO2 Eq., were emitted worldwide (excluding emissions from removals of land uses, land use change and forestry). The U.S. had an increase in GHG of 15.8% from 1990 emission levels.
California is the second largest contributor to GHGs in the U.S. During 1990 to 2003, California’s gross state product grew by 83% while GHG emissions grew by 12%. In 2004, California produced 492 Tg CO2 Eq, which is approximately 7% of U.S. emissions. The main contributors to California’s GHG emissions are transportation (41%) and electricity generation (22%). Over that same period of time (1990 to 2004), GHG emissions from the residential/commercial sectors decreased by
9.7%. This decrease in GHGs could illustrate the effectiveness of energy conservation in buildings (Title 24 requirements) and appliances. During that same period of time, California saw an increase in population.
GHG Regulation
On the local level the SCAQMD is currently devising an acceptable methodology to properly analyze GHG emissions. The SCAQMD has adopted an interim GHG significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2eq/year for industrial projects and is actively considering establishing a significance threshold for residential/commercial projects. Human created GHG include: CO2, CH4, N20, and fluorinated gases (Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride).
Assembly Bill 32
In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Climate Solutions Act. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This reduction will be accomplished by an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 48
AB 32 requires that the CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap. The CARB must institute a schedule to meet emission standards, develop tracking, reporting and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. Currently, GHG levels have been estimated to be 600 million metric tons (MMTs) of CO2 Eq., while 1990 levels have been estimated to be 427 MMTs. Accordingly, emissions need to be reduced by 173 MMTs by 2020.
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted a scoping plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
The Scoping Plan’s recommendations for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include, a cap-and-trade program linked to Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions, green building strategies, recycling and waste-related measures, and Voluntary Early Action and Reductions.
CARB has until January 11, 2011, to adopt the necessary regulations to implement that plan.
Implementation of the plan must begin no later than January 1, 2012, so that emission reduction target can be achieved by 2020.
Senate Bill 97
In 2007, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) which requires the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit new CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the Resources agency by July 2009. These guidelines for mitigation must address but are not limited to, GHG emissions and effects associated with transportation and energy consumption.
OPR’s Technical Advisory and CEQA Guideline Amendments
On January 8, 2009, OPR released its preliminary draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for GHG emissions. Shortly thereafter in April, OPR submitted its final proposed guidelines to the Secretary of Natural Resources. On March 18, 2010 the final proposed guidelines were approved. In the CEQA Guideline amendments, the OPR does not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor does it specify an assessment methodology or specific mitigation measure.
Furthermore it states that a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which methodology to use…; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance standards.
The OPR calls for a “good faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project.” The Amendments are relatively modest and leave substantial discretion to lead agencies to evaluate and mitigate GHG emissions in an environmental document. The Technical Advisory encourages lead agencies to follow three basic steps: (1) indentify and quantify the greenhouse gas emissions that could result from the proposed project; (2) analyze the effects of those emissions and determine whether the effect is significant, and (3) if the impact is significant, indentify feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that will reduce the impact below a level of significance.
CARB’s Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal for Interim Significance Thresholds In the effort to develop the CEQA Guidelines Amendments, OPR’s Technical Advisory has asked CARB to recommend GHG-related significance thresholds. CARB released a draft proposal in Oct, 2008 with interim guidance on significance thresholds. The proposal takes a different approach for different sectors – (1) industrial projects and (2) commercial and residential projects. As previously mentioned a numerical threshold for industrial projects has been devised, however for commercial and residential projects, CARB recommends that if a project complies with a previously approved plan (that addresses GHG emissions), it would not be considered to have a significant impact.
Alternatively if the project does not comply with a previously approved plan, staff recommends a threshold based upon the implementation of performance standards or mitigation measures which PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 49
address energy usage (transportation, water use, waste and construction). Specific Performance standards have not been developed for such energy usage as of yet, however CARB staff recommends the California Energy Commission’s Tier II Energy Efficiency Standards (specified as 35% above Title 24 requirements), existing GHG-reduction programs (i.e., LEED and California Green Building Code).
Senate Bill 375
In 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. SB 375 requires the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles, for 2020 and 2035. The 18 metropolitan planning organizations (i.e. SCAG) are responsible to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in their respective regions and demonstrate the ability for the region to attain CARB’s targets.
Since the adoption of AB 32, there has been some regulatory guidance with regard to GHG emission thresholds. The CARB is collaborating with the Cal/EPA and the Resources Agency to further develop guidelines (pursuant to Senate Bill 97) for analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions.
With an absence of a statewide threshold, the SCAQMD has developed an interim GHG significance threshold. This process includes the development of a tiered GHG significance threshold proposal for stationary sources. Given the complexity of the overall interactions between various global and regional-scale air emissions, it is difficult to determine whether the presence or absence of the proposed Project would alter any conditions.
The URBEMIS 2007 computer program can quantify the amount of CO2 emitted from the Project generated by vehicle from the identified area sources, however the model does not take into account the CO2 emitted from electricity use and generation as a result of the Project.
February 2011, the SCAQMD released the CalEEMod GHG Emissions software. The software does not replace the URBEMIS 2007 computer program; however it can work in conjunction with it.
The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that provides the framework for reducing GHG emissions and managing resources to best prepare for a changing climate. The CAP recommends GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the State of California. The City CAP states the following (Introduction, page 1-2):
One of the primary uses for a CAP is to establish significance thresholds for reviewing projects under CEQA. CEQA requires the City to identify the significant environmental impacts of its discretionary actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts if feasible. The CEQA Guidelines, as updated pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 97, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA and encourages the use of a plan consistency threshold for cumulative impacts on climate change. Projects that demonstrate consistency with the strategies, actions, and emission reduction targets contained in the CAP would have a less than significant impact on climate change
When the City undertakes a discretionary action, such as approval of a proposed development project, plan, policy, or code change, the City will evaluate whether that action would result in a significant climate change impact.
The CAP is intended to reduce the City’s impact on climate change; therefore, determining the consistency of a proposed project with the CAP is one way to evaluate whether a project would have a significant climate change impact.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 50
At a general level it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly affect GCC; therefore, any impacts would be considered on a cumulative basis. Because the City has adopted a CAP that meets the requirements of Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of 1) Whether the project would generate GHG Emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and
2) Whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
This can be determined by analyzing the consistency of the project with the CAP. Because it is not possible to link specific GHG emissions to actual changes in climate, this evaluation focuses on the project’s emission of GHGs. Mitigation measures are identified where appropriate.
The analysis presented below is based on methodologies and information available to the City and the applicant at the time this analysis was prepared. Estimation of GHG emission in the future does not account for all changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on current performance and represent a scenario that is worse than that which may be encountered in the future. While information presented below to assist the public and decision-makers in understanding the project’s potential contribution to GCC impacts, it is not sufficiently detailed to allow a direct comparison between emission and particular climate change impacts, or between any proposed mitigation measure and any reduction in climate change impacts. Construction and operation of the project will generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption occurring during the project’s operations. a) Whether the project would generate GHG Emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and
b) Whether the project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project-related new vehicular trips and stationarysource emissions, such as natural gas used for hearing and electricity usage. The calculation that follows includes construction emissions in terms of CO2 and annual CO2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, solid waste management, and estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the project.
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heave-duty construction equipment, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the crew. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Table 7-2 lists annual GHG emissions for each of the planned construction phases and shows that the GHG emissions would be highest during building construction phase at approximately 1,300 MT/year. Total construction GHG emissions over the entire construction period are estimated to be 2,020 MT of CO2e.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 51
Table 7-2
CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Construction Phase Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (MT/year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Demolition 44 0.011 0 45
Site Preparation 9.8 0.0028 0 9.9
Grading 67 0.019 0 67
Building Construction 1,300 0.092 0 1,300
Architectural Coating 120 0.0078 0 120
Paving 62 0.018 0 62
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
Note: Total construction GHG emissions = 2,020 MT CO2e.
CH4 = methane MT = metric tons
CO2 = carbon dioxide MT/year = metric tons per year
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent N2O = nitrous oxide
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Although the determination of significance is made by determining the consistency of the project with the City’s CAP, an estimate of the proposed project’s long-term GHG emissions is provided for information in Table 7-3 and 7-4. The GHG emission estimates in Table 7-3 show the emissions associated with the level of development envisioned by the proposed project at build out. Detailed emission worksheets are provided in Appendix A of Appendix 2.
Table 7-3
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WITHOUT PDFs Source Pollutant Emissions (MT/year)
Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Construction emissions
amortized over 30 years 0 67 67 0.0059 0 67
Operational emissions
Area 0 0.0031 0.0031 0.00001 0 0.0033
Energy 0 770 770 0.031 0.0087 770
Mobile 0 3,000 3,000 0.13 0 3,000
Waste 69 0 69 4.1 0 150
Water 2.6 47 50 0.27 0.0069 58
Total Project Emissions 72 3,900 4,000 4.5 0.016 4,000
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding of all numbers to two significant digits.
Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2 MT = metric tons
CH4 = methane MT/year = metric tons per year
CO2 = carbon dioxide N2O = nitrous oxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent NBio-CO2 = Non-biologically generated CO2 PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 52
Table 7-4
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WITH PDFs Source Pollutant Emissions (MT/year)
Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Construction emissions
amortized over 30 years 0 67 67 0.0059 0 67
Operational emissions
Area 0 0.0031 0.0031 0.00001 0 0.0033
Energy 0 710 710 0.029 0.008 710
Mobile 0 3,000 3,000 0.13 0 3,000
Waste 51 0 51 3.0 0 120
Water 2.1 38 40 0.22 0.0055 47
Total Project Emissions 53 3,800 3,900 3.4 0.014 3,900
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (January 2015)
Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding of all numbers to two significant digits.
Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2 MT = metric tons
CH4 = methane MT/year = metric tons per year
CO2 = carbon dioxide N2O = nitrous oxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent NBio-CO2 = Non-biologically generated CO2 As shown in Table 7-3, the project will produce 4,000 MT of CO2e/yr, which is 0.004 MMTCO2e/yr.
For comparison, the existing emissions from the entire SCAG region are estimated to be approximately 176.79 MMTCO2e/yr, and the existing emissions for the entire State are estimated at approximately 496.9 MMTCO2e/yr. Aspects of the proposed project’s design would directly and indirectly reduce project-related operational GHG emissions. Project design features (PDFs), identified below, would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.
Aspects of the proposed project’s anticipated land uses and components directly and indirectly reduce the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. These PDFs are summarized in the following text.
PDF 1 All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with the CalGreen Code.
PDF 2 A Construction Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the building contractor(s) to achieve a minimum 50 percent diversion of construction waste from landfills.
PDF 3 All flat, non-visible portions of building roofs shall be cool colors that have a high solar reflective and thermal emittance. These characteristics reflect light, thereby reducing heat transfer and furthering the ability to allow heat to escape from a surface once it has been absorbed.
PDF 4 All skylights shall incorporate low emissivity glass.
PDF 5 All building room lighting will be controlled by motion sensors.
PDF 6 Because all buildings would be constructed in compliance with the CalGreen Code (PDF 1), the project would include water conservation features such as low-flow toilets and low-flow faucets in break rooms and bathrooms.
PDF 7 Signs shall be posted in the retail area limiting idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes.
PDF 8 A Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified (or equivalent) professional shall be involved with all landscaping plans to promote a range of active and passive sustainable design measures and professional best practices.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 53
PDF 9 Energy efficient fixtures shall be incorporated where possible, such as; low-pressure sodium, compact fluorescents, light emitting diode (LED), and solar powered lights.
PDF 10 Careful plant selection and the latest technology for irrigation will be incorporated to reduce energy and water consumption. Elements will include (1) the use of evapotranspiration irrigation controllers, (2) the use of a minimum of 50 percent of low water use or drought tolerant plants for landscaping, and (3) the use of mowed turf only in spaces where it serves a functional purpose. Local well water will be used for watering as much as possible.
While the PDFs accomplish approximately 20 percent reductions in GHG emissions in the waste and water categories and 7.8 percent in the energy category, the mobile source emissions are unaffected by PDFs so are unchanged. Since the mobile source emissions are approximately 77 percent of the total GHG emissions, the PDF-related reduction in GHG emissions is approximately 2.5 percent. As discussed in the preceding text, the analysis of GHG emissions significance is determined by comparing the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Murrieta CAP. Table O of Appendix 2 lists the CAP measures that are applicable to the proposed project and the project’s consistency with those measures. With implementation of PDFs 1 through 10 and application of regulatory requirements, the project would be substantially consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan and would not conflict with or impede the implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the Governor’s EO S-3-05, and other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant. The analysis in Appendix 2 also concluded that the proposed project would not incur significant impacts from future Global Climate Change due to its location.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 54
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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? (1,3,7,44,45,59,
65,66)
X
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? (1,3,7,44,45,59,65,66) X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (1,3,6,7,44,45,
59,65,66)
X
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? (1,4,44,45,59,65,66)
X
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?
(1,3,4,6,10,44,45,59,65,66)
X
f) 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 project area?
(1,3,4,6,10,44,45,59,65,66)
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (1,3,4,6,10,44,45,
59,65,66)
X
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? (1,3,4,6,44,45,59)
X
Substantiation: The information in the following evaluation is supported by the following technical study:
“Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed CarMax Site Located at 25585 Addison Street, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNS) 910-020-007, 910-140-020, 910-130-032, 910-140-064, 910-140-065, PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 55
910-140-066, 910-140-084, 910-140-088, and 910-140-090, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California” prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. dated September 14, 2014. A copy of this report is provided in Appendix 6 of this document.
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated – The project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or may 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. During construction there is a potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a significant hazard to people and the environment. The following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project and implementation of this measure can reduce this potential hazard to a nonsignificant level.
8-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.
The proposed project consists of a commercial use (vehicle rehabilitation and sales operation) that does include routine transport and use of substantial volumes of hazardous materials and routine generation of hazardous wastes beyond those normally encountered in a residential-type setting.
The project includes a 12,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) and the use of a variety of vehicle repair and maintenance products that that will be stored at the site. Among other hazardous wastes, used oil from vehicles will require onsite management and ultimate disposal.
The storage, use and disposal of these materials are a common activity within all communities of the United States due to the universal presence of vehicles. A stringent regulatory system has evolved around the supply of gasoline and vehicle maintenance and repair facilities. A standard Business Plan (including a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures plan) must be filed with the City Fire Department and routine inspections of facilities to ensure compliance with the plan must be implemented. This must include proper storage of both hazardous materials and used hazardous waste (for example, used motor oil). Although an existing regulatory structure is in place, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 8-2 CarMax shall prepare a Business Plan, with a Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures Plan, and submit this document to the City Fire Department for review and approval. All hazardous materials that may be used at the project site shall be identified (including quantities); methods of storage shall be defined; measure to prevent release of the hazardous materials to the environment shall be defined; and management procedures for disposal of hazardous waste, including proper manifesting, shall be identified. The City Fire Department shall review and approve this plan prior to movement of any hazardous materials onto the site.
c. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ The project site is located greater than one-quarter mile from any public school. According to the Murrieta Unified School District website http://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/Page/143,
no schools are proposed within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Based on this information, implementation of the Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. No additional mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 56
d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted a comprehensive search of selected government data bases. This assessment has revealed no evidence of historic recognized environmental conditions (HREC) or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC) at the site, but did identify one onsite REC, a soil stockpile. The ESA indicated that the property owner would remove the soil stockpile; however, if it is not removed, the ESA recommends testing the soil for contaminants. Therefore, the following measure will be implemented.
8-3 If the soil stockpile is not removed prior to initiation of ground disturbance, CarMax shall conduct sampling of the stockpile for Title 22 metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, semi-volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and Organochlorine pesticides. If the stockpile contains any contamination above commercial screening levels, the soil shall be removed from the site and disposed of at a properly licensed disposal or recycling facility or blended to a level that does not exceed this threshold. Documentation verifying proper management of the stockpile shall be submitted to the City prior to initiating ground disturbing activities.
e&f. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The closest airport is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles north-northeast of the project site. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required for the proposed project.
g. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The proposed project will have minimal activities within Madison Avenue and Guava Street, the roadways where most utilities are located.
To ensure that emergency access and evacuation can be maintained while project-related construction activities occur within these roadway rights-of-way. 8-4 At all times during construction of the Madison Avenue and Guava Street improvements, the site developer shall ensure that emergency fire or medical vehicles are able to access all areas along the project alignment during construction. The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to serve emergency functions (including emergency response and emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent project roadways and throughout the project site. h. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ According to Exhibit 5.17-1, High Fire Hazard Zones, of the GP EIR, the project site is not located within a high fire zone. Due to past disturbance the project site, it presently has a low fuel load. The City’s Fire Department has reviewed the project and will implement the necessary code requirements in order to reduce any potential wildland fire hazard impacts to a less than significant level. This is a standard condition and not considered unique mitigation under CEQA. Any impacts are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. No other potential hazards are known to exist at this location/site.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 57
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
(1,3,6,11,44,45,47,48,60,61)
X
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 preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
(1,3,6,11,44,45,47,48,60,61)
X
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 onsite or offsite? (1,3,6,11,44,45,48,60
and 61)
X
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 onsite or
offsite? (1,3,6,11,44,45,48,60,61)
X
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?
(1,3,6,11,44,45,48,60,61)
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(1,3,6,11,44,45,48,60,61)
X
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? (1,3,6,11,44,45,
48,60,61)
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (1,3,6,11,44,45,48,60,61)
X
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 58
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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? (3,6,29,44,45,48)
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(3,6,29,44,45,48)
X
Substantiation: The following information utilized in this Section of the Initial Study was obtained from the CarMax Auto Superstore Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by Hall & Foreman, Inc. dated April 10, 2015 (Drainage Study) and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Hall & Foreman, Inc. dated September 2014 (WQMP). These studies are provided as Appendices 7a and 7b, respectively in this document.
Background
The project site encompasses approximately 45.6 acres. It is currently vacant, undeveloped land with some natural ground cover and areas of cleared compacted soils. A small portion of the site currently includes a single story 3,000 square foot partially demolished building, two small out buildings, and three animal corrals. An unpaved driveway connects the partially demolished residence and garage to Madison Avenue. A concrete flood control pipeline and open channel identified in the City Master Plan of Drainage as Line D-1 is located in the central portion of the project site. This drainage crosses the property and then ultimately discharges stormwater (primarily from the developed area upstream of the site) to the southwest. There are three existing stormwater discharges from the property and a fourth area that generates runoff to the property from offsite. Figure 9-1 provides the existing condition hydrology maps of the property, including a hydrologic summary in the upper right-hand portion of the graphic. Table 9-1 also provides the existing conditions hydrology summary and the developed conditions summary.
The project site will be graded to support future CarMax operations. Figure 9-2 shows the “Developed Conditions Hydrology Map” for the project site, including total peak flows for the 10-year storm event and the 100-year storm event. The drainage study provided the following findings for the developed (modified) condition site hydrology.
Table 9-1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Existing Conditions
Area Area (ac) Q2 (cfs) Q5 (cfs) Q10 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
A 12.64 10.12 14.07 20.09 32.74
B 14.42 9.31 13.05 19.15 14.42
C 9.55 6.85 11.59 13.84 22.72
D 7.24 4.96 8.44 10.09 16.62
Total 43.85 31.24 47.15 63.17 86.5
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 59
Developed Conditions
Area Area (ac) Q2 (cfs) Q5 (cfs) Q10 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
A 10.9 17.04 22.04 26.28 39.38
B 2.51 4.09 5.3 6.32 9.48
C 0.89 1.21 1.57 1.87 2.81
D 8.93 15.8 20.43 24.35 36.48
E 2.37 4.44 5.74 6.83 10.23
F 10.57 15.84 20.49 24.45 36.66
Total 36.17 58.42 75.57 90.1 135.04
Developed Conditions ‒ Offsite
Area Area (ac) Q10 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
G 0.97 1.78 2.86
H 4.19 5.49 9.1
I 1.54 2.66 4.31
Total 6.7 9.93 16.27
Source: Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by Hall & Foreman, revised April 10, 2015 Due to the increased impervious surface in the developed condition, peak flows experience an increase from those of the existing conditions. For that reason, peak flow mitigation is proposed through the use of detention basins, flow through planters, underground infiltration/detention basins, and hydromodification outlet control requirements.
The proposed development causes an increase in velocity and peak flows produced from the developed site, peak flow mitigation is proposed through the use of detention basins, flow through planters, underground infiltration/detention basins, and hydromodification applications. These mitigation Best Management BMPs will reduce the peak flows from areas A through F and allow for minimal deviation from the existing conditions runoff intensities and downstream receiving creek elevations.
As is shown on the ‘Developed Condition Hydrology Map’ include in the appendix of this report (and reproduced as Figure 9-2 in this document), drainage areas tributary to each collection area are relatively small. While no inlet sizing calculations were performed as part of this study, based on the size of the tributary drainage areas and on sound engineering judgment, inlet and/or catch basins are anticipated to be standard size(s). Hydraulic calculations to support inlet size and location shall be refined during final engineering. Likewise, storm drain sizes are estimated by the ‘Rational Method’ hydrology analysis.
Further refinement of storm drain sizing shall be performed during final engineering.
It is further recommended that ‘Water Quality ‘Best Management Practices (BMP’s) be implemented as indicated in the project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Utilizing the WQMP recommendations will not only improve water quality, but will reduce maintananc3e operations of the onsite storm drain system Appendix 7b contains the Project Specific WQMP for the project site after development. This detailed evaluation of potential water quality measures to prevent downstream degradation of water quality envisions the use of detention basins, flow through planters, underground infiltration/detention basins, and hydromodification outlet control requirements to prevent degradation of water quality downstream.
Between the project site and Murrieta Creek, the initial receiving surface water, the surface runoff from the site will flow through a 108” drainage pipe; then into a soft bottom channel; then into Murrieta Creek; PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 60
and once Murrieta Creek has its confluence with Temecula Creek to form the Santa Margarita River, the runoff flows into the Pacific Ocean.
Table A-1 (in Appendix) identifies the existing beneficial uses of the surface flows in Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River, as well as the pollutants that impair these surface waters within these two water bodies. Discharges from the modified site will be treated and released into the drainage system summarized above. In addition to the treatment of surface water runoff, the project is mandated to implement a Business Plan with a Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan to control accidental releases of the hazardous materials/wastes that may be stored or used on the project site.
This requirement is incorporated into Mitigation Measure 8-2 of this document for implementation. a&f. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated – This Project has the potential for discharge of surface runoff into the local drainage system, which eventually flows into Murrieta Creek. Without mitigation varying amounts of urban pollutants, such as motor oil, antifreeze, gasoline, pesticides, detergents, trash, domestic animal waste and fertilizers (found in urban runoff), can degrade storm water flows. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued the MS-4 (urban stormwater) permit for the Santa Margarita River watershed of which Murrieta Creek is one of the major tributaries. The City of Murrieta, along with the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula, are co-permittees in overseeing implementation of the MS-4 permit in the Santa Margarita River Watershed, which includes Murrieta Creek.
The program requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for control of pollutants during construction and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for control of pollutants during occupancy of the Project site. The City and County have adopted a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to control discharges of surface runoff during construction and occupancy that could cause a significant adverse impact to surface water quality, i.e., a violation of waste discharge requirements. The SWPPP and WQMP address the hydrologic conditions of concern by maintaining pre-development flows in downstream channels once the CarMax facility is developed and treatment of the surface runoff from the site before discharge to the drainage system and Murrieta Creek. The water quality studies in Appendix 7b document how this will be accomplished for the project site. In general, this will be accomplished by reducing, to the extent feasible, the adverse impact of onsite impervious surface, and through the use of detention basins, flow through planters, underground infiltration/detention basins, and hydromodification outlet control requirements. The WQMP also identifies BMPs to be utilized to reduce potential project pollutants (e.g. sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, pesticides, organic compounds, and metals). A site specific WQMP has been submitted to the City. Finally, prior to site development, the City will require the submittal and approval of the final WQMP. With the implementation of the SWPPP and WQMP, no significant adverse impacts to water quality are expected to occur from project implementation. The following mitigation measure will be implemented to ensure the SWPPP and WQMP are implemented for this project.
9-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at the time grading is proposed.
The Best Management Practices contained in these plans shall control the volume of discharge and the pollutants in accordance with the adopted MS-4 standards in place at the time of project implementation during construction and over the long-term following development.
No other sources of water quality degradation have been identified in conjunction with the proposed project.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 61
b. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed Project will not deplete groundwater supplies that would substantially affect the water availability for existing or planned land uses or biological resources or deplete groundwater supplies so that water availability for existing or planned land uses or biological resources. No potential exists to directly intercept the groundwater table during development of this Project due to depths greater than the overexcavation that will result from project grading (a minimum of 46 feet based on the Geotechnical Study (Appendix 5).
The Project will be supplied water by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD or District) that utilizes both groundwater and imported water supplies to ensure adequate water is available for consumers. Imported water is utilized to ensure that significant overdraft of local ground water supplies does not occur. The District identifies sufficient water resources to meet water demand within its service area. This information is provided in the District’s Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants).
While the development of the Project may result in a slight reduction in the amount of recharge associated with natural runoff, this reduction is expected to be off-set/replaced by increased infiltration from the detention basins, flow through planters, and underground infiltration/detention basins that will be established on the developed portions of the site. The development of the project will, therefore, not interrupt the existing percolation of the site, or any flow of groundwater under the project site. No significant adverse impacts to groundwater resources are forecast to occur from implementing the proposed Project. No mitigation is required.
The increase in any surface runoff would be incremental due to the proposed drainage system on site. Based on these facts, the project is not forecast to deplete surface water supplies for existing and planned uses or onsite biological resources. As stated above in Section 4, historic surface water flows have been in a southwesterly direction. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required.
c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The proposed project is not anticipated to significantly change the volume of flows downstream of the project site based on the analysis in Appendix 7a, and would not be anticipated to change the amount of surface water in any water body in an amount that could initiate a new cycle of erosion or sedimentation downstream of the project site. As outlined in the Appendix 7a, the onsite drainage will capture the incremental increase in runoff from the project site associated with project development. This will be detained on the project site and detained flows will be released in a manner comparable to the existing runoff regime from the existing site. The downstream drainage system will not be altered and given the control of future surface runoff from the project site through mitigation measure 9-1, the potential for downstream erosion or sedimentation will be controlled to a less than significant impact level. d&e Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed project will alter the existing drainage courses or patterns onsite but will maintain the existing downstream drainage system through control of future discharges from the site. Based on the site development shown on Figure 4 and the data in Appendices 1, 7a and 7b the future storm runoff from the site will be discharge at the same location as current discharges and at comparable or reduced volumes.
As a result of proposed project design, which is in conformance with City standards, the site alterations will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The same would apply to runoff water generated by the proposed project. Project design, which is in conformance with City standards, will not contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. A preliminary WQMP and site drainage plan (Appendices 7a and 7b) have been submitted to the City’s Public Works Department. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall provide final design of both systems prior to grading permit issuance (reference Mitigation Measure 9-1). These reports shall finalize the drainage and water quality management systems onsite to ensure no adverse downstream hydromodification will result from project implementation. No additional mitigation measures are required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 62
g&h. No Impact – Based on the General Plan and the FEMA FIRM panel for the Project site, it is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, no potential exists to expose any housing or other structures to an existing significant flood hazard. i&j. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. According to p. 5.13-45 of the GP EIR, and as discussed in Section 5.8, Geology and Seismic Hazards of the GP EIR, the possibility of seiches and tsunamis impacting the City is considered remote due to the great distance to large bodies of water. The nearest large bodies of water are Lake Elsinore, located approximately 12 miles northwest of the proposed Project site and Diamond Valley Lake, located approximately
9.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur in this regard. There is the potential for mudflow to occur with future flood events. All future construction associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan 2035 would meet all applicable Federal, State, and local building, seismic, water quality, flood, and drainage standards.
Additionally, the proposed General Plan 2035 Safety Element includes goals and policies to address flooding and flood hazards within the City. It is anticipated that with implementation of these goals and policies and the City’s Municipal Code and the onsite drainage system, mudflow hazards within the City would be reduced to a less than significant level. No mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 63
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(1,2,41,42,44,45)
X
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?
(1,2,41,42,44,45)
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1,2,30.41.42.44.45)
X
Substantiation
Background
In July 2011 the City Council adopted Murrieta General Plan 2035, adopted in July 2011. The key focus of the new General Plan is to pursue economic vitality. Specifically, in the new General Plan the City Council identified economic development as the City’s top priority (Land Use and Economic Development Elements of the Plan). The focus of this effort was to establish a Comprehensive Development Strategy which included a 20-year vision of Murrieta as a business hub for Southwest Riverside County and North San Diego County. The project site has a General Plan designation of Commercial and a zone classification of Professional Commercial, with a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The proposed project site is located just north of the South Murrieta Business Corridor. This Corridor is shown on Exhibit 3-4 of the General Plan which is reproduced here. The South Murrieta Business Corridor is located on both sides of the freeway where the I-15 and I-215 merge, with the acreage east of freeways being much smaller than the area west of the freeways. Table 3-17 of the General Plan (reproduced herein) indicates that the South Murrieta Business Corridor contains a total of 580.49 acres and the future land use projection is that this acreage will support an estimated 3,126,582 square feet of Office & Research development and 2,393,221 square feet of Business Park development, or a total of 5,519,803 square feet of development.
The proposed project is consistent with the underlying General Plan and Zoning land use designationclassifications, but a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be approved for the CarMax facility before it can be implemented. All of the CarMax facilities are shown on Figure 4 of this document and more detail of the site development is provided in Appendix 1 of this document. CarMax is proposing to utilize a total of about 39 acres of the project site to support its operations. As a result, the project application includes a request to vacate Monroe Avenue north of Guava Street within the property boundary. South of Guava, Monroe Avenue is designated on the General Plan Circulation Element as a “Major” roadway with a roadway section of 76’ and a right-of-way (ROW) width of 100’ (76’/100’). North of Guava (within the property boundary), Monroe is designated as an “Industrial Collector,” which has a roadway section of 56’ and a ROW width of 78’. Note that Guava Street is designated as a “Secondary” roadway (64’/88’) and Madison is designated as a “Major” roadway (76’/100’).
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 64
CarMax has requested that the City vacate Monroe Avenue north of Guava. Based on circulation system modeling for the project area, the extension of Monroe north of Guava Street is not required to maintain adequate circulation within this area through build out which is estimated in 2035. Thus, if the proposed project is approved, Monroe will be removed from the Circulation Element north of Guava and CarMax will be allowed to incorporate this roadway alignment (shown on Figure 10-1) into the overall site development as proposed.
With this information it will be possible to complete the detailed evaluation of the project’s potential impact to the Land Use and Planning issue presented in this section. a. No Impact ‒ The proposed project is located in a “pocket” of land now surrounded on three sides by compatible land uses. To the east is Interstate 15; to the north is Wal-Mart and the Murrieta Springs Plaza; in construction to the west is a new hotel; and to the south is a mix of undeveloped land, residences, a church and industrial facilities. In many ways the development of this site represents an infill development due to the degree of urban-suburban development in immediate proximity to the project site. Consequently, the development of the project site with the proposed project will not divide any established community in any manner. Therefore, a finding a no impact is appropriate under this topic. No mitigation is required. b. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ The project site is designated for Commercial development and zoned for Professional Commercial land use. With approval of the CUP application on this property, the proposed CarMax facility will be fully consistent with both the General Plan designation and Zone classification for the project site. The only potential conflict with the General Plan is the proposal to eliminate the alignment of Monroe Avenue, north of Guava Road, on the project site. The General Plan Circulation Element presently shows that ultimately three roadways (Guava Street, Fig Street, and Elm Street will provide east-west connections between Monroe and Jefferson Avenue in the South Murrieta Business Corridor. Monroe is shown on Figure 10-1 as extending north to the Murrieta Springs Plaza and then curving south to connect to Madison Avenue. Based on the circulation system evaluation provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (further discussed under the Transportation/Traffic section of this document (Issue #16)), Monroe between Guava and Madison can be eliminated from the circulation system (refer to Circulation Element of the General Plan) without cause a significant adverse impact on the area circulation system in this portion of the South Murrieta Business Corridor. Based on these data, approval of the General Plan Amendment to eliminate the short segment of Monroe between Guava and Madison will not cause with the City of Murrieta 2035 General Plan. No mitigation is required under this issue. c. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ As discussed in Section 4 of this Initial Study, the proposed Project is consistent with the Riverside County MSHCP. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan adopted to protect environmental resources. Therefore, proposed Project impacts are considered less than significant under this issue. No mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 65
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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?
(1,2,6,11,44,45,58,59)
X
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? (2,6,11,44,45,58,59)
X
Substantiation
a&b. No Impact – Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources that are designated priority mineral resources by the State Department of Conservation; or 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. First, the proposed Project site is not known to have been mined in the past (refer to the Phase 1 ESA in Appendix 6.
According to Exhibit 5.12-1, Mineral Resources of the GP EIR, five mineral resource sites have been identified within the City. These sites contain clay, sand and gravel (construction), feldspar, feldspar/silica, and gold. One geothermal resource is also identified within the City boundaries.
Within the Sphere of Influence, three mineral resource sites are identified that contain feldspar, gold, and stone (crushed/broken). None of these identified mineral resource locations occur on the proposed Project site.
According to the GP EIR, for aggregate resources, most of the City and the Sphere of Influence are classified as MRZ-3a, an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. According to Special Report 165 of the California Geological Survey, the MRZ-3a designation in Murrieta contains two types of potential deposits: sand and gravel, and crushed stone. MRZ-3a areas are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of economic mineral deposits. The MRZ-3 classification indicates potentially significant mineral deposits that can be reclassified as significant mineral deposits through either a petition or regular periodic review by the State. This reclassification can occur in the event of a change in the mineral resources, or if a threat to the extraction of mineral deposits develops. Once areas within their jurisdiction have been classified as MRZ-3, cities and counties may prepare a report in order to determine the economic viability and extent of mineral and aggregate resources. Based on the findings in the Geotechnical study for the project site (Appendix 5), the project site does not contain any aggregate or crushed stone mineral resources. Based on the information in the General Plan and site specific data, there is no potential impact to mineral resources or mineral resource values from implementing the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 66
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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?
(1,2,9,44,45,62)
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? (1,2,9,44,45,62)
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (1,2,9,44,45,62)
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
(1,2,9,44,45,62)
X
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? (1,2,9,44,45,62)
X
f) 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? (1,2,9,44,45,62)
X
Substantiation: The Noise Impact Analysis CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center No. 6002, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA, dated January 2015 (Noise Study) was utilized for the following analysis. This technical study is provided as Appendix 8 to this document.
Background
The CarMax project site is currently vacant with the exception of a single abandoned residential structure, which will be demolished prior to site development. Surrounding land uses consist of single-family residents, a church, storage facility and commercial uses to the south; I-15 to the east; commercial uses to the north and northeast; and commercial development being installed at the present time to the west.
The closest existing residence to the south is located approximately 150 feet from the nearest proposed parking lot within the project site and approximately 670 feet from the on-site car wash. Another existing residence to the southwest is located approximately 385 feet from the nearest parking lot proposed on the project site and about 1,285 feet from the on-site carwash. Other sensitive uses to the south are located approximately 500 feet from the project site opposite Guava Street. These noise sensitive residential land uses are located within the South Murrieta Business Corridor as defined in the City General Plan 2035. Regardless as existing sensitive noise receptors they site may be affected by noise from the project site during future construction and operational activities at the CarMax site.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 67
Please refer to Appendix 8 for a detailed discussion of how sound and vibration are measured and for the levels of sound and vibration that can cause a significant adverse impact on sensitive noise receptors.
Noise thresholds of significance used in this report are outlined on pages 15 through 18, with Tables E and F containing specific City of Murrieta exterior noise limits and Federal Transit Administration vibration criteria, respectively.
The existing noise environment includes traffic noise, mostly on I-15 and Madison Avenue, as well as periodic stationary noise generated from activities from the loading dock area at the Wal-Mart Store located immediately to the north. However, it is the noise from project area traffic on these roadways which contributes to the ambient (existing background) noise levels in the project vicinity. LSA noise specialists conducted ambient noise measurements, provided in Appendix A of Appendix 8, on the project site from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. n December 15, 2014. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 12-1. The measured ambient noise levels at the project site vary between 55.8 and 71.4 dBA in terms of hourly average noise level based generally on the distance from I-15.
LSA used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD 77 108) to evaluate highway traffic-related noise conditions along the roadway segments in the project vicinity. Traffic volumes in the project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) were used to assess the existing traffic noise impacts. Table 12-1 provides the traffic noise levels long the major roads in the project area and roadways adjacent to the project site. These noise levels represent a worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where noise contours are drawn. Traffic noise in the project vicinity is generally a product of the high volume on I-15, with the 70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour extending to approximately 530 feet from the roadway centerline. The 70 dBA CNEL contour from the other adjacent roads, Madison Avenue and Guava Street, fall within the right-of-way of each roadway. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project will generate noise during the construction and operational phases. Please refer to the Noise Study in Appendix 8 for a detailed discussion of the Fundamentals of Noise (Sound, Noise and Acoustics; Frequency and Hertz; Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels; Human Responses to Changes in Noise Levels; Noise Descriptors; Traffic Noise Prediction, and Sound Propagation); Regulatory Setting (Federal Regulations; State; and City of Murrieta Noise Regulations); and Study Methods and Procedures (Traffic Noise Modeling; Interior Noise Modeling; and Construction Noise Modeling). The discussion in this section will focus on the permanent change in noise that will result from implementing the proposed Project.
Future Noise Environment
Future Short-Term Offsite Construction Traffic Impacts
The noise evaluation in Appendix 8 provides an estimate of off-site noise during construction.
According to the noise study there would be relatively high single-event noise exposure, which may cause short term annoyance. However, the effect in long-term ambient noise levels would be less than 1.0 dBA when averaged over a longer period of time such as an hour or eight hours, which is the appropriate measure for roadway noise. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and construction equipment transport and soil import to the project site would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receptors along the access routes.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 68
Table 12-1
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 PH1, ATT 11
CNEL(dBA)
Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 feet from
to 70 CNEL to 65 CNEL to 60 CNEL Centerline of
Roadway Segment ADT (feet) (feet) (feet) Outermost Lane Jefferson Avenue between Los
Alamos Road and Murrieta Hot 13,700 < 50 95 199 66.7
Springs Road
Jefferson Avenue between
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and 19,200 58 117 248 68.2
Guava Street
Jefferson Avenue between 20,200 70 143 306 69.6 Guava Street and Fig Street Madison Avenue between Los
Alamos Road and Murrieta Hot 14,300 < 50 97 204 66.9
Springs Road
Madison Avenue south of 10,600 < 50 81 168 65.6 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Madison Avenue north of Guava 10,600 < 50 51 110 64.4 Street Madison Avenue between Guava 4,000 < 50 < 50 58 60.2 Street and Fig Street Hancock Avenue north of 9,900 < 50 78 161 65.3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Guava Street between Jefferson 2,100 < 50 < 50 <50 57.4 Avenue and Madison Avenue Guava Street between Madison 1,500 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.0 Avenue and Momoe Avenue Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Jefferson Avenue and 15,100 < 50 101 212 67.2
Madison Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Madison Avenue and I- 25,400 77 144 300 68.4
15 Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Between I-15 to Hancock 31,800 85 166 348 69.4
Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Hancock Avenue and I- 38,300 94 186 393 70.2
15 I-15 south of Murrieta Hot 110,000 532 1,135 2,441 80.6 Springs Road1 Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (December 2014).
1. Traffic volume provided by the Caltrans Traffic Census (2013) Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
ADT = average daily traffic CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dB A = A-weighted decibels City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 69
Future Permanent Increase in Off-Site Ambient Noise Levels (Traffic) The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 3,023 weekday and 2,635 weekend average daily trips (ADT). Tables 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4 list the traffic noise levels for the Existing with Project; 2015 without Project, and 2015 with Project scenarios. Future traffic noise levels along Madison Avenue, Guava Street, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, I-15, and other roads in the project vicinity would not be significantly impacted by project-related traffic, with either no measurable change in traffic noise levels, or no significant cumulative traffic noise associated with implementation of the project. Project-related traffic trips would result in up to 1.0 dBA increases along affected roadway segments in the project vicinity. The identified threshold for change in noise is a change of 3 dBA or less, which is not perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment.
Thus, the proposed project would not result in any measurable existing and future noise level increases and is considered less than significant.
Future Onsite Traffic Noise Impacts
Onsite Outdoor Land Uses
The proposed project does not include exterior land uses that would be considered noise-sensitive.
Data in Table 12-4 shows that I-15 is expected to produce a noise level of 70 dBA CNEL at a distance of 532 feet from the centerline. Utilizing a 4.5 dBA CNEL decrease per doubling of distance, the offices closest to I-15 are approximately 320 feet away from the centerline and will experience a noise level of approximately 72.9 dBA CNEL. The proposed commercial use does not contain any outdoor areas that are considered noise sensitive. Therefore, the proposed project will not experience a significant adverse impact from background noise exposure once developed.
Interior Noise Levels
Based on data provided by the Federal EPA, standard buildings in southern California provide at least 12 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation with windows open and 24 dBA with windows closed. The proposed commercial land use is not considered a noise sensitive land use.
Therefore, mitigation measures would not be required. Mechanical ventilation (e.g., an air conditioning system) would be required for offices and meeting rooms inside the building to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time.
Groundborne Noise and Vibration from Vehicular Traffic
Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of heavy trucks and other on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation and reduced noise, it is unusual for on-road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration impact. When on-road vehicles cause effects such as rattling of windows, the source is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on-road vehicle-related noise and vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing a bump or filling a pothole will usually solve the problem. The proposed project would have roads with smooth pavement and would not result in significant groundborne noise or vibration impacts from vehicular traffic.
Construction Noise Impacts
Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 90 dBA Lmax at the closest residential uses to the south of the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near them. Construction noise impacts of the proposed project would be potentially significant and adverse at the nearest sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, mitigation measures would be required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 70
Table 12-2
EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 PH1, ATT 11
~enterlim CNEL(dBA) Increase CNEL
Centerlint Centerlint 50 feet from (dBA) 50 feet
to to to Centerline of from Centerline
70 CNEL 65CNEL 60CNEL Outermost of Outermost
Roadway Segment ADT (feet) (feet) (feet) Lane Lane
Jefferson Avenue between
Los Alamos Road and 13,800 < 50 95 200 66.8 0.1
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Jefferson Avenue between
Murrieta Hot Springs Road 19,200 58 117 248 68.2 0.0
and Guava Street
Jefferson Avenue between 20,400 70 144 308 69.6 0.0 Guava Street and Fig Street Madison Avenue between
Los Alamos Road and 14,500 < 50 98 206 67.0 0.1
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Madison Avenue south of 13,100 < 50 92 193 66.6 1.0 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Madison Avenue north of 13,100 < 50 59 127 65.4 1.0 Guava Street Madison Avenue between 4,000 < 50 < 50 58 60.2 0.0 Guava Street and Fig Street Hancock Avenue north of 9,900 < 50 78 161 65.3 0.0 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Guava Street between
Jefferson Avenue and 2,400 < 50 < 50 < 50 58.0 0.6
Madison Avenue
Guava Street between
Madison Avenue and Momoe 1,500 < 50 < 50 < 50 56.0 0.0
Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Jefferson Avenue 15,300 < 50 101 214 67.2 0.0
and Madison Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Madison Avenue 27,600 80 152 317 68.8 0.4
and I-15
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between I -15 and Hancock 32,600 86 168 353 69.5 0.1
Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Hancock Avenue 39,200 95 189 399 70.3 0.1
and I-15
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (December 2014).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 71
Table 12-3
2015 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT PROJECT
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 PH1, ATT 11
Centerline to Centerline to Centerline to CNEL (dBA) 50 feet 70CNEL 65CNEL 60CNEL from Centerline of
Roadway Segment ADT (feet) (feet) (feet) Outermost Lane Jefferson Avenue between
Los Alamos Road and 14,200 < 50 97 203 66.9
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Jefferson Avenue between
Murrieta Hot Springs Road 21,200 62 125 265 68.6
and Guava Street
Jefferson Avenue between
Guava Street and Fig 21,900 73 151 322 69.9
Street
Madison Avenue between
Los Alamos Road and 15,600 < 50 103 216 67.3
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Madison Avenue south of 15,700 < 50 103 217 67.3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Madison Avenue north of 15,700 < 50 67 143 66.2 Guava Street Madison Avenue between
Guava Street and Fig 18,200 < 50 74 158 66.8
Street
Hancock Avenue north of 12,300 < 50 88 185 66.3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Guava Street between
Jefferson Avenue and 15,400 < 50 66 141 66.1
Madison Avenue
Guava Street between
Madison Avenue and 32,300 < 50 108 232 69.3
Momoe Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Jefferson Avenue 15,900 < 50 104 219 67.4
and Madison Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Madison Avenue 30,200 83 160 336 69.2
and I-15
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between I -15 and Hancock 35,100 90 176 371 69.8
Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Hancock Avenue 42,500 100 199 421 70.6
and I-15
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. (December 2014).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information.
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 72
Table 12-4
2015 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 PH1, ATT 11
CNEL Increase
(dBA) CNEL(dBA)
Centerline Cente.-Iine Centerline 50 feet from 50 feet from to to to Centerline of Centerline of
70CNEL 65CNEL 60CNEL Outermost Outermost
Roadway Segment ADT (feet) (feet) (feet) Lane Lane
Jefferson Avenue between
Los Alamos Road and 14,400 < 50 98 205 67.0 0.1
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Jefferson Avenue between
Murrieta Hot Springs Road 21,200 62 125 265 68.6 0.0
and Guava Street
Jefferson Avenue between 22,100 74 152 324 70.0 0. 1 Guava Street and Fig Street Madison Avenue between
Los Alamos Road and 15,700 < 50 103 217 67.3 0.0
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Madison Avenue south of 18,200 57 113 239 68.0 0.7 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Madison Avenue north of 18,200 < 50 74 158 66.8 0.6 Guava Street Madison Avenue between 18,200 < 50 74 158 66.8 0.0 Guava Street and Fig Street Hancock Avenue north of 12,300 < 50 88 185 66.3 0.0 Murrieta Hot Springs Road Guava Street between
Jefferson Avenue and 15,600 < 50 66 143 66.1 0.0
Madison Avenue
Guava Street between
Madison Avenue and Momoe 32,300 < 50 108 232 69.3 0.0
Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Between Jefferson Avenue 16,100 < 50 105 221 67.4 0.0
and Madison Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Madison Avenue 32,300 86 167 351 69.4 0.2
and 1-15
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between I -15 and Hancock 35,900 91 179 376 69.9 0.1
Avenue
Murrieta Hot Springs Road
between Hancock Avenue 43,400 101 201 427 70.7 0. 1
and 1-15
1-1 5 south of Murrieta Hot 110,000 532 1135 2441 80.6 Springs Road - Source: LSA Assoaates, Inc. (December 2014).
Note: Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline ~ould be evaluated with site-specific information.
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 73
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading and construction activities. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated and, therefore, the noise levels along the project alignment as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 12-5 lists construction noise levels (Lmax) included in the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook (2006), based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor grader, and water and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to reach between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the grading phase. With a combination of equipment the noise level increases by 3 dBA. The worst-case composite noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area.
The closest sensitive receptors to the project construction area are located adjacent to the project site to the south. While the closes residents share a property line with the project site and levels may intermittently exceed 90 dBA Lmax, generally, noise levels would not exceed 90 dBA Lmax when equipment is at least 50 feet distant. Other nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential homes to the south (400 feet), would be exposed to lower noise levels from on-site construction, reaching approximately 72 dBA Lmax. Since the project site is relatively small, construction on the project site would occur over a relatively short period of time. In addition, traffic on I-15 and other roads in the project vicinity would mask the majority of the construction noise from the project site.
Construction of the proposed project would occur only within the permitted hours to comply with the City’s requirements identified in the City’s Municipal Code. Mitigation is provided below to address the construction noise impacts and reduce them to a less than significant impact.
Construction Vibration
Groundborne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate except if pavement breaking or sheet pile vibration occurs on site. Bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment generate approximately 92 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 50 feet, based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). This level of groundborne vibration exceeds the threshold of human perception which is around 65 VDB. Based on the Caltrans Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibration, Technical Advisory (Rudy Hendricks 1992), vibration level at 100 feet is approximately 6 VdB lower than the vibration level at 50 feet.
Vibration at 200 feet from the source is more than6 VdB lower than the vibration level at 100 feet, or more than 12 VdB lower than the vibration level at 50 feet. Therefore, receptors at 100 feet and 200 feet from the construction activity may be exposed to ground borne vibration up to 86 VdB and 80 VdB, respectively. Although this range of groundborne vibration levels would result in potential annoyance at the nearest residences approximately 50 feet from the project site, they would not cause any damage to the buildings. Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities such as those associated with residential home outdoor activity area adjacent to the project site.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 74
Table 12-5, page 1 of 2
RCNM DEFAULT NOISE EMISSION REFERENCE LEVELS AND USAGE FACTORS PH1, ATT 11
Spec. Actual Number of
Acoustical 721.560 Lmax Measured Actual Data
Impact Usage at 50 feet Lmax at 50 feet Samples
Equipment Description Device? Factor (dBA,slow) (dBA, slow) (Count) All other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 NIA 0
Auger Drill Rig No 20 85 84 36
Backhoe No 40 80 78 372
Bar Bender No 20 80 NIA 0
Blasting Yes N/A 94 NIA 0
Boring Jack Power Unit No 50 80 83 1
Chain Saw No 20 85 84 46
Clam Shovel (dropping) Yes 20 93 87 4
Compactor (ground) No 20 80 83 57
Compressor (air) No 40 80 78 18
Concrete Batch Plant No 15 83 NIA 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 85 79 40
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 82 81 30
Concrete Saw No 20 90 90 55
Crane No 16 85 81 405
Dozer No 40 85 82 55
Drill Rig Truck No 20 84 79 22
Drum Mixer No 50 80 80 1
Dump Truck No 40 84 76 31
Excavator No 40 85 81 170
Flat Bed Truck No 40 84 74 4
Front End Loader No 40 80 79 96
Generator No 50 82 81 19
Generator ( < 25 kV A, VMS Signs) No 50 70 73 74
Gradall No 40 85 83 70
Grader No 40 85 NIA 0
Grapple (on backhoe) No 40 85 87 1
Horizontal Boring Hydraulic Jack No 25 80 82 6
Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 NIA 0
Impact Derive Yes 20 95 101 11
Jackhammer Yes 20 85 89 133
Man Lift No 20 85 75 23
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe Yes 20 90 90 212 ram)
Pavement Scarifier No 20 85 90 2
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 75
Table 12-5, page 2 of 2
RCNM DEFAULT NOISE EMISSION REFERENCE LEVELS AND USAGE FACTORS Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 Onsite Operational Noise Impacts
Potential long-term noise impacts would be associated with onsite stationary sources. These activities are potential source of noise that could affect offsite noise-sensitive receptors, such as the residences to the south and to the southeast. Onsite noise-producing activities include slow-moving trucks on the driveways, carwash operations, loading/unloading activities near the service center, and slow-moving vehicles, doors slamming, vehicle engines starting, and people conversing in the parking lots.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 76
As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy (natural atmospheric attenuation); thus, the greater the distance the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level by the receiver. From a stationary source of noise a 6 dBA reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance, such as a car door slam, occurs.
Slow Moving Trucks on Driveways
Large trucks entering and leaving the project site at low speeds on the driveways would result in a maximum noise level of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. This noise level is used for this analysis. The closest residences to the south of the project site are approximately 100 feet from the entry driveway and would be exposed to truck pass-by noise intermittently reaching 62 dBA Lmax. These existing residences are exposed to and would also be exposed to traffic noise on Madison Avenue and I-15. Depending on the number of trucks driving by these residences on the entry driveway, and the times they would occur (during daytime, evening, or nighttime hours), the effects to the 24- hour weighted average CNEL would vary. Based on the City’s Noise Ordinance Requirements (refer to Appendix 8), noise level impacts from delivery trucks would not exceed the daytime maximum noise level standard of 70 dBA Lmax, but would exceed the nighttime maximum noise level standard of 65 dBA Lmax. Based on the calculation for delivery truck activities, which are assumed to occur during early morning hours, it is required that a sound wall with a minimum height of eight feet b construction along the project boundary as shown in Figure 12-2.
Parking Lot Activity Noise
The representative parking lot activities, such as door slamming, engine starting, slow-moving vehicles would generate approximately 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The closest off-site residences to the south and northeast are approximately 200 feet distant from these activities and would be exposed to noise from the project’s parking areas ranging from 48 to 58 dBA Lmax from the center of parking lot activities. With implementation of the eight foot high sound barrier along the project’s southern boundaries, no significant parking lot activity would occur from these residences. Existing residences located to the southwest of the project site are approximately 650 feet from the project’s nearest parking areas. These residences would be potentially exposed to onsite parking lot activity noise intermittently reaching 50 dBA Lmax. Although this is a less than significant impact at these residences, with the implementation of the eight-foot high sound barrier along the project’s southern boundaries, no significant parking lot activity noise would occur for these residences.
Car Wash Activity Noise
The operation of the on-site car wash would generate up to 74 dBA Lmax at 50 feet when the worstcase piece of equipment (dryers) are in operation. The closest off-site residences to the south are approximately 675 feet distant and would be exposed to noise from the project’s car wash approaching 52 dBA Lmax. Due to the proximity of the car wash to I-15, noise levels associated with the traffic noise will generally overshadow car wash activities. Based on the sound level exposure, 52 dBA Lmax, the noise exposure from this activity is a less than significant impact assuming the car wash activities are limited to standard work hours, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Public Address System
According to the project applicant, the CarMax facility will not routinely operate a public address (PA) system at the project site. A “voice down system” is maintained at the facility in order to warn trespassers at night to vacate the premises. Use of this system is reactive, not routine, and would occur only randomly in response to circumstances. Due to the non-routine nature of this activity, the potential for adverse noise impact from use of the PA system is considered a less than significant impact.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 77
b. Less Than Significant Impact – The analysis of groundborne vibration and noise (Appendix 8, summarized in the preceding text) indicated that significant impact would not occur during construction or operations. No mitigation is required to address this issue. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Refer to the discussion under 12.a above.
The detailed analysis in this subsection and in Appendix 8 demonstrate that with limited mitigation the permanent noise effects on the proposed project and to surrounding sensitive uses can be controlled to a less than significant impact. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 12-1 The developer shall install a sound barrier with a minimum height of 8 feet along the project southern boundary as shown on Figure 12-2. Alternatively, the developer may coordinate mitigation sufficient to meet the requirements of following performance standard, as long as it can be demonstrated that the solution will not cause the background noise level of approximately 70 dBA CNEL to be increased more than one decibel at the residence. The final sound attenuation design selected shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 12-2 The developer shall incorporate sound attenuation at the office facilities onsite that may include an air conditioning system or a system of baffles to reduce noise in buildings that are directly exposed to I-15 noise. 12-3 The developer shall require large deliver trucks arriving after 7 p.m. and before 6 a.m. to utilize the roadway along the northern property boundary and park in the parking lot adjacent to I-15 before unloading cargo during daylight hours.
Implementation of these measures can reduce potentially significant operational noise impacts to a less than significant impact level.
d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Refer to the discussion under 12.a above.
The detailed analysis in this subsection and in Appendix 8 demonstrate that with mitigation the temporary construction noise effects due to this residential development can be controlled to a less than significant impact. The following measures shall be implemented. 12-4 CarMax shall use noise reducing barriers and other devices to reduce exterior noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor to 70 CNEL or less during the day-time construction hours. This shall include installation of a temporary construction barrier between the construction activities and the nearest sensitive noise receptors, during those periods when possible noise exposure will cause the 70 CNEL background threshold to be exceeded. 12-5 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 7 pm through 7 am, Monday through Saturday and at no time shall construction activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists. 12-6 Stationary construction equipment that generates noise shall be placed behind a 12 foot temporary construction barrier if located within 400 feet of sensitive noise receptors.
12-7 CarMax shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 70 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the applicant will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 78
of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. 12-8 CarMax will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities.
12-9 Equipment not in use for two minutes shall be shut off. 12-10 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.
12-11 Where available, electric-powered equipment shall be used rather than diesel equipment and hydraulic-powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic power.
12-12 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measures, including no unnecessary revving of equipment.
12-13 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.
12-14 Public notice shall be given prior to initiating construction by installing a sign on the project site. This notice shall identify the dates of construction and the name and phone number of a construction supervisor (contact person) in case of complaints. One contact person shall be assigned to the project. The public notice shall encourage the adjacent residents to contact the supervisor in the case of a complaint. Resident’s would be informed if there is a change in the construction schedule. The supervisor shall be available 24/7 throughout construction by mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contact person shall take all actions to remove the sound source causing the complaint. 12-15 In the event that a noise complaint cannot be resolved, CarMax shall provide the option of relocating the complainant until the source of the noise causing the complaint is no longer occurring at the project site.
Implementation of these measures can reduce potentially significant construction noise impacts to a less than significant impact level.
e&f. No Impact ‒ According to page 5.7-17 (Noise of the GP EIR), there is one source of air traffic affecting noise levels within the City of Murrieta; the French Valley Airport, located outside the City’s sphere of influence. Aircraft flyovers are heard occasionally in the City; however, the aircraft do not contribute a significant amount of routine noise heard in the City. Based on this information, the Project site is not 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 or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 79
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the
project:
a) 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)? (1,3,6,8,44,45)
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (1,3,6,8,44,45)
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (1,3,6,8,44,45)
X
Substantiation
a. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project will create between 200 and 225 new full time jobs for the project area and up to 400 full land part time jobs over a 24 hour period.
Implementation of the proposed project will remove one unoccupied (abandoned) residence. It is unknown whether the new employees will be drawn from the general area or will bring new residents to the project area. Relative to the total number residents of Murrieta, approximately 105,000, an increase of about 200 new residents represents a minor increase in the area population. According to the Table 5.2-3, Population Estimates and Projections of the GP EIR (p.
5.2-4), Murrieta is projected to have a population of 127,962 persons at buildout. The project area has sufficient housing inventory to accommodate a population increase of 200-225 persons. Thus based on the type of project (commercial business) and the small increment of potential population the population generation associated with project implementation, the proposed project will not induce substantial population growth that exceeds either local or regional projections. b&c. No Impact – No occupied residences homes are located on the project site; therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur; therefore, no mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 80
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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? (3,6,12,20,44,45) X
b) Police protection? (3,6,8,15.44,45) X
c) Schools? (3,6,8,21,44,45,51) X
d) Recreation/Parks? (3,6,8,14,44,45) X
e) Other public facilities? (3,6,8,11,16,44,45) X
Substantiation
a. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project site is served by the City of Murrieta Fire Department. The closest station to the proposed project site is Station No. 1 located at 41825 Juniper Street about two miles distant and Station No. 3 located on Whitewood Road, about the same distance from the project site as the Juniper station. According to the City General Plan EIR, fire protection for the City at buildout should be feasible based on the existing fire stations, with perhaps some additional equipment.
The General Plan EIR finding is based on continuing to be able to meet 90% of urban calls within a 6.5 minute target response time. The project site is clearly within a distance (approximately two miles) where any future calls can be responded to within 6.5 minutes. Further the City Fire Department has reviewed this project and ensured that adequate fire flow will occur at the project site (no high rise structures are proposed by the proposed project); after development the project site will have adequate access (better than at present); and adequate hydrants to meet fire protection demand. Further, the project site is located just north (outside) of the designated wildland fire hazard area south of Guava and the fuel load on this undeveloped property is relatively low.
The proposed Project will incrementally add to the existing demand for fire protection services.
Cumulative impacts are mitigated through the payment of the Development Impact Fee (DIF), which contains a Fire Facilities component. There is no identified near term need to expand facilities in a manner that could have adverse impacts on the environment. The estimated Fire Protection DIF for this project is $37,445. Operational expenses are covered by the City’s General Fund and the proposed project will contribute both sales taxes and property taxes to the general fund to offset this incremental demand for fire protection services. Any impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would have law enforcement services available from the City of Murrieta Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. According to the City General Plan EIR, law enforcement protection for the City at buildout should be feasible based on PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 81
incremental expansion of the number of officers, with perhaps some additional office space at the police station at One Town Square. The project site is located within existing patrol routes and future calls can be responded to within the identified priority call target response times. The City seeks to respond to Priority 1 calls within six minutes; Priority 2 calls with 15 minutes and Priority 3 calls within 35 minutes. The City performs slightly below the objectives, but not by much. The City Police Department has reviewed this project and ensured that the onsite design measure meet the goals of the General Plan Safety Element goals.
The proposed project will incrementally add to the existing demand for police protection services.
These incremental impacts are mitigated through the payment of the DIF, which contains a Law Enforcement component (estimated to be $21,531. Operational expenses are covered by City’s General Fund. The Project will contribute property and sales taxes to the general fund to offset this incremental demand for police protection services. Any impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.
c. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is a commercial development that is not forecast to generate any new direct demand for the area schools. The proposed project may place additional demand on school facilities, but such demand would be indirect and speculative. The Murrieta Valley Unified School District currently requires a mitigation payment per square foot of commercial development. The development impact fee mitigation program of the MVUSD adequately provides for mitigating the impacts of the proposed project in accordance with current state law. No other mitigation is identified or needed. Since this is a mandatory requirement, no additional mitigation measures are required to reduce school impacts of the proposed project to a nonsignificant level of impact.
d. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project will not directly add to the existing demand on local recreational facilities. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the proposed Project will be required to pay the City’s current DIF for open space acquisition and implementation of the MSHCP.
Combined fees are estimated to be $269,000. With a projected minimal demand on recreation facilities and payment of the DIF, which is considered a standard condition, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact to parks and recreation facilities. e. Less Than Significant Impact – No impact to other public service demands have been identified in conjunction with the proposed project. Therefore, any impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 82
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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 accelerated? (2,3,6,44,45)
X
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?
(2,3,6,44,45)
X
Substantiation
a&b. No Impact – Implementation of the proposed Project has no potential to 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; and, may require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
The proposal includes deleting from the Master Plan of Bikeways in the Murrieta General Plan 2035 two designated bike lanes. The bike lanes are proposed within the two streets proposed to be deleted from City's Circulation Map. The deletion of the bike lanes is not anticipated on having an impact because the project involves the removal of public access via public roads for the project site and the removal of the bike lanes do not effect access to any of the surrounding designated and planned for bike lanes. Therefore, based on the project not creating a demand for new recreational facilities and the project site (with the deletion of the bike lanes from the Master Plan of Bikeways) does not contain nor is planned for recreational facilities, the project will not have an impact on recreational facilities or resources. With no demand for recreational facilities or resources, no mitigation is required. However, by removing Monroe Avenue and the unnamed eastwest street it connects to, the bike trails on these two roadways will also be eliminated and the Bike Trails will be removed concurrently from the General Plan Circulation Element.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 83
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC: Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit? (1,9,13,32,44,45,63)
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (1,9,13,32,44,
45,63)
X
c) 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? (1,9,13,32,44,45,63)
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (1,9,13,32,44,45,63) X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(1,9,13,32,44,45,63)
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
(1,9,13,32,44,45,63)
X
Substantiation: The CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center #6002 Murrieta, California Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015 (TIA) was utilized for the following analysis. This technical study is provided as Appendix 9 to this document.
Background
The TIA identifies the traffic impacts and presents recommendations for access and traffic mitigation for the proposed CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center #6002 located near the northeast corner of Madison Avenue and Guava Street in the City of Murrieta; Riverside County. The proposed project is comprised of a 92,600 square-foot facility, on an approximate 38.67 acre site. The site will be accessible PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 84
from two driveways on Madison Avenue. Figure 16-1 illustrates the vicinity map and project location and Figure 16-2 illustrates the proposed project site plan, including the two access driveways off of Madison.
The intent of the TIA is to address the impacts and mitigations required for the proposed development.
This report identifies five (5) scenarios necessary to address project specific mitigations. The scenarios include an Existing Condition, Existing + Project Condition, Background Condition (Existing + Ambient, without project), Project Completion (Existing + Ambient + Project), and Cumulative Condition (Existing + Ambient + Project + Cumulative).
The proposed Project is anticipated to be constructed by Project Year/Buildout 2016. To accommodate the proposed project layout, the “No Name” roadway and a portion of Monroe Avenue (extending from Guava Street to “No Name” roadway) will need to be removed from the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map as an Industrial Collector.
The roadways that may be impacted are described on page 4 of the TIA, Appendix 9. The project proposes to construct two driveways on Madison Avenue, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 12-2. Nine existing intersections within the study area have been identified that may potentially be impacted by the project. Additionally, two future intersections within the study area have been identified that may potentially be impacted by the project. The intersections denoted with an asterisk (*) are future intersections analyzed under project conditions. The intersections are;
1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps
2. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps
3. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue
4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps
5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps
6. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue
7. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue
8. Guava Street and Jefferson Avenue
9. Guava Street and Madison Avenue
10. Madison Avenue and Project Driveway #2*
11. Madison Avenue and Project Driveway #1*
Currently, the intersections of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue, and Guava Street and Jefferson Avenue are signalized. The intersection of Guava Street and Madison Avenue Street operates as a four way stop.
Two roadway segments within the study area have been identified that may potentially be impacted by the project. The Madison Avenue roadway segment is subdivided into 1A and 1B based on the roadway characteristics. The roadway segments are;
1A. Madison Avenue between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Wal-Mart Driveway #3 1B. Madison Avenue between WalMart Driveway #3 and Guava Street
2. Guava Street between Madison Avenue and Monroe Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 12-3 illustrates the existing peak hour traffic volumes in the study area. The traffic volume data used in the following intersectional analysis were based on traffic counts conducted by Newport Traffic Studies, an independent traffic data collection company. Turn movement counts were collected during the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak periods at the above-mentioned existing intersections identified for PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 85
detailed analysis. These counts were conducted in November 2014. The resulting turning movement volumes are presented in Appendix D of the TIA, Appendix 9.
Refer to pages 7 and 8 of Appendix 9 for a detailed discussion of the method of conducting intersection capacity analysis. Fundamentally, roadways intersections are evaluated using levels of service (LOS).
LOS ranges between “A” (minimal delay) to “F” (substantial delay). The City maintains the following peak hour intersection LOS: the general standard is LOS D and at ramp intersections the standard is LOS E.
Roadway segment analysis is based on the volume of average daily two-way traffic volume (ADT) and the City’s roadway segment LOS is C.
The existing condition traffic analysis determined that all study intersections are presently operating at LOS D or better and the ramp intersection are operating at LOS E or better. Also, all existing roadway segment daily volumes are operating at LOS C or better. Refer to Tables 4 and 5 of Appendix 9.
Project Trip Generation
The project was analyzed to determine the amount of traffic that would be generated from the proposed development. To identify potential traffic impacts from the project, trip generation factors were applied to the type of use to generate project traffic estimates. The Trip Generation Study - CarMax Auto Superstore/ Reconditioning Center, dated October 2014 was referenced. The Trip Generation Study provided a methodology for trip making characteristics of the CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center in Laurel, Maryland, which consists of a pre-owned sales and service dealership including a Reconditioning Facility, an Auction Area, and Car Wash.
As presented in Table 16-1, trips are provided as Auto Trips, Truck Trips, Total Trips, and ESAL Trips generated as a factor of the total site 38.67 acres. The percentages used for the Auto Trips, Truck Trips, and Total Trips are values obtained from the Trip Generation Study - CarMax Auto Superstore/ Reconditioning Center, October 2014. The Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) Trips are calculated with an ESAL factor of 2.0.
Table 16-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Use Weekday
Daily
Weekend
Daily
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
1 CarMax Auto Superstore /
Reconditioning Center
Auto Trips Per Acre 73.04 63.56 4.87 0.85 5.72 2.52 3.76 6.28 Truck Trips Per Acre 4.66 4.18 0.22 0.09 0.30 0.11 0.24 0.35 Total Trips Per Acre 77.70 67.75 5.09 0.93 6.02 2.63 4.00 6.63
38.67 Acres 3023 2635 198 36 234 102 156 258
Auto Trips 2,841 2,473 189 33 222 98 146 244
Truck Trips 181 163 8 3 12 4 9 14
Total Trips 3,023 2,635 198 36 234 102 156 258
PCE Trips 3,204 2,798 206 40 246 107 165 271
Source: Trip Generation Study - CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center, October 2014 As presented in Table 16-1, it is estimated that the project will generate a total of 3,204 PCE weekday daily trips and 2,798 PCE weekend daily trips, with 246 PCE trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 271 PCE trips during the weekday PM peak hour.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 86
Project Trip Distribution
To address the impacts of the estimated project traffic, the trips were distributed and assigned to the surrounding streets and study intersections. The project traffic was distributed based on the anticipated project utilization. Once the distribution pattern was established, project trips were assigned to the area streets that serve the project.
Figure 16-3 illustrates the general and specific estimated distribution pattern for the primary and pass-by project trips. Figure 16-4 illustrates the estimated AM and PM peak hours for the PCE project traffic volumes. The project traffic was added to the existing traffic volume to assess the impacts generated.
Existing Plus Project Condition
Based on the proposed traffic distribution, assignment patterns and project trip generation, intersection capacity analyses were conducted to assess the estimated project impacts. To determine the project impacts at the study intersection and driveways, project trips were added to the Existing Condition volumes to produce the Existing plus Project Condition volumes. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 16-2 and provided in Appendix D of Appendix 9.
Table 16-2
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ‒ EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITION Intersection AM PM
Delay (1) LOS(2) Delay (1) LOS(2)
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps 11.2 B 7.6 A 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps 31.6 C 11.8 B 3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue 11.8 B 14.6 B 4 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps 13.2 B 24.7 C 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps 22.4 C 19.2 B 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue 46.7 D 51.5 D Mitigations Modify Intersection Striping 45.4 D 45.8 D
7 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue 22.1 C 33.0 C 8 Guava Street and Jefferson Avenue 9.9 A 11.3 B
9 Guava Street and Madison Avenue (3) 8.3 A 9.4 A
10 Guava Street and Project Driveway #2 (3) 10.3 B 11.0 B 11 Guava Street and Project Driveway #1 (3) 9.0 A 11.0 B (1) Delay –In Seconds
(2) LOS – HCM Level of Service
(3) Un-Signalized Intersection
Source: Hall & Foreman Inc.
As presented in Table 16-2 under Existing plus Project Condition, all of the study intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS “D” or better and ramp intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “E” or better.
The Project Specific Mitigation at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue proposes extending the existing northbound right turn lane and converting a through lane to a shared through-right turn lane.
With the proposed mitigation the intersection is anticipated to continue to operate at LOS D.
Roadway Segment analyses for the Existing plus Project Condition was performed using the methodology presented in Appendix 9. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 16-3 and provided in Appendix E of Appendix 9.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 87
Table 16-3
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ‒ EXISTING + PROJECT CONDITION
Roadway Segment
No. Of
Existing
Lanes
Arterial
Classification
Two-Way Traffic
Volume (ADT)
Service Level E
Daily
Leg
Volume
V/C Service
Level
1A
Madison Avenue
4 Major Arterial 34,100 15,000 0.44 * between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and WalMart Driveway #3
1B
Madison Avenue
2 Major Arterial 34,100 3,700 0.11 * between Wal-Mart
Driveway #3 and Guava
Street
2 Guava Street
2 Secondary
Highway between Madison Avenue 25,900 1,700 0.07 *
and Monroe Avenue
(*)The Roadway Segment has a daily volume lower than the Service Level C threshold.
Source: Hall & Foreman Inc.
As provided in Table 16-3 under Existing + Project Condition, all the roadway segments daily volumes are anticipated to continue to be lower than the Service Level C threshold.
Area Growth: Background Condition
To analyze the project impacts, the inclusion of ambient traffic within the study area is necessary.
Typically, regional and local growth is expected over the years at rates ranging from 1% to 2% compounded annually. The regional and local growth is based on the existing traffic volumes, an annual 2% increase up to Project Year/Buildout 2016. This growth is known as background traffic. The analysis of background traffic allows a comparison of traffic impacts with and without the project applying the growth to the existing turn movement volumes.
To determine the impacts of the project to the study intersection, anticipated regional growth and other area project trips were added to existing condition volumes to produce the Background Condition volumes. The analysis was conducted with the existing intersection geometrics. Intersection capacity analysis for the Background Condition was performed using the methodology presented in Appendix 9.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 16-4 and provided in Appendix D of Appendix 9.
Table 16-4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ‒ BACKGROUND CONDITION
Intersection AM PM
Delay (1) LOS(2) Delay (1) LOS(2)
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps 11.5 B 7.6 A 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps 31.8 C 12.3 B 3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue 12.0 B 15.4 B 4 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps 13.1 B 19.9 B 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps 22.1 C 19.8 B 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue 44.3 D 46.9 D 7 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue 21.9 C 33.4 C 8 Guava Street and Jefferson Avenue 11.1 B 12.3 B
9 Guava Street and Madison Avenue (3) 8.5 A 9.8 A
(1) Delay –In Seconds
(2) LOS – HCM Level of Service
(3) Un-Signalized Intersection
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 88
Source: Hall & Foreman Inc.
As provided in Table 16-4 under Background Condition, the study intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “D” or better and ramp intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “E” or better. As summarized in Table 10 of Appendix 9 under Background Condition, all roadway segment daily volumes are forecast to continue to be lower than the Service Level C threshold.
Project Completion Traffic Analysis
Based on the proposed traffic distribution, assignment patterns and project trip generation, intersection capacity analyses were conducted to assess the estimated project impacts. To determine the project impacts at the study intersection and driveways, project trips were added to the Background Condition volumes to produce the Project Condition volumes. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 16-5 and provided in Appendix D of this report.
Table 16-5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ‒ PROJECT COMPLETION
Intersection AM PM
Delay (1) LOS(2) Delay (1) LOS(2)
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps 11.5 B 7.9 A 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps 31.9 C 12.3 B 3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue 12.0 B 15.5 B 4 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps 13.6 B 26.2 C 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps 22.4 C 19.9 B 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue 47.3 D 52.0 D Mitigations Modify Intersection Striping 45.9 D 46.4 D
7 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue 22.1 C 33.9 C 8 Guava Street and Jefferson Avenue 11.2 B 12.6 B
9 Guava Street and Madison Avenue (3) 8.7 A 9.9 A
10 Guava Street and Project Driveway #2 (3) 10.4 B 11.1 B 11 Guava Street and Project Driveway #1 (3) 9.0 A 11.0 B (1) Delay –In Seconds
(2) LOS – HCM Level of Service
(3) Un-Signalized Intersection
Source: Hall & Foreman Inc.
As presented in Table 16-5 under Project Completion, the study intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “D” or better and ramp intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “E” or better, with mitigation. As summarized in Table 12 of Appendix 9 under Project Completion, all roadway segment daily volumes are forecast to continue to be lower than the Service Level C threshold.
Cumulative Growth
To analyze the cumulative impacts, the inclusion of traffic generated by other projects within the study area is necessary. The Other Area projects include approved projects that were recently constructed or are anticipated to be constructed by Project Completion. The approved recently constructed or to be constructed Other Area projects are provided Table 13 of Appendix 9. The project list was provided by the City of Murrieta. The list includes other area projects that do not provide trips to the proposed study intersections, these other area projects are noted with the asterisk (*).
Cumulative Condition Traffic Analysis
Intersection capacity analysis for the Cumulative Condition was performed using the methodology presented in Chapter 2 of Appendix 9. The analysis was conducted with the Cumulative Condition traffic PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 89
volumes and intersection geometrics from project completion and cumulative projects conditions. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 16-6.
Table 16-6
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ‒ CUMULATIVE CONDITION
Intersection AM PM
Delay (1) LOS(2) Delay (1) LOS(2)
1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Northbound Ramps 12.0 B 8.3 A 2 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-215 Freeway Southbound Ramps 32.3 C 13.2 B 3 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue 35.0 D 25.6 C 4 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Northbound Ramps 15.4 B 33.2 C 5 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and I-15 Freeway Southbound Ramps 24.1 C 20.9 C 6 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue 73.1 E 97.3 F Mitigations Modify Intersection Striping 50.8 D 51.0 D
7 Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue 22.3 C 34.1 C 8 Guava Street and Jefferson Avenue 12.3 B 13.7 B
9 Guava Street and Madison Avenue (3) 11.3 B 16.8 C
10 Guava Street and Project Driveway #2 (3) 11.8 B 14.4 B 11 Guava Street and Project Driveway #1 (3) 9.4 A 13.9 B (1) Delay –In Seconds
(2) LOS – HCM Level of Service
(3) Un-Signalized Intersection
Source: Hall & Foreman Inc.
As presented in Table 16-6 under Cumulative Condition, the study intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “D” or better with mitigation and ramp intersections are anticipated to continue operate at LOS “E” or better. As summarized in Table 15 of Appendix 9 under Cumulative Condition, all roadway segment daily volumes are forecast to continue to be lower than the Service Level C threshold.
General Plan Update
The City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 Circulation Map is provided in the Chapter 5 Circulation Element of the General Plan Update.
Madison Avenue is identified as major on the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map. A major roadway provides 76’ curb to curb and 100’ right of way (ROW). Guava Road between Madison Avenue and Monroe Avenue is identified as secondary on the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map. A secondary roadway provides 64’ curb to curb and 88’ right of way (ROW). Monroe Avenue (between Guava Street and “No Name” roadway) and No Name” Roadway (between Madison Avenue and Monroe Avenue) are identified as an industrial collector on the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map. An industrial collector roadway provides 56’ curb to curb and 78’ right of way (ROW). On the General Plan 2035 Trails and Bikeways Map Monroe Avenue and No Name” Roadway are proposed to provide Class II Striped Bike Lanes.
“No Name” roadway as currently identified on the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map, extends the length of the project from Madison Avenue to Monroe Avenue. Monroe Avenue as currently identified on the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map, extends from Guava to “No Name” roadway. Thus, all that would be generated and distributed along these two segments would be a direct result of the underlying land use parcel. No additional traffic would be diverted.
To accommodate the proposed project layout, the “No Name” roadway and a portion of Monroe Avenue (extending from Guava Street to “No Name” roadway) will need to be removed from the General Plan 2035 Circulation Map, as will the accompanying bike trails. The identification of “No Name” roadway and PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 90
Monroe Avenue (extending from Guava to “No Name” roadway) as proposed Class II Striped Bike Lanes will also need to be removed from the General Plan 2035 Trails and Bikeways Map. the affected area is illustrated in Figure 16-5 in the General Plan 2035 Circulation Element.
Roadway Segment analyses for the General Plan Update was performed using the methodology presented in the General Plan 2035 Update, Chapter 5 Circulation Element, provided in the appendix to the report. As provided in Table 16-7 under General Plan Update, the roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS “A” with the added volume from “No Name” Street. The roadway segment analysis confirms that the additional volume from the removal of “No Name” Street will not impact the Madison Avenue or Guava Street roadway segments.
Table 16-7
ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS ‒ GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Roadway Links Arterial
Classification
Maximum Two-Way
Traffic Volume (ADT)
LOS E
Daily
Leg
Volume
V/C LOS
1 Madison Avenue between “No Name”
Street
and Guava Street
Major 34,100 16,900 0.50 A
2 Guava Street between Madison Avenue
and Monroe Avenue Secondary 25,900 5,600 0.22 A
(1) V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio
(2) LOS – HCM Level of Service
Source: Hall & Foreman Inc.
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated – Implementation of the Project will cause an increase in traffic in the project area. The project-specific TIA (referenced above) was prepared to evaluate the proposed Project from a traffic circulation impact standpoint. The TIA concluded that the proposed Project could cause a potentially significant impact at the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue and that cumulative traffic (including the project) would cause one additional intersection to experience a potentially significant impact. Mitigation provided below can reduce this impact to a less than significant impact level.
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to assure that any traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project will remain less than significant:
16-1 The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue proposed mitigations include extending the northbound right turn lane and restriping a through lane to a shared through-right turn lane. The eastbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a shared through right turn lane. The westbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane. The northbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, a shared through-right turn lane, and right turn lane. The southbound direction will provide will provide two left turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through right turn lane.
16-2 The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue proposed mitigations include the addition of the northbound approach, an eastbound right turn lane, dual westbound left turn lanes, and restriping of a southbound right turn lane to a through lane. The eastbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a shared through right turn lane. The westbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane. The northbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 91
through lane, and right turn lane. The southbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, and right turn lane. The construction of the recommended traffic mitigation would be the responsibility of the identified approved projects.
c. No Impact – The project is not located under any existing established pattern of aircraft operations related to any airport. The nearest airport is French Valley Airport located approximately four miles to the northeast. No adverse impact to airport operations or from a pattern overflights can result from implementing the proposed project.
d. Less Than Significant Impact – The project use is consistent with the evolving commercial and business uses in the South Murrieta Business Corridor. The proposed project will be installing roads in accordance with the General Plan Circulation Element and these new roads will conform with the design requirements for each roadway, Madison and Guava. Monroe and the no name road on the project site will be eliminated north of the intersection of Monroe and Guava with no adverse impacted based on the findings of the TIA summarized above. Thus, even though the proposed project will be constructing new roadways, the potential impact will be to eliminate local hazards, not increase them. The proposed project’s impact under this issue is considered a less than significant impact.
e. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The City Fire and Police Departments require adequate emergency access to the site including sufficient turning radii to accommodate fire engines and trucks. The new roadways are designed to provide adequate access after installed.
The proposed site plan provides adequate access points to the project off of Madison for routine and emergency uses and overall access will be enhanced to meet future operational requirements.
During construction adequate emergency access and control of construction hazards must be accomplished by implementing a short-term traffic management plan that ensures safe, albeit, slower traffic flow on the adjacent streets. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to address this potentially significant impact.
16-3 The construction contractor will time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic (6-8 am and 4-6 pm) and so as to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site.
16-4 The construction contractor will provide adequate traffic management resources as determined by the City, such as protective devices, flag persons or police assistance for traffic control, to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times.
16-5 The above measures will be incorporated into a Transportation Management Plan to be prepared as part of construction specifications and approved by the City prior to construction.
16-6 All roadway construction effects shall be repaired and returned to operation in a condition comparable to that which existed prior to initiating construction.
The City shall verify the acceptability of all temporary and permanent roadway repairs.
Implementation of these measures is sufficient to ensure that short-term construction emergency access constraints and hazards created by construction activities are controlled to a less than significant impact level.
f. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed project will not conflict with policies or programs for alternative transportation requirements. RTA bus service is available to the project PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 92
site through RTA routes 202 and 206. According to the General Plan (Figure 5.4-10), the current terminus for these routes is the project site. Also, both Madison and Guava are scheduled to incorporate a Class II bike lane within their alignments, so both pedestrian and bicycle access will be available to the project site. Refer to Figure 5.4-11 of the General Plan EIR. No significant adverse impacts to these alternative modes of transportation will occur and overall bus and bicycle access should be enhanced by the proposed roadway improvements on adjacent roadways. The proposed project’s impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 93
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (1,9,23,44,45,47,48)
X
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? (1,9,23,44,45,47,48)
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (1,9,23,
44,45,47,48)
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (1,9,23,44,45,47,48)
X
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? (1,9,23,44,
45,47,48)
X
f) Be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs? (1,9,23,44,45,47,48)
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (1,9,23,
44,45,47,48)
X
Substantiation
a. Less Than Significant Impact – There are two sources of water that the proposed project will generate that could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). The surface runoff from the site, nonpoint source storm water runoff, will be managed in accordance with the WQMP discussed in detail in Section 9 of this Initial Study. By providing treatment of the storm water before discharge (during both construction and operation), the proposed project will not violate any requirements imposed by the Regional Board through its MS4 permit.
The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be collected by Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and delivered through Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) sewers to PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 94
EMWD’s Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Treated effluent at the District’s Reclamation Facility meets discharge requirements established by the Regional Board. No other sources of wastewater will be produced by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project has a less than significant potential to exceed or violate any wastewater treatment requirements. b,d
&e. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ Implementation of the proposed project will result in a need for additional utilities and service systems that could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service levels or other performance objectives for any of the utilities and service systems including but not limited to those discussed below.
WMWD will provide water and sewer service for the Project and EMWD will transport wastewater to its regional treatment plant in Temecula. Potable water consumption is estimated to be about 1,250 gallons per acre, or 46,250 gallons per day for the proposed project. Most water will be used for landscape irrigation and the carwash, even though the carwash will utilize water reclaim tanks for the carwash. The project will also use low flow plumbing fixtures (faucets, toilets and urinals) and will monitor water use on the property. Through the payment of water standby charges, hookup and connection fees, the impact of implementing the proposed Project on water systems is forecast to be less than significant. A review of the WMWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2011) documents the water availability for this project and the whole WMWD service area, when the water shortage contingency plan and demand management measures are taken into account.
Based on these substantiating data, provision of domestic water supply can be accomplished without causing significant impacts on the existing water system or existing entitlements. The conclusion is based on the assurances of MWD that it would be able to supply member agency demands, the reliability of local groundwater supplies achieved through groundwater management plans and the development of recycled water resources.
The Project is not subject to Senate Bill 221 requirements because it is not a commercial development of more than 500,000 square feet, and it will not increase the number of water service connections by 10 percent or more in a district with fewer than 5,000 service connections. This Project is not subject to Senate Bill 610 because it is not a large-scale development. Other than mandatory fees and installation of onsite utility infrastructure, specific mitigation is proposed below to address water demand by the project.
According to the GP EIR (p. 5.16-8), individual developments are reviewed by the City of Murrieta and the applicable water district to determine if sufficient sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development. The City coordinates with the water districts to make sure that new development does not exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, and that new development pays its fair share to increase capacity of those facilities. The proposed General Plan 2035 includes goals and policies in the Infrastructure Element that support coordination with the water districts. The applicable water district would charge fees for the privilege of connecting to their sewerage systems or increasing the strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. The fees are required to construct new sewer infrastructure and/or incremental expansions to the existing sewerage system to accommodate individual development, which would mitigate the impact of the development on the sewerage system.
According to the EMWD website this facility currently has typical daily wastewater flows of 12 million gallons per day (MGD). The plant’s capacity is 18 MGD. The project’s estimated 0.02 MGD generation of wastewater would consume far less than one percent of the remaining capacity.
This consumption of capacity will not cause the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities.
Thus, the proposed project will consume some capacity of the existing Water Reclamation Facility, but the level of adverse impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 95
17-1 If recycled water becomes available at the project site, CarMax shall connect to this system and utilize recycled water for landscape irrigation and, if feasible, for the car wash.
17-2 CarMax shall minimize conventional turf from landscaping and utilize only drought tolerant plants and xeroscaping in its landscape plan. Where feasible, drip irrigation shall be incorporated into the watering system along with a smart irrigation control system. All plumbing fixtures shall meet federal Environmental Protection Agency high efficiency standards, i.e., 15% below current Title 24 standards. The car wash shall utilize the most efficient water recovery system commercially available.
c. Less Than Significant Impact – Please refer to the discussion under Section 9 of this Initial Study.
The project design incorporates drainage design measures to capture the additional increment of storm water runoff generated by the proposed project development. As a result, no offsite drainage system facilities will need to be expanded that could cause indirect significant adverse impacts. f&g. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ The proposed project will generate demand for solid waste service system capacity and has a potential to contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand impacts on the solid waste system. According to CalRecycle the proposed project will generate about 5 lbs/1,000 square feet of solid waste. With approximately 94,000 square feet of buildings, this equates to 470 lbs of solid waste per day, or after an assumed 50% diversion to recycled markets, waste will be about 235 lbs per day. This equates to about 86,000 pounds or 43 tons per year. Solid waste capacity has been expanded to provide adequate disposal capacity for cumulative demand over at least the next five years. Combined with the City’s mandatory source reduction and recycling program, the proposed Project is not forecast to cause a significant adverse impact to the waste disposal system.
According to the Integrated Waste Management Board Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Profile for City of Murrieta, the following disposal facilities were used by the City of Murrieta in 2005 (the most recent year for which data was found): Bakersfield Sanitary Landfill (Kern), Badlands Disposal Site (Riverside), Colton Refuse Disposal Site (San Bernardino), El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill (Riverside), Fontana Refuse Disposal Site (San Bernardino), Lamb Canyon Disposal Site (Riverside), and Puente Hills Landfill #6 (Los Angeles). More than 50% of waste produced within Riverside County is also disposed of within the County. Descriptions of the primary disposal facilities and their capacity are summarized below.
El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill is located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road east of Interstate 15 in the Gavilan Hills. According to the State of California’s Solid Waste Information System, the landfill is active and permitted with a projected closure date of January 1, 2030. The site is currently permitted to a capacity of 184,930,000 cubic yards with a remaining capacity of 118,573,540 cubic yards and permitted throughput of 10,000 tons per day.
Badlands disposal site is located at 31125 Ironwood Ave, Moreno Valley 92373. According to the State of California’s Solid Waste Information System, the landfill is active and permitted with a projected closure date of January 1, 2016. The site is currently permitted to a capacity of 30,386,332 cubic yards with a remaining capacity of 21,866,092 cubic yards and permitted throughput of 4,000 tons per day.
Lamb Canyon disposal site is located on Lamb Canyon Road three miles south of Beaumont 92223. According to the State of California’s Solid Waste Information System, the landfill is active and permitted with a projected closure date of January 1, 2023. The site is currently permitted to a capacity of 34,292,000 cubic yards with a remaining capacity of 20,908,171 cubic yards and permitted throughput of 3,000 tons per day.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 96
Several of the referenced landfills will either be closed or permitted to contain greater volumes of waste in the near future. The proposed development will generate wastes, such as used oil, other than typical commercial municipal solid waste. All of these special wastes will be sold or disposed of to specialty waste handling systems which already exist. No mitigation is required.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 97
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
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?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Substantiation
The Initial Study review of the proposed CarMax project did not identify any unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts from implementing the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, noise/vibration, transportation/circulation and utilities to a less than significant level.
a-c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation ‒ The proposed project does not 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. Mitigation is required to ensure significant adverse biology and cultural resources do not experience significant adverse impacts.
The proposed project does have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
These cumulative impacts were also found to be less than significant after application of mitigation.
The incremental effects of the project for certain issues could be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects, but mitigation is available to reduce these potentially significant cumulative effects to a less than significant level. Mitigation is identified for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality noise/vibration, utilities and transportation/circulation. With implementation of these measures, the potential for cumulatively significant impacts for these issues is reduced to a less than significant PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 98
level. Mitigation will ensure that the proposed project also does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Based on the evidence and findings in this Initial Study, the City of Murrieta proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the CarMax Superstore Project. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigation Negative Declaration (NOI) will be issued for this project by the City. The Initial Study and NOI will be circulated for 30 days of public comment because of potential adverse impacts to biological resources for which the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is the trustee agency. At the end of the 30-day review period, a final MND package will be prepared and it will be reviewed by the City for possible adoption at a future Council meeting, the date for which has yet to be determined. If you or your agency comments on the MND/NOI for this Project, you will be notified about the meeting date in accordance with the requirements in Section 21092.5 of CEQA (statute).
19. EARLIER ANALYSES
There are no earlier CEQA analyses of the proposed Project, aside from the general evaluation given this site within the City’s General Plan EIR.
---end of checklist
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 99
VI. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Air Quality
3-1 Fugitive Dust
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas. • Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan.
• Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas.
• Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site 3-2 Exhaust Emissions
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner heavy equipment. • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. 3-3 Operational/Occupancy Emissions
• Utilize gas hearths rather than wood burning fireplaces for any residential use.
Biological Resources
4-1 Within 30 days prior to the initiation of any grading or clearing activities, a subsequent Western Burrowing Owl Survey shall be performed to confirm that burrowing owls have not occupied any portion of the site. In the event that a portion of the site has been occupied by the burrowing owl, the survey biologist in consultation with the City Planning Department shall establish no disturbance areas around the burrow and related foraging area to ensure that no impacts to the burrowing owl occur. The subsequent survey will comply with the survey protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If burrowing owl are encountered, land disturbance activities shall not commence until the biologist has implemented appropriate management measures in accordance with current CDFW burrowing owl management, including relocation, protocols.
4-2 Impacts to nesting bird species shall be avoided at all times, but the period from approximately 15 February to 31 August is the expected breeding season for bird species occurring in the Project area. If Project activity or vegetation removal must be initiated during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall check for nesting birds prior to such activity. If active nests are found, they must be avoided until after the young have fledged. While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted, the CDFG generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100 – 300 feet for songbirds, but this is decided on a case by case basis by the qualified biologist.
Cultural Resources
5-1 A Native American Monitor and Qualified Archaeologist shall be present during any earth-moving construction activities. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits, separate agreements between the Developer/Applicant and the Qualified Archaeologist and the PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 100
Developer/Applicant and a Native American Monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe shall be developed regarding prehistoric cultural resources and shall identify any monitoring requirements and treatment of cultural resources so as to meet both the requirements of CEQA and those of the Luiseño Indian Tribe. The agreements shall also address roles and responsibilities of the Native American Monitor and the Archaeologist. The Native American Monitor agreement shall also detail treatment and final disposition of any Native American cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. In compliance with MM 5-1, discovery and treatment of human remains shall be in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The executed agreements shall be provided to the City of Murrieta Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A report, prepared by the Archeologist, documenting monitoring activities conducted by the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. If no cultural resources are identified during the monitoring activities, a letter report will be completed within 30 days of the completion of grading.
It will document the type of monitoring activities conducted, report any problems or issues that occurred and state clearly that no resources were identified. All reports produced will be submitted to the City of Murrieta, Eastern Information Center and the appropriate tribe(s). 5-2 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-meter radius of the area of discovery. The Project cultural resources professionals shall evaluate the significance of the find and appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and which shall take in to account tribal preferences and sensitivity concerns. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated and cleared by the City, the Project cultural resources professional and, if applicable, the Native American monitor representing the Luiseño Indian Tribe, work in the area may resume. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Native American Monitor cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseño Indian Tribe.
Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 5-3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Engineering/Public Works Department shall confirm that the following note is included on Contractor Specifications: “Should any cultural/scientific resources be discovered during earth-moving activities, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to evaluate and protect these resources.” This condition and the approved provisions/ recommendations as determined in the agreement prepared under MM 5-2 and/or outlined in an Evaluation Plan, shall be incorporated on the cover sheet of the grading plan. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities.
If potentially significant features or sites are discovered, an Evaluation Plan shall be developed by the Project archaeologist and a representative of Luiseño Indian Tribe and shall contain, at a minimum, a research design and field methodology designed to recover data amenable to testing the site’s ability to yield answers to questions of interest to the public and/or scientific community.
If a site is determined to be significant, data recovery excavations may be necessary unless the PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 101
resource is avoided and preserved/protected in place. Evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or individuals that meet either the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as a qualified Prehistoric Archaeologist, as a Historic Archaeologist (as applicable), and/or as a Registered Professional Archaeologist(s) with similar qualifications. 5-4 A paleontologist listed on the County of Riverside Paleontology Consultant List shall be hired to develop and implement a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project area beginning on the ground surface with the Pauba Formation and at depths of ten feet beneath the original ground surface in areas mapped as Young Alluvial Channel Deposits. The PRIMP shall include procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report of findings at the conclusion of active ground disturbance.
5-5 If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance under CEQA. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, catalogued, and curated into the permanent collections of an accredited scientific institution. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program.
5-6 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not on site, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. If the find is determined to be significant, it shall be collected from the field and the paleontologist shall make recommendations for monitoring, curation, and reporting.
Geology and Soils
6-1 Based upon the comprehensive geotechnical investigation (Appendix 5 of this document), all of the recommended design and construction measures identified in Appendix 5 (Sections 4.2, 4.3,
4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7) shall be implemented by CarMax. Implementation of these specific measures will address all of the identified geotechnical constraints identified at project site, including future groundshaking effects on future project-related structures.
Hazards and Hazardous Waste
8-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.
8-2 CarMax shall prepare a Business Plan, with a Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures Plan, and submit this document to the City Fire Department for review and approval. All hazardous materials that may be used at the project site shall be identified (including quantities); methods of storage shall be defined; measure to prevent release of the hazardous materials to the environment shall be defined; and management procedures for disposal of hazardous waste, including proper manifesting, shall be identified. The City Fire Department shall review and approve this plan prior to movement of any hazardous materials onto the site. 8-3 If the soil stockpile is not removed prior to initiation of ground disturbance, CarMax shall conduct sampling of the stockpile for Title 22 metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, semi-volatile organic PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 102
compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and Organochlorine pesticides. If the stockpile contains any contamination above commercial screening levels, the soil shall be removed from the site and disposed of at a properly licensed disposal or recycling facility or blended to a level that does not exceed this threshold. Documentation verifying proper management of the stockpile shall be submitted to the City prior to initiating ground disturbing activities. 8-4 At all times during construction of the Madison Avenue and Guava Street improvements, the site developer shall ensure that emergency fire or medical vehicles are able to access all areas along the project alignment during construction. The Developer shall submit an acceptable temporary traffic routing plan to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is being maintained to serve emergency functions (including emergency response and emergency evacuation plans) along adjacent project roadways and throughout the project site.
Hydrology and Water Quality
9-1 Prior to the approval of the grading permit, the City shall review and approve the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan as required by the program requirements in effect at the time grading is proposed. The Best Management Practices contained in these plans shall control the volume of discharge and the pollutants in accordance with the adopted MS-4 standards in place at the time of project implementation during construction and over the long-term following development.
Noise
12-1 The developer shall install a sound barrier with a minimum height of 8 feet along the project southern boundary as shown on Figure 12-2. Alternatively, the developer may coordinate mitigation sufficient to meet the requirements of following performance standard, as long as it can be demonstrated that the solution will not cause the background noise level of approximately 70 dBA CNEL to be increased more than one decibel at the residence. The final sound attenuation design selected shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 12-2 The developer shall incorporate sound attenuation at the office facilities onsite that may include an air conditioning system or a system of baffles to reduce noise in buildings that are directly exposed to I-15 noise.
12-3 The developer shall require large deliver trucks arriving after 7 p.m. and before 6 a.m. to utilize the roadway along the northern property boundary and park in the parking lot adjacent to I-15 before unloading cargo during daylight hours.
12-4 CarMax shall use noise reducing barriers and other devices to reduce exterior noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor to 70 CNEL or less during the day-time construction hours. This shall include installation of a temporary construction barrier between the construction activities and the nearest sensitive noise receptors, during those periods when possible noise exposure will cause the 70 CNEL background threshold to be exceeded.
12-5 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 7 pm through 7 am, Monday through Saturday and at no time shall construction activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.
12-6 Stationary construction equipment that generates noise shall be placed behind a 12 foot temporary construction barrier if located within 400 feet of sensitive noise receptors. 12-7 CarMax shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 103
noise level exceeds an Ldn of 70 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the applicant will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. 12-8 CarMax will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities.
12-9 Equipment not in use for two minutes shall be shut off. 12-10 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.
12-11 Where available, electric-powered equipment shall be used rather than diesel equipment and hydraulic-powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic power. 12-12 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measures, including no unnecessary revving of equipment. 12-13 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.
12-14 Public notice shall be given prior to initiating construction by installing a sign on the project site.
This notice shall identify the dates of construction and the name and phone number of a construction supervisor (contact person) in case of complaints. One contact person shall be assigned to the project. The public notice shall encourage the adjacent residents to contact the supervisor in the case of a complaint. Resident’s would be informed if there is a change in the construction schedule. The supervisor shall be available 24/7 throughout construction by mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contact person shall take all actions to remove the sound source causing the complaint.
12-15 In the event that a noise complaint cannot be resolved, CarMax shall provide the option of relocating the complainant until the source of the noise causing the complaint is no longer occurring at the project site.
Transportation / Traffic
16-1 The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Madison Avenue proposed mitigations include extending the northbound right turn lane and restriping a through lane to a shared through-right turn lane. The eastbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a shared through right turn lane. The westbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane. The northbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, a shared through-right turn lane, and right turn lane. The southbound direction will provide will provide two left turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through right turn lane. 16-2 The intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Hancock Avenue proposed mitigations include the addition of the northbound approach, an eastbound right turn lane, dual westbound left turn lanes, and restriping of a southbound right turn lane to a through lane. The eastbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a shared through right turn lane. The westbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, three through lanes, and a right turn lane.
The northbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, and right turn lane. The southbound direction will provide dual left turn lanes, a through lane, and right turn lane. The PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 104
construction of the recommended traffic mitigation would be the responsibility of the identified approved projects.
16-3 The construction contractor will time the construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic (6-8 am and 4-6 pm) and so as to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site.
16-4 The construction contractor will provide adequate traffic management resources as determined by the City, such as protective devices, flag persons or police assistance for traffic control, to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times. 16-5 The above measures will be incorporated into a Transportation Management Plan to be prepared as part of construction specifications and approved by the City prior to construction. 16-6 All roadway construction effects shall be repaired and returned to operation in a condition comparable to that which existed prior to initiating construction. The City shall verify the acceptability of all temporary and permanent roadway repairs.
Utilities and Service Systems
17-1 If recycled water becomes available at the project site, CarMax shall connect to this system and utilize recycled water for landscape irrigation and, if feasible, for the car wash. 17-2 CarMax shall minimize conventional turf from landscaping and utilize only drought tolerant plants and xeroscaping in its landscape plan. Where feasible, drip irrigation shall be incorporated into the watering system along with a smart irrigation control system. All plumbing fixtures shall meet federal Environmental Protection Agency high efficiency standards, i.e., 15% below current Title 24 standards. The car wash shall utilize the most efficient water recovery system commercially available.
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 105
VII. INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST
1) Project Application Information
2) Field Inspection/Investigation
3) Project Plans
4) Planner's Knowledge of Area
5) Planner’s Experience with Other Projects of this Size and Nature 6) City General Plan
7) City Development Code
8) City General Plan/zoning Map Buildout Projections
9) City Noise Ordinance
10) City Aerial Photos
11) City Engineering/Public Works Department
12) City Fire Marshall/Fire Department
13) City Off-Street Parking Standards
14) City Community Services Department
15) City Police Department
16) City Finance Department
17) City Historical Committee/Historic Resources Inventory 18) Historic Murrieta Specific Plan
19) Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Appendices (as adopted by the City) 20) Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and Appendices (as adopted by the City) 21) Murrieta Valley Unified School District
22) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 23) Eastern Municipal Water District
24) Waste Management
25) Rancho California Water District
26) Riverside County Congestion Management Plan
27) South Coast Air Quality Management District
28) USDA-SCS, Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area
29) State of California, Special Studies Zones (Revised Official Map) 30) ITE Trip Generation Manual/Highway Capacity Manual
31) Caltrans Highway Design Manual
32) Caltrans Traffic Manual
33) Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) 34) State Archaeological Clearinghouse, UC Regents
35) State Agency: __________________________
36) Federal Agency: U.S. Census Bureau – FactFinder website 37) Master Plan:
38) Special Study: Updated 2003 Population
39) Other Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, June 25, 2002 40) Other: Riverside County Flood Control District “Supplement A to the Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plans, and Attachment to Supplement A”, 1996 41) USGS Topographic Map ‒ Murrieta Quadrangle
42) Other: Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). “Western Riverside Subregional Comprehensive Plan.” January 3, 1994
43) Other: VRPA Technologies. “2001 Riverside County Congestion Management Program.” December 12, 2001
44) Other: City of Murrieta General Plan 2035, 2011
45) Other: City of Murrieta General Plan 2035 EIR, 2011 46) Other: California Energy Commission, 2003 & 2005 Integrated Policy 47) Other: Western MWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants dated June 2011
PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES Page 106
48) Other: Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdiction Diversion and Disposal Profile for City of Murrieta
49) Other: GEOTRACKER:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=La+Salle+Pl+Murrieta 50) Other: Cortese List
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=- 119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=True&city=La%20Salle%20Pl%20Murrieta&zip =&county=&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&voluntary_cleanup=true&school_cleanu p=true&ca_site=true&tiered_permit=true&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=true&school_investi gation=true&operating=true&post_closure=true&non_operating=true 51) Murrieta Unified School District website http://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/Page/143 52) Engineering Drawings for Centerpoint Integrated Solutions, "CarMax Auto Superstore #6002," prepared by Hall & Foreman dated April 16, 2015
53) Air Quality Analysis CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center No. 6002, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated May 2015 54) MSHCP Consistency Analysis Murrieta CarMax Facility, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated May 8, 2015
55) Delineation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction, Proposed Murrieta CarMax Facility, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated May 8, 2015
56) Cultural Resources Assessment CarMax Automotive Dealership, Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated April 2015
57) Paleontological Resource Assessment, CarMax Automotive Dealership, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated April 2015
58) Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed CarMax Automotive Dealership, Murrieta, California, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. dated October 3, 2014 59) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed CarMax Site, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. dated September 24, 2014 60) Hydrology Report (Preliminary) CarMax Auto Superstore prepared by Hall & Foreman, Inc. dated April 10, 2015
61) Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary) prepared by Hall & Foreman, Inc. dated September 2014
62) Noise Impact Analysis CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center No. 6002, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California prepared by LSA dated January 2015 63) Traffic Impact Analysis, CarMax Auto Superstore/Reconditioning Center #6002, Murrieta, California prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015
64) Final Environmental Impact Report, CarMax Auto Superstore, Community Plan Amendment, Rezone, Use Permit, Special Development Permit, and Design Review (SCH#2012032021) prepared by the County of Sacramento, Environmental Review and Assessment dated July 2012 65) Hazardous Materials Survey Report for Residential Property (25585 Addison Lane, Murrieta, California) prepared by Titan Environmental Solutions, Inc. dated September 15, 2014 66) XRF Lead Inspection Survey Report for Residential Property (25585 Addison Lane, Murrieta, California) prepared by Titan Environmental Solutions, Inc. dated August 28, 2014 67) Will Serve Letters from Southern California Edison (8/26/14); Southern California Gas Company (9/8/14); Time Warner Cable (8/29/14); Verizon (9/9/14); and Western MWD (9/30/14) PH1, ATT 11
City of Murrieta, CarMax Pre-owned Automobile Dealership GPA, CUP, DPs and TTM INITIAL STUDY
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
FIGURES
PH1, ATT 11
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
Project Area
PH1, ATT 11
FIGURE 2
Site Location
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
Project Site
PH1, ATT 11
FIGURE 3
Aerial Photo
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
S.'!n Dtt!gn Cattlll)·
10 Pacific Ocean
LSA
0 ~ 500 1.000
FEET
SOtJ~CR· H nlo AeriaL 201 o· tvenadc: C<~ untv. 2 0 12
CENTERPOINT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002
SITE PLAN
PH1, ATT 11
I
ll
---l1Cb
1 _.
I PARCEL1
EX. LOT UNE TO I 2 FUEL DISPENSERS--......·. -:q. ----~- WATER QUAUTY ;... I llrlf,-,,- - + BE REI.lOVED f
I +
12'X40' (25' C~CRETE SEPARATI~). PAD ~· . ~ I I
7 .,!, I .1
I ~ I>- If I /
L I BASIN #2 -----; ICl~f----J
( ll[ • ...... '"""' tr~ I I ir" II
I
~
I
I_ l
- l
1 1 I I
~ ~ IICL!: STAGINQ F~= p= I "' - - EX. LOT UNE TO - ~r ~ I , WALL "'). ~ I _( . BE R~MOVED I• N41" i'JI.lJW JUl.l/ /
PROPERTY UNE __/
--~~ -*+r-----------------
~
a
•
l---t-1--rFIRE LANE STRIPING
+ ~
1 . • iG ' Y .....l....l....J,, .... L....l......!...J...J...... -~...,r:rrf'.,.I....J.....J......J......I......L ... J ...... ~ ~ eo.e· I) . .. ADA PATHJ [;i] L . . ~ OF TRAVEL I ~ ...,.::, .,..,r""'!"""T""T""''cn-'T""T",..,.....,..,..T""'i<f!!'l""lll- 7':, . TRASH ENCLOSURE r,·,:,·'~· ·~~ t) -·-rr--c 1- I ."> »/ :?!1 ~
\ ·
AND sToRAGE AREA ;,. , "" H' r 11 ~ ~ · ·. [i: : ~ rYP. ).......ll---l~~ 1 c ~ k:h; .. ::;::::;. ~·II.··;;::::;:".. ~·. ~~~. •
• • ~~ -:..
co
d
1£1
+ ~ +
SCREEN WALL
----~~--------'J--~~-~~--~~~~~~~~~~1 MATCHLINE -- SEE SHEET 3 F ~ r I I I Ill ~ !2fn . ~ j -
T c ~ ::'*-, E~PLOYEE ~ ~ • 1· ~ ~ PARKING :z: ) (:!.....:~:;; 39' : hi I:::: ~,M I n T~"·~~~ I I .r:r cADA PATH OF TRAVEC _...) \ NOT A PART u 0~
6.~0~~--0~~~~6~0----~120
scale 1 "= 60' feet
c
Q
~ 6 - ~
-?~ c;f-
:=: ;;.,
''"
~ E 8 ~
""' --------------------------r--,---------------------------------r--~---,--~:;::::---,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r---------------------------------------------------~~;N ~cO c I
n~ ~!~~~~~~-- •••,.~ Hall & Foreman l---------------------------1~·~ DIAL
BEFORE
YOU DIG
TWO WORKING
DAYS BEFORE
YOU DIG
s-~ c> '~ •• - ~ur--~----------------------------------""'"15l~~~~"' cO J5 ~ \ ~ A Division of David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 ~W I~ER PLAN ;;_ 'a;! <> No. 62794 "' !;l 17782 17TH SlREET, SUITE 200 • TUSllN, CA 92780 ' 714-665-4500 1 BY: IDA1E:
0 _
4116115
E.;,. * Exp. 06/30/16 * RLM ~ "
"'-" ~ PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: SHT NO.: ~ ~ '1;-r CJVI\. -A~ BY: .c 0 DESCRI'llON <- OF Cfll\~",. GMC 2 OF 12 E-;;; l __________________________________________________________ _j __ ~ro:~~F~R~EE~!!~~~~~8~0!0:2~2~72~6Q~Q~::::::::::::::::::::~E~"~N~:::::::::: A PUBLIC SERVICE BY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT VI __________ L_~~==~:_ __ L::::~~ mw,. M. wl ou""~ MW ~··• "'w'~' ,~~n•====~==~n~•"~"· ';/,jf~ vn•~· __ i_ ______ ~ __________________________________ _. ________ ~~~~ NO. DAlE BY FIGURE 4a
CENTERPOINT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002
SITE PLAN
PH1, ATT 11
=
II = 0 R
- u
~c
~
CHAIN UNK- v
fENCE & GUARD
RAIL
=
1-
1-
0 ~~yr-;~~!!!!!~~
( I
~EX~-ACCESS RAMP H W/ NEW LOCKABLE
DOUBLE CHAIN
•••
•
UNK GAlE
·--r----·---·-A,-·----~~---J..~---
J.. ~
..'. I
•
EX. LOT UNE TO""""'- 1
BE REMOVED ~
I
MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 2
~~----~r-~~~·~[~--=-...... r ... cu•~•O•M•E~----~·~~---- \;~ ( ------... II"=.• I =- ~ EMPLOYEE , 1 - - •nA PA1H TRAVEL -t. ~--::;:.--:::.:;..-:::_:---.---.. ' .::..:.. "" "Tl +++5i~ tt-J-btc"'oi!l"tili'1 H PARKING ,.. 1 . nun \ V (
-" .. I 11,-' 715 SPACES =i >- 1---<11 I - - ~ (""~ ·- ' ' ' I I I - IL _.,,__~ .-' ~ LOT UNE - __ EX. ACCESS RAMP "" • lii ~ - = v !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- ,_,--....... 1 :sc--"""
--... --- ' -- \.____ /
.._ -- EXISTING UNE D-1 CHANNEL
DOUBLE CHAIN _. I rF . 1
J..---------,J..r-·-- ~NK GAlE ( ~ 1 1 I f-o ls;_ / ~ ~ r _1 _,. --.....,+- - - "" '11-. - - __ _,.....g: . - - - fl""'"--- - - ----- - ----- - ----t+-t:-·"'-- ----r-~-"" -lt-rllrl-tt---- ~ ------ A
+
AUCTlON
F.F.-10111133
12,210 SF
' ... ,
• •
EX. LOT UNE TO/
BE REMOVED
+
ADA PA~\ OF TRAVEL \
+
--
SCREEN WALL
EX. LOT UNE TO -... .,
BE REMOVED
~ i r ~~ . ¢ :
IIII H-++·5!~1 +-+-+++"" t-++ ~. +--H-++-1-'-+'-fl~l l - ~
46.18' I
IIH-++S!Il+ ++i-++ J-=H..~ ,~,~.i=+++-+-+' ~1 I I I i: ! ~ ~~ ~<onJ v-- ~ -~ --~ ~~ rc 1iA ~ ~ ;oi+I--- ~~ H++H ~l4s, ++ l/v ~~ C ~~~ ------------- r- , _ _ , "" f-,'YP. ~
~
~
1-- ~FIRE LANE STRIPING
~1 r
' HIH-Ji lt'l I l
00 I
I
r----
' "' 'b
PROPOSED~
PROPERTY
UNE
SCREEN WAL ~ !
_
7 N41'~]2.28"W_1~03.15' __
NOT A PART
DODD
D 0 Dc£o D D
D g gq;o D D
O ooo
ODD
0 00
[
I
¢
vv )
[ [
0 -----::-~.
--?'T""==ii- ===== r=-================= ALL FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ( / 1 BY CITY OF MURRIETA
* * i i
I I
I I
I I
\ I
60 scale
0 60 120
1"= 60' feet
~I
c
Q
~ 6 ~ ~
-?~ c;f-
:=: ;;.,
''"
~ E 8 ~
80 --::=-~==~~~-;~;:~~--,---r-----------------------------------r----,----r---:::::::----r~~==~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-r--------------------------------------------------------~~;n ~cij DIO~m It~~~~\ I A~~,~~ D~~!~~.: ~~:~c :::==~======================~~SCALE:,,===~j~~ DIAL BEFORE
YOU DIG
TWO WORKING
DAYS BEFORE
YOU DIG
NO. DESCRI'llON DAlE
<.!> -' z .., 1 B~W PER PLAN -~ c
'a;! " No. 62794 "' !ti 17782 17TH STREET, SUITE 200 • TUSllN, CA 92780 • 714-665-4500 1-::-:.:::------1" -'t * Exp. 06/30/16 * BY: IDA1E:
04116115
E-o
If'~>,. CIVIl -A~"t- PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: RBLY~. _2 ~ BY '<: OF C'l\<\l'. GMC SHT NO.: ;"6- TOU. FREE 1-800-227-2600 " ' 3 12 L ----------------------------------------------------------------JL~A~P~UB~LI~C!SE~R~:c:E!BY~UN~DE~R~~OU=ND~SE:R~~C:E~~~ER~T--l. ____________________ !R~E~~~~N~S ____________________ _j ____ ::=:=::. __ JL::::~~ G~M. CHUNG R.C.E. ~~794--------~DA~\T~E: __ ._ ______________________________________________ _. ________ OF ~~~~ E~ FIGURE 4b FIGURE 4-1
Existing Biological Resources with Project Impacts
Source: MSHCP Consistency Analysis prepare by LSA Associates, Inc. dated October 27, 2014 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
[OJ Study Area Vegetation nod Lnnd Usc
rn Penmmcnt Impact /\rea D Coastal Sage Scrub
-···- · Potential U.S.Watcrs/Streambcd D Developed/Ornamental D Non-nutive Ornsslnnd
F EET
SOURCE· Coogle Ennb, 20 13
FIGURE 9-1
Existing Conditions Hydrology Map
Source: Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by Hall & Foreman dated revised April 10, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
\ ~ ~~
~ A-14.42
....._,___
- / ~-""-... ............ ./' '~
, / /. ./
) (
Af!EA
A
• c
D
lOl.Al.
HYDROLOGIC SU~Y
(RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS)
NODE: .. 0. "" r ... ... (ef•) {c:l•) (cf•) (min)
IQ0-101 10.12 14.07 20.09 13.22
20()-2_1)) • • 31 "'"" 10.15 17.6-4
j(».JJ) .... 11.!19 IJ-&4 ...... --~401 4,96 .... 10.09 16.J.1 - Jl.24 47 ~ B.l.l7 ---
~
- - I*AJ<Aa' f!CJ..I!«<.IJIY
--rtO. PAOf
~OflA"A;f: 1-.~ A.~ AQ!t$
.... ~
0.0 Tc:,oo -· (cf•) (m:"n) (AC)
32.74 1.}.22 12.154
1ol.42 17.6 .. 14.<42
22.72 ... ,. i .O!I
16.62 16.J,) 7.24
... 50 - .,..,
CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAXAUTONOTIVEOEALERSHIPf
7~~,t ,rz~~~~ . P.!f.nr!:?R.u urv~ Ex~\lJ~%E8~~ill,9,Ns FIGURE 9-2
Developed Conditions Hydrology Map
Source: Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by Hall & Foreman dated revised April 10, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
AREA
•
•
c
TOfAL
.....
<
.
fOTAl.
NOO!:
No.
100-101
101 .. 102
t 0.)-1()4
,....,..,
202- 104
JOO-JOl
.301-100
~~ .. 106 ...,_..,
401-106
106-107
NOO!:
·~ !>00->01
~~ .... ~2 ..,._..., 600-601
110\-602
..,_.,
W3 ~
EIYDROLOCIC S1JidMARY
(RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS)
DISCHARGE TO CEIANNEL
0. "' 0.. T<>o o.~ l ....
(cf•) (oft) (of•) (f'!in) (~fs) (mi")
17.04 .22.04 :Z$.28 15.~2 39.J.e: 15.52
~7 '24.02 :za•• 7.66 42.92 7.~4
18..57 2 4.02 2M• .... 42..92 11.72
.... 5.30 6.32 7.03 . ... 7.03
22. 1.} 28.65 34.10 8.98 51.39 0.72
1.21 1.57 ).87 9.69 2.1U 9.69
23.25 J0.12 35.97 10.9"- 54.10 10.4&
23.2.$ J0.12 ~.97 11.03 10 10.!57
15.80 20.4-3 24.35 6.10 36.48 6 .1
15e80 20.4.3 24.35 6.62 36.48 6.57
34.96 45.40 54.36 11.04 82.21 10J57
~4.96 4.:).40 04.)6 82.21
HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY
(RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS)
DISCHARGE TO 106" C!P
0. "' "" Tc..
··~ l ...
(c.ts) (c'-:) (c:ls) (mtl) (c<o) (mr")
4, 44 5,74 6.83 .... 10.23 .... 4.44 5.H 6.83 6.63 10.23 6.55
4.44 5.74 6.83 7.54 10.23 7.37
1~84 20.49 2.4.~ 7.42 36.66 7.42
115.74 2i.66 25.84 7.~J >8.75 7.52
21.Qe. 2:7.33 32.$1 7 ... <4 .. 1.~4
2106 V.33 .JVP 0,41 ..... a.Jo 2 l .OO 27.3J 32.67 ..... HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY (RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS)
OFFSITE ROUCH CRADED AREA
""'" NOOE •.. (d•) "" c ..,.,.._ 1.78
H 700-101 5.49
1 ,.,._..,. 2.66
TOTAL
l.£GENO
- - Df'Wt(A(:£ 800..,ARY
--tlOWPAf!-t
~OfW~,A.C£ AA£1, NIJ loC'XS
A.-r;>.U
""' AqEA
(ds) (AC)
2 ... 0 .97
9.10 4,19
4..31 1.54
16.2 6.10
-- lliRfCfla40frtOW
~NC(llO~AllQN
ARU
(AC)
10.90 2.51
0 .89
... ,
23.23 . ....
(AC)
2.37 10.57
2.94 CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAXAUTOMOTIVEDEAL.ERSHIP
7,c,q,~ s1!~ 9 . Jr,nr~"" urv,:~ ~~8k6~88~~z~oNs
FIGURE 10-1
General Plan 2035 Circulation Map
Source: Murrieta General Plan 2035 adopted July 19, 2011 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
LEGEND
W/UO
, ... ~CGM~:W &t,. - Ccila::w $6'11f
"'" - =--
"" ...... ......,
... c., -·- __
0 0.5
Mdes
FIGURE 12-1
Noise Monitoring
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
LEGEND
0 Monitoring Location
150 300
FEET
SOURCE ESRI (2013); Centerpoint (2014)
FIGURE 12-2
Required Property Line Wall
Source: Noise Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. dated January 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
! 50 300
FEET
LEGEND
r=::1 Site Plan
- Minimum 8' High Perimeter Wall
SOURCE . ESRI (2013); Centerpoint (2014)
FIGURE 16-1
Vicinity Map
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
PROJECT
LOCATION
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
FIGURE 16-2
Site Plan
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
----------------~
c: ____ : --~)
MADISON AVENUE
r
FIGURE 16-3
Existing Condition Traffic Volumes
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
~ ~~!:'~~=~": ;:R~:~6 0 ~~::,~:wAY SB RAM~~ri
L 3601550 fil I L 3651255
- 136511585 ~ - 123511685 ~ .... _) l_
1 I
1n51191o - 0 ., .... 79511615 - .,
1501275 , 5s s 5951245 , ..., ~ "'
• I\IIADISONAVE/ .MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RO
Q) JEFFERSON AVE I
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RO
0 L 1751435 ~~ :3 2 L 2551275
~~~ ~~
- 8451480 ~~
_J ~ l_ , 3051290 t l_ , 8351330
70/190 _) 1 t r t r
410/630 - 0 0., It> It> "'U"J N iii~~ ~<! 15115 ' NIt>~ 0>~ "'
0 IAURR ~~~'Z~GS RD
8 ~ L 245131o
~ - 158011645 N
_) l_
235180_)
95511350 --
0 JEfFERSON AVE I
GUAVAST
~~~ L 5110
- 10/15
_J t l_ , 30/15
20180 _) 1 t I
20130 - C> C> 0
"'~"'
20/30' ~;a~ ..
CD ~~~!~~~~~~~~do ~ ~~:!~~~Y. ~~=~sdo
Ls151955 ~ It> L,OSiso .....
- 8001665 i - 102011005 l;:j
_) l_
170/575_) 1 . I
117511160 -- It> It> N ..... 570/1065 --
~ 5i 2251235, N ~
0 I\IIAOISONAVEI
GUAV.AST
8~ L 20/5
~~;g -- 515
_J ' l_. ' 151125
515 _) 1 t I
5/s - 0 0"'
r;; ~"" 10/5, :zl
LEGEND
XXJXX- AM/PM PEAK I'IOUR VOLUMES
0 -STUDY INTERSECTIONS
FIGURE 16-4
Trip Distribution
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
~~~~~::~~~6 ~ ~~::;:~~::;~ ~~=~6 ~MURRIETA HC T SPRI~GS RD ;ji!.
- 15% tl'l ~ - 15% -30%
_)
15% - 30% - 30% -
15% ,
~ MURR ~~~ :~~GS RD ~ MUR;I~~::,;~S RD ~ JE~~~~N~VE /
;ji!. •;ji!. L 5% \0 It)
~ ,80% t_ , ,0%
~~~ I
5% , ;ji!.;ji!.';ji!.
t.l)t()g ~
~ P~~N~.1
L 90% ;ji!.
~
l_ \Q #~
... ~
~ J"J:~~~~!. ~~~'i'~o C9 ~j~l~;~~'. ~~~~~0
----.ao% ;ji!.
II)
N -- 56%
_;
25% _) I
30% - ;ji!. 55% -- II)
N 25% --.
~ M~~~~VEI ~ P~~~~o~~
~ 0
~
_; ,10%
10% _) I
;ji!.
~
!
I 15%
N
215 ~~
~ Jj ~ <
)j~
35%
y
<'..,)
(/)
-(i ~
~
0 :z
.d'i'
\_ )} --=
LEGEND
XX%,........._ GENERAL PROJECT TRiP
DISTRIBUTION
XX% _j -SPECIFIC PROJECT TRIP
® -STUDY INTERSECTIONS
FIGURE 16-5
General Plan Update Volumes
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hall & Foreman dated March 12, 2015 Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
PH1, ATT 11
•
..
't.
~
2035 MODEL PLOT
... . ~~ ;.
<r. '· ~
<.
'~".I • ;.
,, 8
"!~...,. -JI ~ l.> ..
,., ·~ ...
+
"~ ...
<Q,.. ~
...,.
'~41., "' /<- tt•
'~ ~
2035 ADJUSTED DAILY VOLUME W/ REMOVAL OF NO NAME STREET LEGEND
X.XX • AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES 1,000
SOURCE· CITY OF MURRIETA MODEL PLOTS
u.J
-' <t:
l;(
0 II0
z
Attachment 12
MND Response to Comments
PH1, ATT 12
PH1, ATT 12
Air Quality
ClTY OF MURRIETA
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT PLANS (DP 2015-532 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (2015-534)
MITIGATION MONJTORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification 3-1 Fugitive Dust This measure shall be included in the A copy of the construction contract including construction contract as a contract specifi- • Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive disturbed areas. this air mitigation measures shall be retained • Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan. cation and implemented by the contractor in the project file. Verification of implementa- • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is during construction. lion shall be based on field inspections by City delayed. inspection personnel that verify the air quality • Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according measures have been implemented as required to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging in these measures. Field notes documenting areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. verification shall be retained in the project file. • Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
• Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.
• Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site
Source Responsible Party Status I Date /Initials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air Quality
3-2 Exhaust Emissions This measure shall be included in the A copy of the construction contract including • Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipmenl construction contract as a contract specifi- this air mitigation measures shall be retained • Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or cleaner cation and implemented by the contractor in the project file. Verification of implementaheavy equipmenl during construction. lion shall be based on field inspections by City • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road inspection personnel that verify the air quality equipment. measures have been implemented as required
in thes·e measures. Field notes documenting
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party Status I Date /lnrtials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
MMRP Table, Page 1
PH1, ATT 12
CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAXAUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT PLANS (DP 2015-532 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (2015-534)
MITJGATlON MONITORING AND REPORTJNG PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air Quality
This measure shall be included in the 3-3 Operational/Occupancy Emissions A copy of the construction contract including • Utilize gas hearths rather than wood burning fireplaces for any construction contract as a contract specifi- this air mitigation measures shall be retained residential use. cation and implemented by the contractor in the project file. Verification of implementaduring construction. tion shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the air quality
measures have been implemented as required
in these measures. Field notes documenting
verification shall be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party Status I Date /Initials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological Resources
4-1 Within 30 days prior to the initiation of any grading or clearing activities, The pre-construction survey shall be A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be a subsequent Western Burrowing Owl Survey shall be performed to completed prior to initiating ground retained in the project file. If occupied by confirm that burrowing owls have not occupied any portion of the site. disturbance. If burrowing owl occupy any part burrowing owl, the occupied areas shall be In the event that a portion of the site has been occupied by the of the site, the City and CDFW shall be protected from disturbance until management burrowing owl, the survey biologist in consultation with the City notified and occupied areas shall be protected actions in accordance with CDFW requirePlanning Department shall establish no disturbance areas around the until management actions in accordance with ments relocate the burrowing owls from the burrow and related foraging area to ensure that no impacts to the CDFW protocol is implemented .. site. Documentation of successful relocation burrowing owl occur. The subsequent survey will comply with the shall be retained in the project file. survey protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If burrowing owl are encountered, land disturbance activities shall not commence until the biologist has implemented appropriate management measures in accordance with current CDFW burrowing owl management, including relocation, protocols.
Source Responsible Party Status I Date /lnttials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
MMRP Table, Page 2
PH1, ATT 12
CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAXAUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT {CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT PLANS (DP 2015-532 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP {2015-534)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTJNG PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological Resources
4 Initial ground disturbing activities shall be The developer shall document the date at -2 Impacts to nesting bird species shall be avoided at all times, but the period from approximately 15 February to 31 August is the expected conducted outside the bird nesting season which ground disturbing activities will be breeding season for bird species occurring in the Project area. If (February 1 to August 31) or the required initiated. If such activities will be initiated Project activity or vegetation removal must be initiated during the surveys shall be performed and appropriate during the nesting season, the survey inforbreeding season, a qualified biologist shall check for nestrng birds prior management actions implemented during mation documenting absence of nesting birds to such activity. If active nests are found, they must be avoided u ntit construction. within the disturbed area shall be provided to after the young have fledged. While there is no established protocol for the County and the management actions nest avoidance. when consuHed, the CDFG generally recommends (such as establishment of buffer distances) avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100- 300 shall be verified in the field by the County feet for songbirds, but this is decided on a case by case basis by the inspectors. qualified biologist.
Source Responsible Party Status I Date /Initials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
MMRP Table, Page 3
PH1, ATT 12
ClTY OF MURRIETA
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENT TLEMENTS~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT Pl ANS (DP 2015-5-32 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (2015-534)
MITIGATION MONITORlNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural Resources
5-1 A Native American Monitor am! Qualified Archaeologist shall be This measure shall be implemented during The developer shall provide the City with present during any earth-moving construction activities. At least construction and followed through until final documentation verifying access to the project 30 days prior to issuance of grading permrts, separate agreements disposition of any resources has been site by the Pechanga. A report of monitoring between the Developer/Applicant and the Qualified Archaeologist and achieved. activities following completion of ground the Developer/Applicant and a Native American Monitor representing disturbing activities shall be provided to the the Luiseiio Indian Tribe shafl be developed regarding prehistoric City by the developer and Pechanga docucultural resources and shall identify any monitoring requirements and menting all findings during monitoring treatment of cultural resources so as to meet both the requirements of activities.
CEQA and those of the l uiseiio Indian Tribe. The agreements shalt also address roles and responsibilities ofthe Native American Monitor and the Archaeologist. The Native American Monitor agreement shall atso detail treatment and final disposilion of any Native American cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. In compliance with M M 5-1, discovery and treatment of human remains shall be in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The executed agreements shaH be provided to the City of Murrieta Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A report, prepared by the Archeologist, documenting monitoring activities conducted by the Qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be submitted to the City of Murrieta within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. If no cultural resources are identified during the monitoring activrues, a letter report will be completed within 30 days of the completion of grading. It wirl document the type of monitoring activities conducted, report any problems or issues that occurred and state clearty that no resources were identified. A!t reports produced will be submitted to the City of Murrieta, Eastern [nformation Center and the appropriate tribe(s).
Souroe Responsible Party I Status I Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Murrieta ~
MMRP Table, Page 4
PH1, ATT 12
CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT PLANS (DP 2015-532 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (2015-534)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Cultural Resources
5-2 In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 1 00-foot radius of the area of discovery. The Developer and the Project cultural resources professionals, which includes the project archaeologist and the Tribe, shall evaluate the significance of the find and appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed and which shall take in to account tribal preferences and sensitivity concerns. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated and cleared by the City and the Project cultural resources professionals, work in the area may resume. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21 083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Native American Monitor cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices ofthe Luiseno Indian Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Direct.or shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
All cultural materials that are collected during the grading monitoring program, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods and human remains which will be addressed in the Treatment Agreement required in MM 5-2, shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the Pechanga Tribe's curation facility which meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 79 for federal repositories. All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation per CEQA, if feasible.
Implementation Schedule
This measure shall be implemented during
construction and followed through until final
disposition of such resources has been
achieved.
Verification
Discovery of cultural resources shall be
reported to the City within 24 hours of exposure. Documentation shall be provided that ground disturbing activities were immediately
halted in the area of the discovery and of all
management actions taken following the
discovery. A copy of this documentation shall
be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party Status I Date I Initials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
MMRP Table, Page 5
PH1, ATT 12
CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT {GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT PLANS (DP 2015-532 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (2015-534)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure
Cultural Resources
5-3 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Engineering/Public Works Department shall confirm that the following note is included on Contractor Specifications: "Should any cultural/scientific resources be discovered during earth-moving activities, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director and/or Caltrans (for resources within Caltrans' right-of-way) is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to evaluate and protect these resources." The Project archaeologist and the Native American monitor should be contacted immediately if a resource is identified by a non-cultural resource professional. This condition and the approved provisions! recommendations as determined in the agreement prepared under MM 5-2 and/or outlined in an Evaluation Plan, shall be incorporated on the cover sheet of the grading plan. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities in the area of the find.
If potentially significant features or sites are discovered. an Evaluation Plan shall be developed by the Project archaeologist and a representafive of Luiseiio Indian Tribe and shall contain, at a minimum, a research design and field methodology designed to recover data amenable to testing the site's ability to yield answers to questions of interest to the public and/or scienfific community. If a site is determined to be significant, data recovery excavations may be necessary unless the resource is avoided and preserved/protected in place. Evaluation shall be supervised by an individual or individuals that meet either the Seoretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards as a qualified Prehistoric Archaeologist, as a Historic Archaeologist (as applicable). and/or as a Registered Professional Archaeologist(s) with similar qualifications.
Implementation Schedule
This measure shall be implemented during
construction and followed through until final
disposition of such resources has been
achieved.
Verification
Discovery of cultural resources shall be
reported to the City within 24 hours of exposure. Documentation shall be provided that ground disturbing activities were immediately
halted in the area of the discovery and of all
management actions taken following the
discovery. A copy of this documentation shall
be retained in the project file.
Source Responsible Party Status I Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Murrieta
MMRP Table, Page 6
PH1, ATT 12
CITY OF MURRIETA
CARMAXAUTO SUPERSTORE #6002: REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 2015-531), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT {CUP 2015-533), DEVELOPMENT PLANS (DP 2015-532 AND DP 2015-535), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (2015-534)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTlNG PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural Resources
5-4 A paleontologist listed on the County of Riverside Paleontology A copy of the PRIMP shall be provided to the A copy of the PRIMP shall be retained in the Consultant List shall be hired to develop and implement a Paleonto- County prior to issuance of a grading permit. project file. Verification of implementation logical Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project .. The PRIMP management measures shall be shall be based on field inspections by County The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect implemented in accordance with the schedule inspection personnel that verify the PRIMP paleontological resources that may exist wi1hin the project area outlined in this document. has been implemented as required in this beginning on the ground surface with the Pauba Formation and at measure. Field notes documenting verification depths of ten feet beneath the original ground surface in areas mapped shall be retained in the project file. as Young Alluvial Channel Deposits. The PRIMP shall include procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report of findings at the conclusion of active ground disturbance.