Menifee City Council
November 20, 2024

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing, based upon the materials in the staff report and accompanying documents, public comments, and Planning Commission discussion, the City of Menifee Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve GPA No. PLN23-0173, SPA No. PLN23-0175, ZC No. PLN23-0174, and PP No. PLN23-0171; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project, which hearing was publicly noticed in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, on-site posting, notice to property owners within 800 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee does ordain as follows:

Section 1: The City of Menifee’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for SPA No. PLN 23-0175 in accordance with Title 9, Article 2, Chapter 9.100.70, “Findings for Approval” of the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code:

Finding 1 - The specific plan is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan and is not inconsistent with any element thereof.

As mentioned in Section 1 above, the Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities, such as manufacturing uses, that can generate significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances. The proposed amendment would seek to change the General Plan land use designation to SP, more specifically the Menifee North SP, and designating it as Planning Area 2 – Industrial.

The proposed amendment is to create consistent development standards for the Project as it is bisected by both designations. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan as both designations are similar and are intended for industrial uses.

In addition, the SP is consistent with the following City of Menifee General Plan policies:
• LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options.

The proposed SPA will help to ensure that industrial
development will happen where it was envisioned by facilitating the standards for the Project site. This area was already Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 291
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 812 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park – CZ, SPA
November 20, 2024

identified under the General Plan and SP as a strategic area for industrial development to occur.
• ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations.

The proposed Project will expand the local economy and provide increased employment opportunities for local residents.

Finding 2 - The specific plan prescribes reasonable controls and standards for affected land uses to ensure compatibility and integrity of those uses with other established uses.

As previously mentioned, the Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities. Changing the Project site to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial, would be compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations which are also in Planning Area 2 to the north, south, east, and west. The established uses which surround the Project site are vacant lots, industrial uses, and three rural homes to the west. The proposed change will not be substantially different from the exiting land use and will have to comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal requirements.

Finding 3 - The specific plan provides reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

The proposed amendment is proposed to create more cohesive development standards and to help facilitate development on the Project site. To ensure the Project would not affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community, an IS/MND was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the surrounding persons residing or working in the community. Impacts that were found to be significant were able to be mitigated to a level less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Finding 4 - The specific plan provides for the protection of the health, safety, and/or general welfare of the community.

The SPA will not result in conditions detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare as designed and conditioned. The associated entitlements have been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Menifee Community Development Department, Engineering Department, Office of the Fire Marshal, and other applicable agencies to ensure that it will not create conditions materially detrimental to the surrounding uses. Conditions of approval include landscaping, roadway improvements consistent with the General Plan, expanded sidewalks and a network of bike lanes to encourage non-vehicular travel, fire infrastructure, and drainage improvements that will benefit Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 292
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 813 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park – CZ, SPA
November 20, 2024

the Project site and surrounding areas.

As previously mentioned, in addition, environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project and associated SPA have been analyzed in the IS/MND that was prepared for the Project.

Section 2: The City of Menifee’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for ZC No. PLN 23-0174 in accordance with Title 9, Article 2, Chapter 9.115.70, “Findings for Approval” of the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code:

Finding 1 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan.

The Project site currently has a zoning designation of HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities, such as manufacturing uses, that can generate significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances. The proposed amendment would seek to change the zoning designation to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial. The proposed amendment is to create consistent development standards for the Project as it is bisected by both designations. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan as both designations are similar and are intended for industrial uses.

In addition, the SP is consistent with the following City of Menifee General Plan policies:
• LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options.

The proposed amendment will help to ensure that industrial development will happen where it was envisioned by facilitating the standards for the Project site. This area was already identified under the General Plan and SP as a strategic area for industrial development to occur.
• ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations.

The proposed Project will expand the local economy and provide increased employment opportunities for local residents.

Finding 2 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title prescribes reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses.

The Project site currently has a zoning designation of HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities. Changing the Project site to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial, would be Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 293
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 814 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park – CZ, SPA
November 20, 2024

compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations which are also in Planning Area 2 to the north, south, east, and west. The established uses which surround the Project site are vacant lots, industrial uses, and three rural homes to the west. The proposed change will not be substantially different from the exiting land use and will have to comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal development standards and policies.

Finding 3 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title provides reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

The proposed amendment is proposed to create more cohesive development standards and to help facilitate development on the Project site. To ensure the Project would not affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community, an IS/MND was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the surrounding persons residing or working in the community. Impacts that were found to be significant were able to be mitigated to a level less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

Finding 4 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title ensures protection of the general health, safety and welfare of the community.

The zone change will not result in conditions detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare as designed and conditioned. The associated entitlements have been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Menifee Community Development Department, Engineering Department, Office of the Fire Marshal, and other applicable agencies to ensure that it will not create conditions materially detrimental to the surrounding uses. Conditions of approval include landscaping, roadway improvements consistent with the General Plan, expanded sidewalks and a network of bike lanes to encourage non-vehicular travel, fire infrastructure, and drainage improvements that will benefit the Project site and surrounding areas.

As previously mentioned, in addition, environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project and associated SPA have been analyzed in the IS/MND that was prepared for the Project.

Section 3: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance. An IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been completed for the Project and accepted by the City Council pursuant to a separate Resolution. The ZC and SPA are consistent with the IS/MND, which the City Council has considered as part of its proceedings.

Section 4: Approval of the Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment. The City Council finds that the facts present within the public record and within this Ordinance provide the basis to approve ZC No. PLN23-0174 and SPA No. PLN23-0175.

Section 5: Effective Date. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 294
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 815 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park – CZ, SPA
November 20, 2024

operation 30 days after its second reading and adoption.

Section 6: Severability. lf any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivision, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 7: Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published within 15 days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933(a) or, cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by law using the alternative summary and posting procedure authorized under Government Code Section 36933(c).

Section 8: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance has been based are located at the Community Development Department – Planning Division, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED AND READ on the 20th day of November 2024 and PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December 2024.
_________________________
Bill Zimmerman, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_________________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 295
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 816 of 2294

EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN

PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT “C” SPA PLN23-0175
N
N
A
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 296
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 817 of 2294

EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED ZONING
EXHIBIT “D” ZC PLN23-0174 Sherman Road Sherman Road
Ethanac Road
Ethanac Road
N
N
B
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 297
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 818 of 2294 Comment Letters
Received
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 298
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 819 of 2294 From: Mauricio Alvarez
To: Fernando Herrera
Subject: Ethanac Business Park
Date: Friday, October 4, 2024 9:49:33 AM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning Fernando,
Thank you for including RTA in the development review of the Ethanac Business Park Project. After reviewing the plans, there are no comments to submit for this particular project at this time.

Thank you,
Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
Planning Analyst
Riverside Transit Agency
p: 951.565.5260 | e: [email protected]
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 299
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 820 of 2294 1 Fernando Herrera
From: Charles Benjamin
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Fernando Herrera
Subject: FW: 9/25/24-RE: City of Menifee Public Notice - PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park Attachments: PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park.pdf
Categories: Question, Internal Comment
Hey Fernado!
Please see below. Thank you!
Chuck Benjamin | Records Technician
Oice of the City Clerk
City of Menifee | 29844 Haun Road | Menifee, CA 92586
Direct: (951) 723-1722 | City Hall: (951) 672-6777
[email protected] | cityofmenifee.us
Connect with us on social media: | | |
*Please note that email correspondence with the City of Menifee, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Menifee shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.

From: SCG SE Region Redlands Utility Request <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Charles Benjamin <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephanie Roseen <[email protected]>
Subject: 9/25/24-RE: City of Menifee Public Notice - PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 300
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 821 of 2294 2 Hello,
I just reviewed the documents regarding PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park SoCalGas Distribution does have facilities in the area. Please note on case to have Developer contact 811 / USA at DigAlert | Utility Locating California | Underground Wire & Cable Locator prior to any excavation / demolition activities so we can Locate & Mark out our facilities.

If the Developer needs new gas service, please have them contact our Builder Services group to begin the application process as soon as practicable, at https://www.socalgas.com/for-yourbusiness/builder-services.

To avoid delays in processing requests and notifications, please have all Franchise corespondence sent to our Utility Request inbox, at
[email protected]
I cover the Southeast Region – Redlands
[email protected] would be your contact for requests in the southeastern ends of LA County, Riverside County, San Bernardino & Imperial Counties.

Southeast Region - Anaheim office which is all of Orange County and the southern ends of Los Angeles County; therefore, any Map and/or Will Serve Letter requests you have in these areas please send them to AtlasRequests/[email protected]
Northwest Region – Compton HQ For West and Central LA County, your Map Request and Will Serve Letters, will go to [email protected] Northwest Region - Chatsworth
For any requests from the northern most parts of LA County all the way up to Visalia, San Luis Obispo, Fresno and Tulare you would contact [email protected] Transmission
For Transmission requests, please contact SoCalGas Transmission, at [email protected]
Thank you,
Josh Rubal
Lead Planning Associate
Distribution Planning & Project Management
Redlands HQ - Southeast Region
(213) 231-7978 Oice
[email protected]
From: Charles Benjamin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 8:01 AM
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 301
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 822 of 2294 3 To: Charles Benjamin <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephanie Roseen <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City of Menifee Public Notice - PLN23-0215 Menifee West Coast Self-Storage; PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park; PLN23-0246 Garbani and Evans TTM
Good Morni ng, Please see the attached public notices for the City of Meni fee. All public notices can be fou nd by clicking here [cityofmenifee.us]. Thank you. Chuck Benjami n | Records Technici an Offi ce of the City Clerk City of Meni fee | 29844 Good Morning,
Please see the attached public notices for the City of Menifee.

All public notices can be found by clicking here [cityofmenifee.us]. Thank you.

Chuck Benjamin | Records Technician
Oice of the City Clerk
City of Menifee | 29844 Haun Road | Menifee, CA 92586
Direct: (951) 723-1722 | City Hall: (951) 672-6777
[email protected] | cityofmenifee.us [cityofmenifee.us] Connect with us on social media: [facebook.com] | [twitter.com] | [instagram.com] | [linkedin.com] *Please note that email correspondence with the City of Menifee, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Menifee shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.

This email originated outside of Sempra. Be cautious of attachments, web links, or requests for information.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 302
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 823 of 2294 JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
259320
October 15, 2024
City of Menifee
Planning Division
29714 Haun Road, Building A
Menifee, CA 92586
Attention: Fernando Herrera Re: Ethanac Business Park, Plot Plan PLN 23-0171, PLN 23-0173, PLN 23-0175,
PLN23-0174, APNs 331-110-038,
331-110-039 and 331-110-023
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.

District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.

The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received September 25, 2024. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:
☐ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed.
☒ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, Romoland Master Drainage Plan Line A-1. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required.

All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.
☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance.

Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 303
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 824 of 2294 City of Menifee - 2 - October 15, 2024
Re: Ethanac Business Park, Plot Plan 259320
PLN 23-0171, PLN 23-0173, PLN 23-0175,
PLN23-0174, APNs 331-110-038,
331-110-039 and 331-110-023
EM:mm
conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☒ This project is located within the limits of the District's Homeland/Romoland - Line A Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. ☒ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Romoland Master Drainage Plan Line A. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266.
☐ The District's previous comments are still valid.

GENERAL INFORMATION
The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply, such as, but not limited to, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

The District's action associated with the subject project triggers evaluation by the District with respect to the applicant's compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws. For this project, the Lead Agency is the agency in the address above, and the District is a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The District, as a Copermittee under the MSHCP, needs to demonstrate that all District related activities, including the actions identified above, are consistent with the MSHCP. This is typically achieved through determinations from the CEQA Lead Agency (if they are also a Co-permittee) for the project. For the MSHCP, the District's focus will be particular to Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2, 7.3.7, 7.5.3, and Appendix C of the MSHCP. Please include consistency determination statements from the Lead Agency/Co-permittee for the project for each of these sections in the CEQA document. The District may also require that an applicant provide supporting technical documentation for environmental clearance.

This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 304
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 825 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2
October 11, 2024
Fernando Herrera
City of Menifee
Planning Division
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
SUBJECT: CITY OF PERRIS COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (“MND”) PREPARED FOR THE ETHANAC BUSINESS
PARK -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PLN23–0173), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (PLN23–0175), ZONE CHANGE (PLN 23–0174), AND
PLOT PLAN (PLN23–0171)
Dear Mr. Herrera:

The City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Ethanac Busines Park (“Project”) consisting of 264,710 square foot industrial building on 11.47 acres, located on the west side of Sherman Road, approximately 900 feet south of Ethanac Road, within the City of Menifee. The proposed Project would require implementation of the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment (PLN23-0173) to change the land use from Heavy Industrial to Menifee North Specific Plan, a Specific Plan Amendment (PLN23-0175) to modify the boundary of the existing Menifee North Specific Plan to include the proposed Project and designate it as Planning Area 2 (Industrial), Change of Zone (PLN23- 0174) to change zoning from Heavy Industrial to Menifee North Specific Plan, and Plot Plan (PLN23-0171) for the construction of the proposed warehouse. The Project is anticipated to have an opening year of 2026. Access is proposed along Sherman Avenue via two points of access (the southerly driveway being a shared driveway with the property immediately to the south). All driveways are assumed to allow for full access (no turn restrictions).

After reviewing the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Project as well as the supporting studies, the City is concerned the IS/MND has not adequately analyzed and mitigated the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts related to traffic, air quality, land use, noise and transportation. As explained in more detail below, the City believes there is a fair argument the Project may cause significant impacts on the environment specifically.

Furthermore, through this comment letter Perris seeks to strongly encourage Menifee to require this Project implement the best development practices set forth in the very recently enacted

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 305
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 826 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2
Assembly Bill 98 which mandates certain development standards for certain warehouse and distribution centers. Perris recognizes that this Project is not required to comply with Assembly Bill 98. However, Perris believes that compliance will lessen some of the environmental impacts to neighboring residential communities including those in Perris.

I. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Perris recognizes that “level of service” (“LOS”) alone is no longer a metric by which to measure potential environmental impacts related to traffic under CEQA. However, CEQA continues to require the adequate analysis of potentially significant traffic safety impacts. (Public Resources Code, section 21099(b)(3). The significant deterioration of LOS within certain street segments and at certain intersection can provide evidence of potential traffic safety impacts. The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist recognizes this by including the following question: “Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? With the introduction of additional truck traffic from this Project and other related projects, both the TIS and the IS/MND fail understate the potential cumulative transportation safety impacts caused by this project in conjunction with other approved or pending warehouse and logistics center projects in its vicinity as further discussed below.

1. Page 8, Table 1-3: Summary of LOS and Page 9, Section 1.5.2: E+P Conditions. The Traffic Analysis indicates that the project would have a direct impact to the intersection of Sherman Road at Ethanac Road as shown under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions resulting in potential safety issues. As a result of this, the project should be 100% responsible for improving this intersection to an acceptable level of service.

Also, the Perris Travel Center project is located north of Ethanac Road between the I-215 Freeway and Trumble Road within the City of Perris. The traffic study for that project prepared by Kimley Horn (June 2024) indicated the LOS at the intersection of Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road was currently failing. As a result of this and the proximity of the intersection of Trumble Road, the Project will be constructing a median along Ethanac Road that will restrict left turns at this intersection. Therefore, the traffic study must be revised to reflect these conditions. Revising the traffic study to reflect this reasonably foreseeable change in the environmental baseline conditions is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, section 15125(a)(1) which states in relevant part, “Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence. In addition, a lead agency may also use baselines consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record.” (Underlining added.)

2. Page 10, Off-Ramp Queues. While the Project analyzes queuing on the I-215 southbound and northbound freeway off-ramps, it does not include a queuing analysis along Ethanac Road itself. This is critical as the queuing at these intersections along Ethanac Road could adversely impact traffic operations at these two ramp intersections thus creating traffic Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 306
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 827 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2
safety hazards. The traffic study needs to address queuing at these critical locations and how they may affect east-west traffic along Ethanac Road over the I-215 freeway.

3. Page 14, Table 1-4: Summary of Improvements. Again, as previously noted, improvements to the eastbound and westbound through lanes and left-turn pockets along Ethanac Road (at the I-215 freeway ramp intersections) need to be addressed and appropriate funding sources identified.

It is shown that many improvements recommended in the traffic study would be covered by payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (“TUMF”). It is imperative that this is confirmed for each specific improvement, otherwise alternative funding sources would need to be provided that comply with the requirements of CEQA (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1194. Additionally, as previously stated, the project would have a direct impact to the intersection of Sherman Road at Ethanac Road and as such, the project should be 100% responsible for improving this intersection to an acceptable level of service.

4. Page 27, Section 2.6.2: City of Perris Minimum Acceptable LOS. All five off-site study intersections included in this traffic study are either partially, or entirely, located within the City of Perris. As such, it is imperative that the correct City of Perris LOS thresholds are utilized. The LOS criteria utilized in the traffic study for determining impacts in the City of Perris is incorrect thus potentially understating the potential traffic safety impacts from the Project. As such, the traffic study should be updated accordingly.

5. Page 47, Section 4.5: Background Traffic. As previously mentioned, all five off-site study intersections included in this traffic study are either partially, or entirely, located within the City of Perris. The City of Perris utilizes an ambient growth rate of 3% per year, however, the traffic study utilizes an ambient growth rate of 2% per year for all intersections (i.e., City of Menifee criteria). As such, the traffic study understates the traffic volumes/impacts at City of Perris facilities.

6. Page 53, Exhibit 4-5: Cumulative Development Location Map & Page 56, Table 4-3:

Cumulative Development Land Use Summary. City of Perris Planning Department shall confirm the list of City of Perris cumulative projects that have been utilized in the traffic study. If discrepancies exist, the traffic study shall be updated accordingly.

7. Page 72, Table 6-4: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2026) Conditions With Improvements. The improvements for the I-215 freeway/Ethanac Road intersections involve major improvements including additional through lanes and left-turn pockets. Are these considered interim improvements which will be further modified in the future to its ultimate configuration? Additional clarification is needed.

8. Page 82, Table 7-4: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2026) Conditions With Improvements. This table assumes the ultimate reconstruction of the I-215 interchange at Ethanac Road. Is there currently a funding source for these improvements? Additional clarification is needed, including how these improvements will be implemented.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 307
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 828 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2

9. Developer shall study the intersections of Ethanac Road/Case Road & Ethanac Road/Barnett Road and provide any necessary improvements and/or fair share costs related to the realignment of Barnett Road to align directly across with Case Road. Study for these intersections shall include a queuing analysis.

10. The Development’s drainage study shall analyze and mitigate for collection and conveyance for all tributary runoff, including the runoff at the intersection of Ethanac Road and Sherman Road.

11. Developer shall study the intersections of Ethanac Rd/Case Rd & Ethanac Rd/Barnett Rd and provide any necessary improvements and/or fair share costs related to the realignment of Barnett Road to align directly across with Case Road. Study for these intersections shall include a queuing analysis.

II. NOISE IMPACTS
As discussed in more detail below Perris believes the IS/MND’s analysis of potential construction and operational noise impacts is inadequate, resulting in understating the Project’s potentially significant noise impacts. Initially, it is unclear whether the noise analysis fully complied with CEQA’s basic methodology for noise analysis. CEQA requires noise analysis to consider both absolute noise levels generated by a Project and also the incremental increase in noise levels caused by the Project. King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 893- 894. In addition, Perris has the following additional comments regarding the noise analysis.

1. The City of Perris’ noise ordinance is not utilized as part of the analysis of the Project’s noise generation, despite the Project’s proximity to sensitive receptors within the City of Perris. This is of particular concern due to the anticipated increase in cumulative and incremental traffic noise along Ethanac Road, which is directly south of the anticipated residential development within the GVSP area. As such, the noise analyze should be revised to incorporate the standards set forth in Perris’ noise ordinance.

2. The IS/MND analysis does not address critical details regarding the staging locations for trucks and the anticipated frequency of nighttime concrete pours. There is no information on how often nighttime pours will occur or the schedule of nighttime pours. Understanding the specific location for staging is critical to evaluating potential impacts on nearby resident and sensitive receptors.

3. The evaluation of cumulative off-site traffic noise impacts is based on an incorrect methodology that is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. Under CEQA, an environmental document is required to determine whether a significant cumulative impact would occur. If the cumulative impact is significant, the environmental document is required to determine if the contribution of the project is considerable. In the case of this project and IS/MND, the Noise and Vibration Analysis only evaluates the noise level increase associated with the proposed project under the existing noise levels (Table 7-7), Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (“EAC”) noise levels (Table 7-8), and Horizon Year noise levels (Table 7-9). However, the cumulative traffic noise impact is supposed to be based on the change in noise levels from the existing condition to the future Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 308
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 829 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2
condition with the traffic generated by the proposed project and other cumulative development.

For example, Table 7-7 of the Noise and Vibration Analysis identifies an existing noise level of 69.9 dBA along Ethanac Road west of Trumble Road. Table 7-9 then shows the Horizon Year noise level of 74.2 dBA with the proposed project along this roadway segment. This represents a cumulative noise level increase of 4.3 dBA, which substantially exceeds the 1.5 dBA incremental noise level increase threshold of significance identified for the sensitive receptors along this roadway segment. Under this correct methodology, a cumulative noise level increase of 4.7 dBA would occur at the sensitive receptors along Ethanac Road west of Sherman Road. As such, the IS/MND should have concluded that a significant cumulative impact would occur at the sensitive receptors along these roadway segments. While the contribution of the project might not be considerable, the City of Menifee has not acknowledged the significant cumulative impact and has not informed the public about the significant cumulative noise impact. This in violation of CEQA.

III. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Initially, Perris notes the IS/MND’s analysis discusses that the Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (“SCAB”), which is characterized as relatively poor air quality. The proposed project will not help the air of SCAB become better, but just increase poor air quality.

Even if the project meets certain thresholds, the additional emission from construction activities and operational sources contribute to further degradation of air quality in the region. Instead of supporting improvements in air quality, the proposed Project will lead to increased pollution levels, negatively affecting public health and the environment. That being said, the City provides the following comments regarding the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND

1. The IS/MND’s analysis of carbon monoxide hotspots uses outdated data from the Lake Elsinore monitoring station for 2022. The IS/MND concludes that the “traffic volumes for the Project, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, would not be capable of resulting in a CO ‘hot spot’ at any study area intersection.” The IS/MND should use current data to collect data for a carbon monoxide hotspots. Since 2022, there have been changes in traffic conditions, and changes in development.

2. On page 38, the IS/MND states that “The traffic volumes for the Project, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, would not be capable of resulting in a CA ‘hot spot’ at any study area intersections.” However, the analysis fails to provide substantial evidence to support this statement.

3. The MND’s analysis of Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts is inadequate as it does not link emissions to their potential health impacts. While the analysis states that the emissions will not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) localized significance thresholds, it fails to connect the emissions to human health consequences.

Given the proximity of the project to the GVSP, it is crucial that a comprehensive health impact assessment be conduct to provide a more accurate picture on the project’s impact on air quality and public health.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 309
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 830 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2

4. The air quality analysis should have analyzed the localized impacts to the sensitive receptor at 3042 Sherman Road, a single-family residence located in the City of Perris, approximately 588.7 meters (0.365 miles) from the proposed project. This analysis essential for accurately assessing potential human health risks and noise impacts associated with the project. By analyzed the potential impacts to this location, the City of Menifee can ensure that any adverse effects on nearby residents are identified and appropriately addressed.

IV. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS
The City believes the IS/MND’s analysis of impact related to the provision of public services is deficient as well as set forth below.

1. The IS/MND states that the project will involve the construction of new fire facilities.

However, the City’s analysis is insufficient, as it fails to assess the potential impacts of building a fire facility. The analysis should include evaluations of noise, air quality, and any other relevant factors associated with the construction of the fire facility, as well as the potential impacts on the surrounding area.

2. The City must develop a comprehensive analysis regarding the usage of the warehouse. It is important to clarify what materials will be stored in the warehouse and to evaluate whether these materials pose potential fire hazards which will require additional fire fighting infrastructure.

V. COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 98
On September 29, 2024 Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 98 which establishes mandatory minimum development standards and setbacks for certain warehouse and distribution center projects. Perris recognizes that this Project is not required to comply with AB 98 pursuant to its terms. However, Perris strongly encourages the Menifee to separately include these new requirements as conditions of approval for the Project to mitigate the public health and safety issues at AB 98 is intended to address. Specifically, the City makes the following comments related to AB 98 implementation.

1. Since the project is within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor in a non-residential zone, a 50- foot buffer should be provided along the west property line shared with the residential uses to the west to fully screen the project from the sensitive receptors. Buffer areas would need to include a solid decorative wall, landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm 10 feet or more in height, drought tolerant natural ground landscaping with proper irrigation, and solid screen buffering trees, planted in two rows along the length of the property line adjacent to the sensitive receptor. Trees used for this purpose shall be evergreen, drought tolerant, to the extent feasible, composed of species with low biogenic emissions, of a minimum 36-inch box size at planting, and spaced at no greater distance than 40 feet on center. Palm trees shall not be utilized.

2. The proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residences in the City of Menifee immediately to the east of the project site, located on the east side of Trumble Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 310
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 831 of 2294 01006.0003/1022291.2
Road and south of Ethanac Road; as well as the residential community in the City of Menifee on the northeast corner of Ethanac Road and Sherman Road. In order to address the potential impacts to the residences in close proximity to the project site, at a minimum a larger buffer, including landscaping consisting of mature evergreen trees, should be provided to adequately screen the proposed warehouse in compliance with the requirements provided in AB 98.

VI. REQUEST FOR CEQA NOTICES
Please provide future notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law including notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA.

The City of Perris thanks you for considering these comments. Please feel free to contact me at (951) 943-5003, ext. 355 or [email protected], if you have any questions or would like to discuss the above concern in further detail.

Sincerely,
Patricia Brenes
Planning Manager
cc: Clara Miramontes, City Manager
Wendell Bugtai, Assistant City Manager
Robert Khuu, City Attorney
John Pourkazemi, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 311
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 832 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 1
Comment #1

that the project would have a direct impact to the intersection of Sherman Road at Ethanac Road as shown under Existing Plus Project traffic conditions resulting in potential safety issues. As a result of this, the project should be 100% responsible for improving this intersection to an acceptable level of service.

Also, the Perris Travel Center project is located north of Ethanac Road between the I-215 Freeway and Trumble Road within the City of Perris. The traffic study for that project prepared by Kimley Horn (June 2024) indicated the LOS at the intersection of Encanto Drive at Ethanac Road was currently failing.

As a result of this and the proximity of the intersection of Trumble Road, the Project will be constructing a median along Ethanac Road that will restrict left turns at this intersection. Therefore, the traffic study must be revised to reflect these conditions. Revising the traffic study to reflect this reasonably foreseeable change in the environmental baseline conditions is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, section 15125(a)(1) which states in relevant part, “Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence. In addition, a lead agency may also use baselines consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record.” (Underlining added.) Response #1
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. The Project’s responsibility for the improvements necessary to bring the intersection of Sherman Road and Ethanac Road (#5) to an acceptable LOS is indicated as fair share. The improvements that are required to address existing and cumulative (near-term and long-term) deficiencies are considered cumulative as they are not directly caused by the proposed Project. As noted in Table 1-4, the Project applicant would construct the needed improvements to accommodate the ingress and egress truck turns.

Regarding the Perris Travel Center (City of Perris Case No. P22-05022) project and the proposed median along Ethanac Road near Encanto Drive, the traffic study was prepared using the most current and reliable data available at the time of analysis. While the background traffic associated with the Perris Travel Center project was included as a cumulative project, roadway network changes as proposed by the Perris Travel Center development would only be applicable if that project were to be approved and ultimately developed, including the transportation improvements required by the City of Perris (which at the time of preparation of the Traffic Study for the subject project the Perris Travel Center project was not approved). Similarly, the Perris Towne Center project recommended in its Traffic Study the vacation of the intersection at Encanto and Ethanac, which is acknowledged as a footnote in Table 1-4 of the Project Traffic Study. As such, as authorized by CEQA, improvements were identified at the intersection of Encanto and Ethanac Road as if neither cumulative project moves forward, evaluating Encanto at Ethanac as a full access intersection. The transportation effects to the roadway network as proposed by each of the aforementioned City of Perris project would have been evaluated in their own respective environmental studies. Lastly, the proposed Project is anticipated to contribute to through traffic only Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 312
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 833 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 2
along Ethanac Road at Encanto Drive (no turns of Project traffic is anticipated onto or off of Encanto Drive that would be affected by any access restrictions). As such, revisions to the subject Project Traffic Study is not required.

Comment #2

freeway off-ramps, it does not include a queuing analysis along Ethanac Road itself. This is critical as the queuing at these intersections along Ethanac Road could adversely impact traffic operations at these two ramp intersections thus creating traffic safety hazards. The traffic study needs to address queuing at these critical locations and how they may affect east-west traffic along Ethanac Road over the I-215 freeway.

Response #2
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. The queuing analysis in the traffic study focuses on the I-215 southbound and northbound off-ramps because these locations represent the critical points where queuing directly interacts with freeway mainline. The purpose is to ensure there is no spillback from the arterial onto the I-215 Freeway. However, as shown in Table 7-6 of the Traffic Study and Appendix 7.8, there are no queuing issues anticipated along Ethanac Road under Horizon Year traffic conditions with the proposed improvements. It should also be noted that the Project contributes 0.7% and 1.5% of new traffic at the southbound and northbound ramps, respectively. Given this minimal contribution, a separate queuing analysis along Ethanac Road itself is not warranted.

Comment #3

eastbound and westbound through lanes and left-turn pockets along Ethanac Road (at the I-215 freeway ramp intersections) need to be addressed and appropriate funding sources identified.

It is shown that many improvements recommended in the traffic study would be covered by payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (“TUMF”). It is imperative that this is confirmed for each specific improvement, otherwise alternative funding sources would need to be provided that comply with the requirements of CEQA (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1194.

Additionally, as previously stated, the project would have a direct impact to the intersection of Sherman Road at Ethanac Road and as such, the project should be 100% responsible for improving this intersection to an acceptable level of service.

Response #3
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. As stated in the Anderson First Coalition case cited by the City of Perris, imposition of impact fees is an appropriate mitigation when it is linked to a specific mitigation program, here the TUMF program. The TUMF program specifically lists the I-215/Ethanac Road improvements as improvements to be funded through TUMF. These improvements are consistent with TUMF and with what other nearby traffic studies have assumed and recommended for Horizon Year traffic conditions. Although the I-215/Ethanac Road improvements are not identified as part of the Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Central Zone Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 313
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 834 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 3
5-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project. The latest Draft TUMF Nexus Study (dated May 9, 2024) identifies a total interchange improvement cost of $32,698,000 and a maximum TUMF share of $32,698,000 (see Table 4.4), with a breakdown in costs summarized in Exhibit H-1. Ethanac Road is also a TUMF facility (although not identified on the 5-year TIP) from the I-215 Freeway to Matthews Road with a maximum TUMF share of $3,562,000 for one lane in each additional direction of travel.

Comment #4

in this traffic study are either partially, or entirely, located within the City of Perris. As such, it is imperative that the correct City of Perris LOS thresholds are utilized. The LOS criteria utilized in the traffic study for determining impacts in the City of Perris is incorrect thus potentially understating the potential traffic safety impacts from the Project. As such, the traffic study should be updated accordingly.

Response #4
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. The City of Perris has the following LOS criteria for the affected study area intersections:

LOS “D” along all City maintained roads (including intersections) and LOS “D” along I-215 and SR 74 (including intersections with local streets and roads). An exception to the local road standard is LOS “E,” at intersections of any Arterials and Expressways with SR 74, the Ramona-Cajalco Expressway or at I-215 freeway ramps.

The City of Perris’s Guidelines state for locations that have a pre-project deficiency, and a project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips and increases the peak hour delay by 2.0 seconds or more would be considered direct or cumulative impact. However, it should be noted that the proposed project does not contribute more than 50 peak hour trips to any intersections west of Sherman Road. Additionally, all deficiencies identified in the traffic study have corresponding intersection improvements that have been recommended to bring the intersection’s LOS back to acceptable levels.

The City of Perris LOS criteria and thresholds have been utilized for the applicable analysis locations along with City of Menifee thresholds.

Comment #5

included in this traffic study are either partially, or entirely, located within the City of Perris. The City of Perris utilizes an ambient growth rate of 3% per year, however, the traffic study utilizes an ambient growth rate of 2% per year for all intersections (i.e., City of Menifee criteria). As such, the traffic study understates the traffic volumes/impacts at City of Perris facilities.

Response #5
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. To remain consistent with the scoping agreement and to avoid errors in flow conservation between intersections, a 2% per year ambient growth rate has been applied to all study area intersections, as the Project site is within the City of Menifee’s jurisdiction and follows the City of Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 314
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 835 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 4
Menifee’s Guidelines. Additionally, the Horizon Year traffic conditions, derived from the RIVCOM regional model, offers a more conservative analysis compared to the cumulative scenarios, regardless of the ambient growth rate used. The average growth in traffic volumes for all study area intersections between Existing Conditions and Horizon Year Conditions is approximately 5% per year compounded over 21 years (for Year 2045). As such, the background growth evaluated for the purposes of the Traffic Study is not understated.

Comment #6

Development Land Use Summary. City of Perris Planning Department shall confirm the list of City of Perris cumulative projects that have been utilized in the traffic study. If discrepancies exist, the traffic study shall be updated accordingly.

Response #6
The most recent list from the City of Perris was used to develop the cumulative projects list during the scoping agreement process. The latest list was obtained at the time the scoping agreement was approved and analysis was underway for the subject Project.

Comment #7

improvements for the I-215 freeway/Ethanac Road intersections involve major improvements including additional through lanes and left-turn pockets. Are these considered interim improvements which will be further modified in the future to its ultimate configuration? Additional clarification is needed.

Response #7
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. The improvements for the I-215/Ethanac Road intersections under EAPC (2026) Conditions are to accommodate near-term, EAPC (2026) traffic conditions. The ultimate improvements, needed for Horizon Year (2045) traffic conditions, are reflected in Table 7-4 of the Traffic Study. However, the ultimate interchange design and future improvements would be determined based on a future Project Study Report (PSR) and supplemental environmental evaluation of improvements to the interchange.

Comment #8

assumes the ultimate reconstruction of the I-215 interchange at Ethanac Road. Is there currently a funding source for these improvements? Additional clarification is needed, including how these improvements will be implemented
Response #8
See Response #3 and Response #7.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 315
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 836 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 5
Comment #9
Developer shall study the intersections of Ethanac Road/Case Road & Ethanac Road/Barnett Road and provide any necessary improvements and/or fair share costs related to the realignment of Barnett Road to align directly across with Case Road. Study for these intersections shall include a queuing analysis.

Response #9
It should be noted that under the CEQA Guidelines, automobile congestion no longer is considered a significant impact. The Project is expected to contribute only 4 AM peak hour and 4 PM peak hour trips west of the I-215 freeway along Ethanac Road. Given this minimal impact, the minimum trip threshold for analysis to study the intersections of Ethanac Road/Case Road and Ethanac Road/Barnett Road is not met per the City of Perris’ Guidelines.

City of Menifee also has the same 50 peak hour trip criteria for the purposes of determining the study area as a criteria for potentially triggering project-specific improvement needs. However, the subject Project’s Traffic Study evaluated a study area that exceeds this criteria since intersections west of Sherman Road (which would have fewer than 50 peak hour trips) were included for analysis at the request of City of Menifee staff during the scoping process. By both City’s Guidelines, the subject Project should not have a measurable effect (or responsibility to improve) any intersection with less than 50 peak hour trips.

Comment #10
The Development’s drainage study shall analyze and mitigate for collection and conveyance for all tributary runoff, including the runoff at the intersection of Ethanac Road and Sherman Road.

Response #10
This comment has been noted. No changes to the traffic study are necessary as this comment pertains to the drainage study.

Comment #11
Developer shall study the intersections of Ethanac Rd/Case Rd & Ethanac Rd/Barnett Rd and provide any necessary improvements and/or fair share costs related to the realignment of Barnett Road to align directly across with Case Road. Study for these intersections shall include a queuing analysis.

Response #11
See Response #9.

Comment #12
The City of Perris’ noise ordinance is not utilized as part of the analysis of the Project’s noise generation, despite the Project’s proximity to sensitive receptors within the City of Perris. This is of particular concern due to the anticipated increase in cumulative and incremental traffic noise along Ethanac Road, which is directly south of the anticipated residential development within the GVSP area. As such, the noise analyze should be revised to incorporate the standards set forth in Perris’ noise ordinance.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 316
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 837 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 6
Response #12
Under CEQA each lead agency must adopt its own thresholds. As such, the City of Menifee has applied a uniform and consistent set of thresholds to address the impacts of the Project. Utilizing the City of Perris, noise ordinance, Noise Element, or similar standards would result in two sets of standards and would result in an inconsistent analysis. Additionally, the City of Menifee has no ability to enforce the City of Perris regulations or standards.

Comment #13
The IS/MND analysis does not address critical details regarding the staging locations for trucks and the anticipated frequency of nighttime concrete pours. There is no information on how often nighttime pours will occur or the schedule of nighttime pours. Understanding the specific location for staging is critical to evaluating potential impacts on nearby resident and sensitive receptors.

Response #13
As with many of the nighttime concrete pours analyzed for projects within the City of Perris, staging areas for concrete pours by necessity are located within the construction area since they are almost exclusively for the creation of the foundations and loading aprons. Additionally, unlike other typical construction, such as roadway construction, the staging areas for concrete pours are limited to a couple of trucks queuing up before they move into position to unload concrete. The time of the concrete pours, and their duration is not relevant to the noise analysis since any violation during any hour of construction would have an impact. Alternately, even if a concrete pour occurred for many days, if it did not exceed the thresholds, there would be no impact.

Comment #14
The evaluation of cumulative off-site traffic noise impacts is based on an incorrect methodology that is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. Under CEQA, an environmental document is required to determine whether a significant cumulative impact would occur. If the cumulative impact is significant, the environmental document is required to determine if the contribution of the project is considerable.

In the case of this project and IS/MND, the Noise and Vibration Analysis only evaluates the noise level increase associated with the proposed project under the existing noise levels (Table 7-7), Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (“EAC”) noise levels (Table 7-8), and Horizon Year noise levels (Table 7- 9). However, the cumulative traffic noise impact is supposed to be based on the change in noise levels from the existing condition to the future condition with the traffic generated by the proposed project and other cumulative development.

For example, Table 7-7 of the Noise and Vibration Analysis identifies an existing noise level of 69.9 dBA along Ethanac Road west of Trumble Road. Table 7-9 then shows the Horizon Year noise level of 74.2 dBA with the proposed project along this roadway segment. This represents a cumulative noise level increase of 4.3 dBA, which substantially exceeds the 1.5 dBA incremental noise level increase threshold of significance identified for the sensitive receptors along this roadway segment. Under this correct methodology, a cumulative noise level increase of 4.7 dBA would occur at the sensitive receptors along Ethanac Road west of Sherman Road. As such, the IS/MND should have concluded that a significant Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 317
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 838 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 7
cumulative impact would occur at the sensitive receptors along these roadway segments. While the contribution of the project might not be considerable, the City of Menifee has not acknowledged the significant cumulative impact and has not informed the public about the significant cumulative noise impact. This in violation of CEQA.

Response #14
The analysis correctly assesses the impacts of traffic based on the Project’s contribution. As indicated in the comment, the cumulative increases in noise levels under future conditions are disclosed. As required by CEQA, the analysis focuses on the Project’s impacts to the environment and evaluates the Project’s contribution to future noise level increases. As stated in the report and reiterated in the comment, the Project’s contribution to future traffic noise level increases is less than cumulatively considerable, and therefore, the Project does not have a significant cumulative noise impact.

Comment #15
The IS/MND’s analysis of carbon monoxide hotspots uses outdated data from the Lake Elsinore monitoring station for 2022. The IS/MND concludes that the “traffic volumes for the Project, coupled with the ongoing improvements in ambient air quality, would not be capable of resulting in a CO ‘hot spot’ at any study area intersection.” The IS/MND should use current data to collect data for a carbon monoxide hotspots. Since 2022, there have been changes in traffic conditions, and changes in development.

Response #15
The Air Quality Impact Analysis utilized information from the 2022 Lake Elsinore monitoring station which reported the ambient 1-hr. and 8-hr. CO concentration within the Project study area to be 0.9 ppm and

0.6 ppm, respectively. Although the 2023 monitoring station data is now available, it has been reviewed and the ambient 1-hr. and 8-hr. CO concentrations within the Project study were 1.3 ppm and 0.7 ppm, in 2023. Although this is slightly higher than the 2022 CO concentrations, it is a negligible increase and the 2023 concentrations are well below the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eighthour standard of 9 ppm. As such, no changes are required to the IS/MND and underlying technical reports.

The commentors claim that the analysis fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO ‘hot spot’ at any study area intersections, however; as stated on page 52 of Appendix A, Air Quality Impact Analysis, the Project specific peak hour traffic volumes taken from Appendix J Ethanac Business Park Traffic Analysis and Vehicles Miles Traveled Assessment were assessed on Table 3-13 and the intersection of the I-215 Southbound Ramps and Ethanac Road would have the highest AM/PM traffic volumes of 3,457 vph and 4,159 vph respectively which is significantly less than the traffic volumes conducted in the 2003 AQMP Study, where the busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively.

This is further substantiated on Page 51 where the analysis references the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) conclusion that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 318
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 839 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 8
hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.

Additionally, as stated on Page 51, the 2003 AQMP the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, 8.4 ppm 8-hr. CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared.

As noted above, only 0.7 ppm were attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at one of the busiest intersections in the SCAB. Therefore if these traffic volumes were multiplied by ten times, it could be expected that the CO attributable to traffic would increase tenfold as well, resulting in 7 ppm – even if this were added to either the 1-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations within the Project study area, this would result in 8.3 ppm and 7.7 ppm for the 1-hr and 8-hr timeframes, respectively. Neither of which would exceed the applicable 1-hr standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hr standard of 9 ppm. As such the Project would not generate enough volume to create a CO hotspot at the intersections considered either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations.

The substantial reduction in CO levels from the vehicle fleet and the state’s attainment status for CO further diminish the need for detailed microscale hotspot analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks adequately address potential air quality concerns.

The changes in traffic conditions and subsequent CO concentration from 2022 to 2023 as stated previously would result in a negligible difference and given that background concentrations are historically low, the potential for CO concentrations or “Hot Spots” are highly unlikely.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the findings in the IS/MND and underlying Appendix A are substantiated, and no further changes are required.

Comment #16
On page 38, the IS/MND states that “The traffic volumes for the Project, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, would not be capable of resulting in a CA ‘hot spot’ at any study area intersections.” However, the analysis fails to provide substantial evidence to support this statement.

Response #16
See response to comment 1.

Comment #17
The MND’s analysis of Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts is inadequate as it does not link emissions to their potential health impacts. While the analysis states that the emissions will not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) localized significance thresholds, it fails to connect the emissions to human health consequences. Given the proximity of the project to the GVSP, it is crucial that Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 319
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 840 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 9
a comprehensive health impact assessment be conduct to provide a more accurate picture on the project’s impact on air quality and public health.

Response #17
Comment noted. The Agency appears to be referring to the Friant Ranch case and a Health Impact Assessment consistent with this case. The IS/MND did in fact consider this case in Appendix A, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Section 3.9.1: Friant Ranch Case on pages 50-52, discusses the December 2018 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (Friant Ranch Case) and concludes that most local agencies including the City of Menifee lack the data to do their own assessment of potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish customized, locally-specific thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an individual development project.

The commentor states that the analysis failed to link emissions to their potential health impacts, however; as studied in section 3.9.1, the analysis included the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) in Section 3.6: Localized Significance on pages 45-50 of Appendix A, Air Quality Impact Analysis. The LSTs are based on criteria pollutants emissions standards which consider health effects and are health protective. The Project was found to have a less than significant impact in regards to construction and operational LST emissions and therefore, would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
As the Project’s emissions would comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards, the proposed Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled.

Additionally, the IS/MND and underlying technical Appendix A, includes a construction and operational HRA, including the total combined risk for Project construction and operation combined for nearby receptors. The Project was found to not generate significant localized air pollution and would not expose nearby residential, worker, or school child receptors to substantial adverse health risks.

As concluded in the IS/MND and underlying Appendix A, Air Quality Impact Analysis and Health Risk Assessment, the Project was found to have a less than significant impact in regards to Project specific regional and localized air quality and health risk. As such, the findings in the IS/MND and underlying Appendix A are substantiated, and no further changes are required.

Comment #18
The air quality analysis should have analyzed the localized impacts to the sensitive receptor at 3042 Sherman Road, a single-family residence located in the City of Perris, approximately 588.7 meters (0.365 miles) from the proposed project. This analysis essential for accurately assessing potential human health risks and noise impacts associated with the project. By analyzed the potential impacts to this location, the City of Menifee can ensure that any adverse effects on nearby residents are identified and appropriately addressed.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 320
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 841 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 10
Response #18
The IS/MND and underlying Appendix A, Air Quality Impact Analysis and Health Risk Assessment evaluated sensitive receptors closer than the receptor noted by the commentor at 3042 Sherman Road. The closest existing residential receptor to the Project was identified to be Location R5, located at 26228 Trumble Rd., approximately 177.1 meters (0.110 miles) west of the Project site. The location identified by the commentor at 3042 Sherman Road, is located approximately 588.7 meters (0.365 miles) north of the Project site, which is over three times the distance than the location R5 identified in the analysis. Emissions concentrations decrease as the distance between the source (Project Site) and receptor increase. This is substantiated with traffic-related studies, where the additional emissions concentrations attributable to proximity were seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70-percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD emission concentrations and modeling analyses, an 80-percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center (1). As such, based on the previous discussion and difference in distance between location R5 and the residence at 3042 Sherman Road, impacts that would occur at locations further than Location R5 would be subject to lesser emission concentrations and would not have any greater impacts than what would occur at Location R5.

Additionally, as discussed in Appendix A, Air Quality Impact Analysis, on pages 45-50 the report utilizes the LST methodology which analyzes the Projects emission to nearby sensitive receptors which compared to the Total Concentration thresholds was found to be less than significant for construction and operations. The receptors as identified on Exhibit 3-A on page 48, are all closer to the Project Site than the residence at 3042 Sherman Road as discussed previously. As such, the findings in the IS/MND and underlying Appendix A are substantiated, and no further changes are required.

Comment #19
The IS/MND states that the project will involve the construction of new fire facilities. However, the City’s analysis is insufficient, as it fails to assess the potential impacts of building a fire facility. The analysis should include evaluations of noise, air quality, and other relevant factors associated with the construction of the fire facility, as well as the potential impacts on the surrounding area.

Response #19
The ISMND does not state that development of new fire facilities is part of the proposed Project. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable fire protection and prevention requirements and pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) as per the approved fee schedule toward the construction of new fire facilities. However, payment of DIF constitutes adequate mitigation because through implementation of the DIF program, the City collects DIF from development projects and is mandated to use the DIF funds to construct new fire and emergency service facilities. In addition, the Project’s fire safety and fire suppression features pursuant to the Menifee MC, and the Project applicant’s compliance with all required design regulations, will further minimize the demand for fire protection and emergency public services impacts. Further, because no fire protection facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with existing fire structures or require modification of fire protection Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 321
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 842 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 11
facilities. Lastly, the Project would be consistent with planned industrial uses per the Menifee North SP.

When it is determined that a new fire station would be required, the City would determine at that time if that project would be subject to CEQA.

Comment #20
The City must develop a comprehensive analysis regarding the usage of the warehouse. It is important to clarify what materials will be stored in the warehouse and to evaluate whether these materials pose potential fire hazards which will require additional fire fighting infrastructure.

Response #20
As previously stated, the end user for the Project has not been identified at this time. As such, it is unknown what types of materials will be stored within the Project site. Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The Project may also involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; the specific substances and quantities of such materials are presently unknown. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. DOT, California OSHA, and the Riverside County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts.

Additionally, the Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Riverside County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for significant hazards to the public or the environment.

Comment #21
Since the project is within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor in a non-residential zone, a 50-foot buffer should be provided along the west property line shared with the residential uses to the west to fully screen the project from the sensitive receptors. Buffer areas would need to include a solid decorative wall, landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm 10 feet or more in height, drought tolerant natural ground landscaping with proper irrigation, and solid screen buffering trees, planted in two rows along the length of the property line adjacent to the sensitive receptor. Trees used for this purpose shall be evergreen, drought tolerant, to the extent feasible, composed of species with low biogenic emissions, of a minimum 36-inch box size at planting, and spaced at no greater distance than 40 feet on center. Palm trees shall not be utilized.

Response #21
AB 98 explicitly exempts projects which commended the local entitlement process prior to September 20, 2024 which includes this project. Nonetheless, the project incorporates many of the environmental measures included in AB 98 and the project complies with the City of Menifee’s recently enacted Industrial Good Neighbor Policies.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 322
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 843 of 2294 Ethanac Business Park
City of Menifee Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Responses to Comments October 2024 Page 12
Comment #22
The proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residences in the City of Menifee immediately to the east of the project site, located on the east side of Trumble Road and south of Ethanac Road; as well as the residential community in the City of Menifee on the northeast corner of Ethanac Road and Sherman Road. In order to address the potential impacts to the residences in close proximity to the project site, at a minimum a larger buffer, including landscaping consisting of mature evergreen trees, should be provided to adequately screen the proposed warehouse in compliance with the requirements provided in AB 98.

Response #22
AB 98 explicitly exempts projects which commended the local entitlement process prior to September 20, 2024 which includes this project. Nonetheless, the project incorporates many of the environmental measures included in AB 98 and the project complies with the City of Menifee’s recently enacted Industrial Good Neighbor Policies.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 323
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 844 of 2294

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND

INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter.

DATE OF HEARING: November 20, 2024
PLACE OF HEARING: MENIFEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
29844 HAUN ROAD MENIFEE, CA 92586
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled, pursuant to the City of Menifee Municipal Code, before the CITY OF MENIFEE CITY COUNCIL to consider the project shown below:

Project Title:
“Ethanac Business Park” – General Plan Amendment
(PLN23-0173), Specific Plan Amendment (PLN23-0175),
Zone Change (PLN23-0174), and Plot Plan (PLN23-
0171)
Project Location:

The Project site is located along Sherman Road, in the
City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, California, on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 331-110-023, -038,
and -039. The Project is generally located in the
northeastern portion of the City, approximately 0.37 miles to the east of Interstate 215 (I-215), east of Trumble
Road, south of Ethanac Road, west of Sherman Road
and north of McLaughlin Road.

General Plan Land Use and Zoning:

The Project site’s existing general plan land use
designation is “Menifee North Specific Plan” at APNs 331- 110-038 and -039 and Heavy Industrial (HI) at APN 331-
110-023. The Project site’s existing zoning is “Menifee North Specific Plan (SP)” at APNs 331-110-038 and -039
and Heavy Industrial (HI) at APN 331-110-023.

The City Council will consider the following project at a public hearing:

Planning Application No. General Plan Amendment (PLN23-0173) proposes an amendment to the General Plan by changing the land use designation of APN 331-110-023 (1.16 acres) from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Specific Plan (SP) more specifically the Menifee North Specific Plan.

Planning Application No. Specific Plan Amendment (PLN23-0175) proposes to change the boundary of the Menifee North Specific Plan by adding APN 331-110-023 (1.16 acres) and designating it as Planning Area 2 – Industrial.

Planning Application No. Zone Change (PLN23-0174) proposes to change APN 331-110-023 (1.16 acres) from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Menifee North Specific Plan.

Planning Application No. Plot Plan (PLN23-0171) proposes to construct a new approximately 264,710 square foot warehouse consisting of 254,710 square feet of warehouse area and 10,000 square feet of office area on a 11.47-acre site.

The Project proposes approximately 168 automobile parking spaces and 47 truck trailer parking stalls along with approximately 58,864 square feet of landscaping.

Environmental Information: The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The City of Menifee Community Development Department determined the above project would not have a significant effect on the environment and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Menifee City Council will consider the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) at the public hearing.

Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 324
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 845 of 2294 Public Review Period: The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is being circulated for a 20-day review period pursuant to State law. The public review period will start on September 25, 2024, and close on October 14, 2024.

All comments on the IS/MND must be submitted in writing to the address or e-mail provided below and received by Monday, October 14, 2024. The IS/MND can be found at the following web address:
http://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental- Notices-Documents.

Any person wishing to comment on the proposed project may do so in writing between the date of this notice and the public hearing and be heard at the time and place noted above. All comments must be received prior to the time of public hearing. All such comments will be submitted to the City Council, and the City Council will consider such comments, in addition to any oral testimony, before making a decision on the proposed project.

If this project is challenged in court, the issues may be limited to those raised at the public hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Be advised that as a result of public hearings and comment, the City Council may amend, in whole or in part, the proposed project. Accordingly, the designations, development standards, design or improvements, or any properties or lands within the boundaries of the proposed project, may be changed in a way other than specifically proposed.

For further information regarding this project, please contact Fernando Herrera, at (951) 723-3718 or e-mail [email protected], or go to the City of Menifee’s agenda web page at http://www.cityofmenifee.us. To view the case file for the proposed project, contact the Community Development Department office at (951) 672- 6777 Monday through Friday, from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Please send all written correspondence to:

CITY OF MENIFEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Attn: Fernando Herrera, Associate Planner
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
951-723-3718
Item Title: 11.1 Ethanac Business Park
Item Page Number: 325
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 846 of 2294

CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project MEETING DATE: November 20, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Ryan Fowler, Principal Planner
REVIEWED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
APPELLANT: City of Perris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal No. PLN24-0182, certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040622), and adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

2. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal No. PLN24-0182 and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 38139 (PLN22-0041) and Plot Plan No. PLN21-0370 generally located north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road.

DISCUSSION
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. PLN 22-0041 proposes to consolidate eight parcels into one industrial parcel. The Project site is approximately 40.03 gross acres and 36.81 net acres.

Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN 21-0370 proposes a 700,037 square-foot warehouse/industrial building with 10,000 square feet of office space and 690,037 square feet of warehouse space on a 36.8 net acre (40.03 gross acre) site. There will be three points of access on Byers Road and two points of access on Wheat Street. Associated facilities and improvements of the Project include on-site landscaping, parking, regional Project access, and off-site improvements (roadway improvements, storm drain, utilities).

Location
The Project is generally located west of Interstate 215 (I-215) and south of Ethanac Road, within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California. The Project is north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road. The Project site is Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 847 of 2294 City of Menifee City Council
CADO Warehouse Appeal
November 20, 2024

located in the Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) zone of the City and is currently bordered by a scattering of existing rural residential properties (1-5 acres) and vacant land. The Project site consists of eight parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 330-190-002 through -005 and 330-190-010 through -013).

Project Location
Wheat St.

Byers St.

Ethanac Rd.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 848 of 2294 City of Menifee City Council
CADO Warehouse Appeal
November 20, 2024

Background
City Council Hearing – November 6, 2024
On November 6, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing on the Project to a date certain (i.e., November 20, 2024). Two main topics of discussion included (1) the Project-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and (2) the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC). Both are discussed in further detail below.

GHG Emissions
During the November 6, 2024 City Council public hearing, Councilmembers inquired specifically about the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold that was used in the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, and particularly the projects exceedance of this threshold.

That threshold, which was developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), is based on the capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development in the region. The intent of the threshold is to ensure that at least 90 percent of all projects undergo a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental analysis and apply feasible mitigation if necessary.

The City’s adherence to the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold is conservative in nature as other jurisdictions have opted to use a 10,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. However, it is currently common practice to utilize the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold as it is the more conservative and legally defensible option. For comparison, the City of Perris uses a 10,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for industrial projects. In addition, industrial land uses have less GHG than other land uses primarily due to vehicle trips.

According to the Project EIR, with the incorporation of mitigation, emissions would be approximately 6,272 MTCO2e/yr annually from both construction and operations (1,301 from construction and 4,971 from operations). Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. However, as stated by City staff at the November 6, 2024 hearing, the majority of the GHG emissions are associated with non-construction related mobile sources.

Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. In addition, those emissions are anticipated to decrease over time as emissions control technology improves, as adopted regulations are phased in (e.g., CARB Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, CARB Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, CARB Truck and Bus Regulation, CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, among others), and as fleets turnover.

Note the exceedance of the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr does not imply the Project cannot be approved or that the EIR cannot be certified. Instead, the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold simply requires all feasible mitigation measures be implemented to reduce the level of emission below that limit.

However, if unable to do so, CEQA permits the lead agency to certify the EIR if a Statement of Overriding Consideration came be made, demonstrating the Project benefits outweigh the environmental impacts.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 849 of 2294 City of Menifee City Council
CADO Warehouse Appeal
November 20, 2024

Statement of Overriding Considerations
Because the Draft EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated below the level of significance, Findings of Fact (Findings) and a SOOC are required to approve the Project. The Findings and SOOC are included within the resolution for the EIR for City Council’s consideration.

According to the SOOC the following economic, legal, social, or technological benefits, independent of the other benefits, override the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:

1. All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen Project impacts to less than significant levels; furthermore, alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while they have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the economic benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the Project, as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.

2. The Project is consistent with and will contribute to achieving the goals and objectives established by the General Plan. Implementing the City’s General Plan as a policy is a legal and social prerogative of the City. The Project would be consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies through the implementation of PDFs and Mitigation Measures.

3. The Project will result in an increase in property taxes through the development of underutilized parcels, payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), and fair share fees, investment in regional road and flood infrastructure spurring growth leading to increased economic output and permanent City jobs. The sales tax revenues generated on behalf of the City by the local employees within the Project site would represent a boost to the economy.

4. The Project creates employment-generating opportunities for the residents of the City of Menifee and surrounding communities through construction and operation of the Project’s industrial uses. Additional employment (estimated to be up to 860 jobs) will improve the jobs-housing balance.

5. The Project attracts businesses that can expedite the delivery of essential goods to consumers and businesses in the City of Menifee and surrounding communities.

6. The Project facilitates the development of underutilized land currently planned for industrial uses that maximize the use of the site and respond to regional market demand.

7. The Project will attract quality tenants and be competitive with other approved or proposed similar regional facilities.

Please see the attached November 6, 2024, City Council and the August 14, 2024 Planning Commission staff report packets for additional Project information.

Public Notice
Public notices were distributed on October 27, 2024, for the November 6, 2024 City Council hearing. Notices were published in The Press Enterprise and notices were sent to owners within 300 feet of the Project site boundaries and to all relevant agencies, interested parties, and all who commented on the environmental document. On-site postings were provided.

The proposed Project was not required to be re-noticed for the November 20, 2024, City Council hearing, because the Project was continued to a date certain at the November 6, 2024 hearing.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 850 of 2294 City of Menifee City Council
CADO Warehouse Appeal
November 20, 2024

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Thriving Economy

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Exhibits

2. Resolution – EIR

3. Exhibit A – Final EIR

4. Exhibit B – Findings of Fact and SOOC

5. Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

6. Resolution – Project Entitlements

7. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval

8. November 6, 2024, City Council Staff Report Packet

9. City Response with Attachments to Appeal Letter from City of Perris

10. City of Perris – November 6, 2024, Comment Letter

11. August 14, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report Packet

12. Adopted Planning Commission Resolutions
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 851 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 852 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 853 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 854 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 855 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 856 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 857 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 858 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 859 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 860 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 861 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 862 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 863 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 864 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 865 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 866 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 867 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 868 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 869 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 870 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 871 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 872 of 2294 RESOLUTION NO. 24-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA DENYING APPEAL NO. PLN24-0182, CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2022040622) FOR THE CADO MENIFEE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE

PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING

A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, the applicant, CADO Menifee, LLC (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38139 (PLN22-0041) to consolidate eight parcels into one industrial parcel for a total of approximately 40.03 gross acres and 36.81 net acres, and Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN21-0370 for the construction of a 700,037 square-foot warehouse/industrial building with 10,000 square feet of office space and 690,037 square feet of warehouse space on the same 40.03 gross acre site. The Project site is generally located north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (APNs: 330-190-002 through -005 and 330-190-010 through -013); and WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project”; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2022, the City of Menifee publicly noticed its decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project by noticing the State Clearinghouse (SCH), and other agencies in compliance with Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, and surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, the City of Menifee held a duly noticed public scoping meeting regarding the preparation of the EIR to discuss and hear from the public on the potential environmental impacts, which meeting was publicly noticed in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA guidelines, and surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, between March 13, 2024, and April 27, 2024, the City complied with the State-mandated 45-day public review period for the Project Draft EIR took effect, which was publicly noticed in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA guidelines and mailed to surrounding property owners and non-owner residents within 300 feet of the Project site. A copy of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022040622), and a copy of the Draft EIR was placed at the City Hall public counter, Menifee Library, and Sun City Library; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Advocates for the Environment, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, City of Perris – Development Services Department Planning Division, and Blum, Collins & Ho LLP; and
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 873 of 2294 CADO Industrial Warehouse - EIR
November 20, 2024
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR), consisting of comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR, was submitted with the inclusion of Findings of Fact (Findings), a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOOC) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City Council’s consideration. For the purposes of this Resolution, the Final EIR shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the FEIR’s errata section together with the other sections of the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require re-circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the Project, dated March 2024, and FEIR for the Project, dated August 2024 provides an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and has been prepared in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and State regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-1-1 to certify the EIR and approve TPM No. 38139 (PLN22-0041) and PP No. PLN21-0370 for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2024, an application to appeal Planning Commission certification of the EIR for the Project and approval of TPM No. 38139 (PLN22-0041) and PP No. PLN21-0370 was submitted by the City of Perris; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the City Council voted unanimously to continue the public hearing on the Project to a date certain (i.e., November 20, 2024); and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, the City Council held the continued public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR and approval of TPM No. 38139 (PLN22-0041) and PP No. PLN21-0370 and Resolution Nos. PC24- 0639 and PC24-0640, which hearing was not required to be re-noticed, because the Project was continued to a date certain (i.e., November 20, 2024) at the November 6, 2024, hearing, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Menifee has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of Menifee, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the City shall not approve a project that has significant effects on the environment unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects and that the benefits of approving the Project outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts, such that the impacts are acceptable based on CEQA Guideline Section 15093; and
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 874 of 2294 CADO Industrial Warehouse - EIR
November 20, 2024
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the Project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the CEQA Findings and SOOC attached as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, prior to recommending action on the Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives identified in the EIR, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b), the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee resolves as follows:

Section 1: Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct, based on substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR as “Exhibit A,” on file in the office of the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2: Certification of EIR. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the proposed Project which have been submitted to, and received by, the City, the City Council certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the FEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency under CEQA and adopts and certifies the FEIR as complete and adequate. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project.

Section 3: CEQA Findings of Fact and SOOC. The City Council has reviewed the FEIR, considered public testimony at the November 6, 2024, and November 20, 2024, public hearings, and adopts the CEQA Findings and the SOOC attached as “Exhibit B,” which exhibit is incorporated herein as though set forth in full.

Section 4: Significant Impacts. The significant impacts of the Project under the category of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions have not been reduced to a level of insignificance.

The City Council finds that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly outweighed by the economic, legal, social, or technological benefits independent of any other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the Findings and SOOC.

Section 5: Alternatives. The FEIR has described reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly.

Section 6: Good Faith. A good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 875 of 2294 CADO Industrial Warehouse - EIR
November 20, 2024
all points of view in the preparation of the FEIR as indicated by the public record for the Project and the FEIR.

Section 7: Mitigation Plan Approval. Although the FEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would result from approval of the Project, certain environmental effects can feasibly be avoided or mitigated and will be avoided or mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures included in the FEIR and the MMRP.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the City Council adopts and approves the MMRP attached hereto as “Exhibit C," which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further finds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible.

Section 8: No Significant New Information Added to Draft EIR. The information provided in the various reports submitted in connection with the proposed Project and in the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, the information added to the FEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

Section 9: Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development Department of the City of Menifee, located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's approval is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250 et seq.) during normal business hours.

Section 10: Denial of Appeal. The City Council finds the facts presented within the public record and within the Resolution provides the basis to deny Appeal No. PLN24- 0182 and uphold the Planning Commission certification of the EIR and approval of TPM No. 38139 (PLN22-0041) and PP No. PLN21-0370 and Resolution Nos. PC24-0639 and PC24-0640.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 876 of 2294 CADO Industrial Warehouse - EIR
November 20, 2024
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 20th day of November 2024. _________________________
Bill Zimmerman, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 877 of 2294 Final Environmental Impact Report
CADO Menifee Industrial
Warehouse Project
SCH No. 2022040622
Lead Agency
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
(951) 769-8520
Consultant
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Kari Cano, Project Manager
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
August 2024
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 878 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Menifee August 2024
i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction

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

1.2 Organization of EIR........................................................................................................ 1.0-2

1.3 CEQA Process Summary ................................................................................................ 1.0-2

1.4 Changes to the Draft EIR ............................................................................................... 1.0-2 Section 2: Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

2.1 Introduction to Comments and Responses.................................................................... 2.0-1 Comment Letter A – Southern California Gas Company......................................................... 2.0-2 Responses to Comment Letter A....................................................................................... 2.0-3 Comment Letter B – Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians............................................................. 2.0-4 Responses to Comment Letter B ....................................................................................... 2.0-5 Comment Letter C – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .......... 2.0-6 Responses to Comment Letter C ......................................................................................2.0-12 Comment Letter D – Advocates for the Environment...........................................................2.0-15 Responses to Comment Letter D......................................................................................2.0-20 Comment Letter E – South Coast Air Quality Management District.......................................2.0-28 Responses to Comment Letter E ......................................................................................2.0-34 Comment Letter F – Riverside County Department of Waste Resources...............................2.0-40 Responses to Comment Letter F.......................................................................................2.0-47 Comment Letter G – City of Perris – Development Services Department Planning Division...2.0-49 Responses to Comment Letter G......................................................................................2.0-65 Comment Letter H – Blum, Collins & Ho LLP.........................................................................2.0-75 Responses to Comment Letter H....................................................................................2.0-110 Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft EIR

3.1 Introduction to the Errata ............................................................................................. 3.0-1

3.2 Changes to the Draft EIR ............................................................................................... 3.0-1 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 879 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Menifee August 2024

1.0-1
Section 1.0 Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Menifee (City) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project). The City is required, after completion of a Draft EIR (DEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040622), to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the DEIR.

This FEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the DEIR, which was circulated for public review from March 13, 2024, through April 27, 2024 (46 days). The preceding Table of Contents provides a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies who commented on the DEIR.

The City will evaluate comments on environmental issues from persons who reviewed the DEIR and will prepare a written response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(a). The written response must address any significant environmental issues raised. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15204, §15088).

Those comments are responded to in Section 2.0, Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments.

State CEQA Guidelines §15088 recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contain in the text of the DEIR, that the Lead Agency either revise the text of the DEIR or include marginal notes showing that information. Added or modified text is shown in Section 3.0, Errata, by underlining (example) while deleted text is shown by striking (example). The additional information, corrections, and clarifications are not considered to substantively affect the conclusions within the EIR and therefore the City has determined that recirculation of the DEIR is not required as none of the criteria for recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been met.

CEQA Guidelines §15132 indicates that the contents of a FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The DEIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), the City will provide written responses to comments to any public agency that commented on the DEIR, at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission consideration of certifying the EIR as adequate under CEQA. Written responses to comments will also be provided to non-public agency individuals, organizations, and entities that commented on the DEIR. In addition, the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 880 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Menifee August 2024

1.0-2
FEIR will be made available to the general public at the City’s Planning Division office and on the City’s website a minimum of 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.

The FEIR, along with other relevant information and public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, will be considered by the City’s Planning Commission.

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF EIR
This FEIR provides the requisite information required under CEQA and is organized as follows:

Section 1.0: Introduction. This section provides an introduction to the FEIR, including the requirements under CEQA, the organization of the document, as well as a brief summary of the CEQA process activities to date.

Section 2.0: Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. This section provides a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the DEIR, provides a copy of each written comment received, and any response required under CEQA.

Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft EIR. This section presents clarifications, amplifications, and insignificant modifications to the EIR, identifying revisions to the text of the document.

1.3 CEQA PROCESS HISTORY
The City has complied with relevant Public Resources Code provisions and CEQA Guidelines regarding the preparation and processing of the Project EIR. A brief summary of the Project’s CEQA process is as follows:
• A Notice of Preparation (NOP) informing interested parties and agencies of the Project was distributed on May 2, 2022, with a minimum 30-day public review period ending on May 31, 2022. • Written and verbal comments were given at a public scoping meeting held for the Project on May 17, 2022, at 5:30 pm at City Council Chambers located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586.

Two residents attended the scoping meeting.
• Following a Notice of Completion (NOC), the DEIR and Notice of Availability was distributed for public review and comment for a 46-day period, beginning March 13, 2024. The public review period closed on April 27, 2024.

1.4 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
As previously stated, Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft EIR, details the changes to the DEIR. In response to public comments, text changes have been made to DEIR sections to clarify and amplify the analysis or mitigation measures, and to make insignificant modifications to the DEIR. This information does not rise to the level of significant new information as the resulting impact analysis and alternatives considered remain essentially unchanged, and no new or more severe impacts have been identified. These changes do not warrant DEIR recirculation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. As discussed herein and as elaborated upon in the respective Response to Comments, none of the clarifications or changes made in the Errata reflect a new significant environmental impact, a “substantial increase” in the severity of an environmental impact for which Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 881 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Menifee August 2024

1.0-3
mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted, nor do the Errata reflect a “fundamentally flawed” or “conclusory” DEIR. In all cases, as discussed in individual responses to comments and DEIR Errata, these minor clarifications and modifications do not identify new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that the City has not committed to mitigate. Therefore, the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or an unadopted feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure. Instead, the information added supports the existing analysis and conclusions, and responds to inquiries made from commenters. Therefore, this FEIR is not subject to recirculation prior to certification.

CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes when an EIR requires recirculation prior to certification, stating in part:
“(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to apply it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043). (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 882 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-1
Section 2.0 Comments and Responses to Draft EIR
This section includes all comments received by the City on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), including written comments and comments submitted online via email to the City. The City circulated the DEIR for a 46-day review period as required by CEQA. The review period ran from March 13, 2024, through April 27, 2024.

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15132, Table 2-1, Comments from Public Agencies and Organizations below provides a list of those parties that provided written comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Copies of the written comments are provided in this section and have been annotated with the assigned letter along with a number for each comment. Each comment is followed by a written response which corresponds to each commenter.

Table 2-1: Comments from Public Agencies and Organizations Reference Commenter Date
A
Southern California Gas Company
William Liao, Region Planning Supervisor March 25, 2024 B
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
Shuuluk Linton, Tribal Historic Preservation Coordinator April 15, 2024 C
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Amy Mc’Neill, Engineering Project Manger
April 15, 2024
D
Advocates for the Environment
Dean Wallraff, Executive Director
April 12, 2024
E
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Danica Nyguen, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA-IGR
Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA-IGR
April 17, 2024
F
Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
Katherine Avila, Urban/Regional Planner II April 24, 2024 G
City of Perris – Development Services Department Planning Division Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager April 26, 2024
H
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Gary Ho
April 26, 2024
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 883 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-2
Comment Letter A – Southern California Gas Company
William Liao, Region Planning Supervisor
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 884 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-3
Responses to Comment Letter A – Southern California Gas Company William Liao, Region Planning Supervisor
A1 The Commenter’s concern about the existing 6” High-Pressure Supply Line within the Ethanac Road right-of-way has been noted. Demolition would not occur within the existing high-pressure supply line, but the Project Applicant shall contact Southern California Gas Company at the time excavation is needed to connect/extend natural gas lines from the existing high-pressure supply line to the Project site.

A2 Comment has been noted, and no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 885 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-4
Comment Letter B – Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Shuuluk Linton, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 886 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-5
Responses to Comment Letter B – Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Shuuluk Linton, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
B1 Acknowledgment by the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians’ receipt of the NOA of the DEIR and statement of no further comment and of no consultation is noted for the record.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 41
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 887 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-6
Comment Letter C – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Amy McNeill, Engineering Project Manager
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 42
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 888 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-7
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 43
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 889 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-8
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 44
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 890 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-9
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 45
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 891 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-10
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 46
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 892 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-11
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 47
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 893 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-12
Responses to Comment Letter C – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Amy McNeill, Engineering Project Manager
C1 This comment includes introductory statements concerning the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (District) interest in projects associated with the District Master Drainage Plan facilities and other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system. Comment has been noted for the record and no further response is warranted.

C2 This comment includes introductory statements to the following comments. Refer to Responses to Comments C3 through C5.

C3 As stated in Draft EIR Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality page 4.9-20, the Project site was initially zoned to drain partially to Line A-15a and Line A-14a. However, the proposed site drainage pattern would direct all of the stormwater runoff from the site to Line A-14a. As such, only Line A-14a would be constructed as part of this project and sized to convey the additional flow since no part of the proposed development drains towards Line A-15a. Pursuant to the Commenter’s request, it is noted that the Project applicant will be required to enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners, prior to Project development, for Line A-14a. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure (MM) HYD-3, the Project applicant will also submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City, including final drainage design plans supported by a final drainage study to ensure that the Project does not result in increased flows off-site or otherwise significantly impact downstream drainage facilities.

C4 It is noted that the Project Applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction-related activities occurring within District right-of-way or facilities, such as the Project’s construction of the District’s Homeland/Romoland Drainage Plan Line A-14a and the Project Applicant will be required to pay any applicable fees in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plan as a condition of approval. The Area Drainage Plan (ADP) fees will be paid to the District at the time of issuance of grading permits.

C5 As stated in Response to Comment C4 above, it is noted that the Project Applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction-related activities occurring within District right-of-way or facilities. Further, the Draft EIR evaluates the Project’s potential impacts on drainage facilities and, at pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24, concludes that all proposed drainage improvements would adequately convey flows to the basin and provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event. Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit, and comply with the water quality policies of the City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) and the Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which require implementation of construction BMPs per a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP; see MM HYD-1) and post-construction BMPs in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 48
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 894 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-13
the Santa Ana River Basin. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit requires the preparation of a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) for all development projects. Pursuant to Santa Ana MS4 Permit, a project-specific WQMP was prepared and is included as Appendix I2 to the Draft EIR and has incorporated combined low-impact development (LID) treatment, hydrologic control BMPs, and sediment supply BMPs. A final WQMP will be required to address BMP sizing and O&M plan pursuant to Draft EIR MM HYD-2 and comply with City of Menifee Municipal Code (Menifee MC) Section

15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Project-Specific WQMP and has outlined all BMPs designed to meet water quality standards and mitigate any adverse impacts. Refer to Draft EIR 4.9-14 through 4.9-18 for further discussion.

C6 Relevant to the Project, the NPDES permit is divided into two parts: construction and postconstruction. The construction permitting is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), while the post-construction permitting is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Development projects typically result in the disturbance of soil that requires compliance with the NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002) General Construction Permit. This Statewide General Construction Permit regulates discharges from construction sites that disturb one or more acres of soil. As stated in Response to Comment C5 above, the Project would comply with NPDES permit with the implementation of construction and post-construction BMPs in accordance with the SWPPP and Project-specific WQMP. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with the NPDES permitting requirements (see MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2).

C7 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality page 4.9-6, review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows that the Project site is located within a minimal flood hazard zone, identified as Zone X which are areas outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percentannual-chance flood.

As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality page 4.9-16, on-site flows would be collected through an extensive drainage plan utilizing ribbon gutters and a storm drain network system, and off-site drainage improvements at Wheat Street and Byers Road.

Discharge would ultimately flow directly to the proposed storm drain Line A-14a before reaching the San Jacinto River. The Draft EIR Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix I1) concluded that that the proposed drainage improvements would adequately convey flows to the open bioretention basin and provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event. The Project’s drainage has been designed to ensure that runoff flows leaving the site do not exceed existing conditions, thereby avoiding impacts to downstream facilities. Additionally, the Project would implement MM HYD-3 which would require that the Project Applicant submit final grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the City and the EMWD, prior to issuance of any grading permit, to ensure that the Project does not result in increased flows off-site or otherwise significantly impact Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 49
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 895 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-14
downstream drainage facilities. Implementation of efficient design measures and applicable BMPs pursuant to the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP (MMs HYD-1, -2, and -3) would prevent flooding on- and off-site due to an increase in surface water runoff. Therefore, the Project will adequately control storm water drainage.

C8 The City of Menifee prepared a Draft EIR and this FEIR in accordance with CEQA. The Project applicant will implement mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR and comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations to reduce impacts associated with the Project.

C9 Draft EIR Appendix C, Biological Resources Report concluded that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers did not identify any jurisdictional drainages and/or wetland features within site boundaries. In addition, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3:

Biological Resources page 4.3-14, no jurisdictional drainage features, riparian/riverine areas, or vernal pools were observed within the Project site during the field investigation. Additionally, no blueline streams have been recorded on the Project site. Connecting the off-site drainage culvert, northeast of the Project site, into the flood control channel south of the Project site would not result in impacts to jurisdictional waters, and regulatory approvals including but not limited to, Section 1602, 404, and 401 permits will not be required.

C10 The commenter’s attachment of the stamped Notice of Availability has been noted. No further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 50
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 896 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-15
Comment Letter D – Advocates for the Environment
Dean Wallraff, Executive Director
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 51
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 897 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-16
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 52
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 898 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-17
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 53
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 899 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-18
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 54
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 900 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-19
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 55
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 901 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-20
Responses to Comment Letter D – Advocates for the Environment Dean Wallraff, Executive Director
D1 This comment contains introductory statements and a short overview of the Project. Comment is noted for the record and no further response is required.

D2 The commenter states that the City should use a net-zero GHG significance threshold. The comment also makes unsubstantiated statements that it is more affordable to construct new buildings to be net-zero now than to retrofit an old building in the future to meet the same standard. The commenter also references California’s policy to achieve net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 (presumably AB 1279). It should be noted that the State has not adopted a netzero GHG threshold (or any GHG threshold) for individual development projects. The State’s policy to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2045 requires CARB to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable CO2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies. As discussed in Draft EIR pages 4.7-29 – 4.7-20, the Project would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan following compliance with all applicable regulations and mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR.

As noted by the commenter, the State has regulations in place to reduce GHG emissions. The Project will comply with all requirements as required by law. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted.

D3 The commenter states that two of the largest mixed-use developments in the history of California have moved forward as net-zero communities after losing CEQA lawsuits. However, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan notes that projects that have agreed to net zero GHG emissions such as “…the Newhall and Tejon Ranch projects do not necessarily represent the type of development that California most needs to simultaneously tackle the housing and climate crises…”. The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan notes that a number of key State actions should be accounted for in local target-setting, including zero-emission light-duty vehicles (relevant to transportation electrification); smart growth/VMT reduction (relevant to vehicle miles traveled reduction); and new and existing residential and commercial buildings (relevant to building decarbonization).1 The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan does not recommend a net-zero GHG threshold for individual development projects, noting that such thresholds may make it more difficult to achieve statewide goals by prohibiting or complicating projects that are needed to support the State’s climate goals, like infill development or solar arrays.2The Scoping Plan also cautions using netzero targets and specifically notes that jurisdictions considering a net-zero target should carefully 1 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 15, November 2022. 2 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, page 18, November 2022.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 56
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 902 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-21
consider the implications it may have on emissions in neighboring communities and beyond.

Appendix D page 18 of the Scoping Plan states the following:

Jurisdictions should also avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net-zero target may imply that the GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered potentially significant. This may lead to undue burdens and frustrate project approval processes, which may be particularly problematic for residential development in climate-smart, infill areas. In addition, some jurisdictions have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, while others host GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to new technology (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, landfills, energy generation facilities).

Local governments have the discretion to adopt targets that apply to their jurisdictions as long as those targets are supported by substantial evidence. 3The IS/MND uses a GHG threshold developed by SCAQMD, which is based on substantial evidence as explained in the Draft EIR Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions pages 4.7-18. Moreover, the Draft EIR has identified a significant and unavoidable impact based on the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold even after mitigating GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Were the City to adopt a net-zero threshold, the impact would remain the same, significant and unavoidable with regards to GHG emissions, and the type and extent of mitigation that the Project is already deploying would be the same. Accordingly, a net-zero threshold would not change the EIR’s conclusions.

The Project is a speculative warehouse and is not comparable to the projects identified by the commenter. The comment does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects; therefore, no further response is warranted.

D4 The commenter urges the City to adopt net-zero as the GHG significance threshold, but does not make a specific comment with regard to the Draft EIR analysis. It should be noted that CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D (Local Actions) does not recommend a net-zero project level threshold.

Specifically, the CARB Scoping Plan Appendix D states: “… a net-zero target…may lead to undue burdens and frustrate project approval processes…” (page 18). Additionally, the measures and recommendations within Scoping Plan Appendix D are focused on residential and mixed-use development projects and not industrial or warehouse projects (see Scoping Plan page 21). As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted. 3 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15183.5.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 57
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 903 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-22
D5 Refer to Responce D4, above. The commenter expresses their hope that the City will require the Project to meet net-zero requirements. The comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects; therefore, no further response is warranted.

D6 The commenter summarizes their view of the Draft EIR GHG analysis, threshold, and mitigation.

The comment does not raise any specific issue with respect of the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Responses to comments specific to the Draft EIR analysis are provided below.

D7 The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR analysis that additional mitigation is not feasible. As shown in Table 4.7-3 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and discussed on page 4.7-23, the majority of the Project emissions (79 percent) are from vehicle emissions which are regulated by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. As engine efficiency increases and the vehicle fleet shifts to low or zero-emission vehicles (including achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation), these emissions will decrease. In addition, the identified mitigation measures will reduce area and indirect sources of the GHG emissions by 35 percent.

D8 Refer to Response D7, above. The commenter notes that the Project has identified a significant and unavoidable GHG impact because mitigated GHG emissions exceed the City’s threshold and suggests that more mitigation should have been included. As discussed in the Draft EIR, all feasible mitigation measures have been applied to the Project. However, the majority of the Project’s emissions are from mobile sources, which the Project has no authority to regulate. Mobile source emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures, as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to an increasing reduction over time in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the following as summarized:
• CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation: CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. • Executive Order N-79-20: Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, to be zero-emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles to be zero emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and offroad vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.”
• CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy: CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by increasing the adoption of ZEV buses and trucks.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 58
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 904 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-23
• CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan: This plan improves freight system efficiency, uses near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. It applies to all trucks accessing the Project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.
• CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement: CARB’s plan identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. • South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule):

Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted.

The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to improve system efficiency. As such, the Project would not interfere with their implementation.

Furthermore, the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan (see Draft EIR pages 4.7-6 through 4.7-8).

D9 The comment states that the Project should include fair-share mitigation. The Draft EIR includes numerous mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions (see Draft EIR pages 4.7-25 through

4.7-27 and ES-14 through ES-16). Specifically, MM GHG-1 requires the Project to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system or offset an equivalent amount of energy demand through the purchase of renewable energy or implementation of alternative renewable measures. MM GHG-2 prohibits the Project from including cold storage equipment for warehouse purposes. MM GHG-3 requires the facility operator to provide tenants with information on incentive programs such as the Moyer program and SmartWay program to increase transportation efficiency. MM GHG-4 requires EV-ready infrastructure and EV charging stations in employee parking lots. MM GHG-5 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills and MM GHG-6 requires landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric. MM GHG7 also requires the site plan to designate an area of the site for three future truck charging stations and install electrical conduit. Additionally Draft EIR Air Quality MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5 would also reduce GHG emissions by limiting engine idling, implementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program, requiring all forklifts to be zero emissions, and posting signage with instructions that reduce emissions.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 59
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 905 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-24
As described above, continued emissions reductions would occur from current and future State and federal regulations (see Response D7 and D8, above). Additionally, as described on Draft EIR page 4.7-23, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, which would facilitate the acquisition of near-zero emission and/or zero emission on-road trucks, zero emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels, or zero emission charging and fueling infrastructure.

D10 The comment attempts to quantify the Project’s lifetime GHG emissions. However, the comment incorrectly assumes the Project’s annual emissions would remain the same for the entire Project lifetime. The purpose of the EIR’s GHG analysis is to disclose the potential effects of the Project on the existing environment and, as such, the analysis provided in the EIR serves as a snapshot in time. As described above and in Responses D7, D8, and D9 emissions would decrease in future years due to implementation of current and future regulations. CEQA precludes the EIR from speculating as to what the Project’s emissions may be 30 years in the future. Therefore, using the commenters calculations as “a good starting point” for assessing Project impacts is not appropriate because the available analytical models cannot presently quantify all Project-related emissions in those future years due to the technological shifts anticipated and the unknown parameters of the regulatory framework in the future.

D11 The commenter suggests that the City should require the Project to commit to ZEVs to the maximum extent feasible. However, mitigation measures need to be both feasible and fully enforceable. The City cannot regulate the fleet of vehicles accessing the Project, all vehicles accessing the Project are regulated by the State and federal government and it is assumed that all vehicles are registered in the State of California or legally registered in another State. As ZEVs become more accessible, charging stations will be added as needed based on the locations identified in MM GHG-4 and MM GHG-7. In addition, the Project must comply with CALGreen and SCAQMD Rule 2305.

The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures are feasible either for the City to monitor or for the Project Applicant to implement. This is particularly true with respect to zero emission heavy truck technology that is not widely commercially available, and no evidence – let alone substantial evidence – has been provided to show how this type of technology could be utilized by Project users, to the extent it exists today, or that the local electricity supplier (Southern California Edison) has sufficient capacity to supply the total energy and peak loads needed to service a zero emission heavy truck fleet for a building the size of the Project. The commenter also does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 60
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 906 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-25
“Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v.

Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.). As disclosed in the EIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.

D12 The Project would be subject to the stringent water, wastewater, and natural gas efficiency requirements in the CALGreen building code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, part 11), which has requirements for low-flow fixtures including sinks and toilets and efficient appliances.

These reduction measures are not included as mitigation because they are covered under CALGreen building code and therefore are not considered mitigation. MM AQ-4 requires that all forklifts and yard trucks be electrically powered. The emissions shown in Table 4.7-3 conservatively assume the electricity used to power these vehicles does not come from a renewable source in order to analyze a worst-case scenario. The comment incorrectly states that the Project is only required to be “solar ready”. In fact, MM GHG-1 requires a minimum of 20 percent of the building’s power needs to be provided by solar (or to offset an equivalent amount of energy demand through the purchase of renewable energy or implementation of alternative renewable measures).

D13 The commenter suggests additional mitigation measures such as renewable energy systems, batteries, solar water heaters, automatic light switches, and suggests requiring the Project to achieve LEED certification.

Energy use (both natural gas and electricity) makes up only 2 percent of the Projects GHG emissions. As noted before, Draft EIR MM GHG-1 requires a renewable energy system. At least 20 percent of the Project’s energy needs will be provided by solar and includes battery energy storage consistent with SCE’s Rule 21. Although the Project is not mitigated to include solar water heaters or automatic light switches, these features are covered under the CALGreen building code, with which the Project must comply. In addition, LEED certification of a building does not guarantee significant GHG reductions beyond what is required by CALGreen.

D14 The commenter suggests that the City require the Applicant to enter into an agreement to buy clean power to offset the remaining building usage (however, as stated previously, please note that the Project’s energy usage only contributes 2 percent of the total GHG emissions). This measure was considered but the demand for these programs is greater than what can be provided, as a result the electricity needed could not be provided. However, as noted previously, the State has regulations to provide clean energy by 2045. As a result, Project related emissions will decrease in the future.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 61
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 907 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-26
D15 The comment suggests adding carbon offsets as a mitigation measure. Although it is possible to purchase carbon offsets, even offset credits purchased from CARB-approved offset project registries have been determined in certain circumstances to not adequately assure that purchased offset credits accurately and reliably represent actual emissions reductions, or to not guarantee that such reductions are not already required by law. This is due to the fact that “overcrediting” can occur based on the generation of credits from actions that would have happened regardless of the offset program. For example, a pair of studies published in 2019 and 2021 examined California’s forest carbon offsets program and found that it was likely to have overstated its total emission reductions by 80 percent or more. 4,5
If an offset program generates
credits from reductions that would have happened regardless of the offset program, and this causes the protocols to generate more credits than actual reductions in emissions, the emitter’s emissions are not truly offset,
6 and therefore would not be considered adequate mitigation under CEQA.

In addition, it should be noted that the vast majority of emissions that would be generated by the Project, including mobile emissions and energy emissions, are subject to the California Cap and Trade program, which places an economy-wide “cap” on major sources of GHG emissions, such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels. For example, “’Fuel suppliers’ are responsible for the carbon pollution from fuels under the Cap-and-Trade Program” and thus must acquire “allowances” to cover all carbon pollution from such fuels.7They may also purchase certain approved offsets to fulfill up to eight percent of their compliance obligation.8 Given that more than 96 percent of the emissions that would be generated by the Project are covered by Cap and Trade and thus are already subject to a regulatory program that includes offsets, the City finds it would be inappropriate and infeasible to use offsets to mitigate such emissions. Rather, mitigation measures should focus on reducing emissions from the Project.

As noted in Responses D7 and D8, above, the Project would not conflict with State goals for GHG reduction. As discussed in the Draft EIR, all feasible mitigation measures have been applied to the Project. The majority of the Project’s emissions are from mobile and energy sources. These emissions are addressed by State policies and regulations and would decline in the future, in line with State reduction targets.

The Draft EIR includes numerous mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions (see Draft EIR pages 4.7-25 through 4.7-27). The Project would reduce energy emissions through on-site renewable/solar energy, prohibiting cold storage to minimize energy consumption and GHG emissions, requiring trucks to participate in efficiency programs, providing EV infrastructure and 4 Haya, Barbara. POLICY BRIEF: The California Air Resources Board’s U.S. Forest offset protocol underestimates leakage. May 2019. Website:
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Policy_Brief-US_Forest_Projects-Leakage-Haya_4.pdf. 5 Badgley, G., Freeman, J., Hamman, J. J., Haya, B., Trugman, A. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., & Cullenward, D. (2022). Systematic over-crediting in California's forest carbon offsets program. Global Change Biology, 28, 1433– 1445. Website: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15943. 6 Stockholm Environment Institute and Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. Carbon Offset Guide. How Carbon Offset Programs Addr ess Additionality. Website: https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionality/high-quality-offsets-additionality-how-carbon-offsetprograms-address-additionality/. 7 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/cap-and-trade/guidance/faq_fuel_purchasers.pdf 8 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/d075328.html Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 62
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 908 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-27
charging stations, facilitation of future truck charging stations, electric cargo handling equipment, solid waste reduction, and zero emission landscape equipment, among others. The Project mitigation focuses on providing infrastructure to facilitate shifts in vehicle types and energy sources envisioned by the State in the future.

D16 Refer to Response D15, above.

D17 The comment provides general closing remarks. Responses to specific comments are provided above; no further response is required.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 63
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 909 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-28
Comment Letter E – South Coast Air Quality Management District Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA-IGR
Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA-IGR
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 64
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 910 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-29
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 65
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 911 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-30
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 66
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 912 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-31
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 67
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 913 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-32
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 68
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 914 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-33
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 69
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 915 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-34
Responses to Comment Letter E – South Coast Air Quality Management District Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA-IGR
Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA-IGR
E1 This comment includes introductory statements and therefore, no further response is warranted.

E2 This comment includes a public records request for all technical documents related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. As requested by the Commenter, the City sent the requested data files on March 26, 2024.

E3 As requested by the Commenter, the City sent the requested data files on March 26, 2024.

No further response is warranted.

E4 The commenter provides general introductory and background information as well as a summary of the Project, existing nearby sensitive receptors, and air quality analysis. The City appreciates and values these comments during the EIR participation process. Responses to specific comments are provided below.

E5 The commenter speculates that the air quality analysis may underestimate mobile emissions by using an inappropriate vehicle fleet mix because only three percent of the total daily trips represent truck trips. However, the air quality analysis is consistent with the TIA, which uses the ITE Code 155b, High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition to define the Project trip generation and fleet mix. ITE Code 155b is appropriate for a high-cube warehouse (HCW) that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) facility is a fulfillment center that ships out smaller items, requiring extensive sorting, typically by manual means. These types of facilities have a higher overall daily trip generation rate than other warehouses, 6.44 trips per thousand square feet (as opposed to a typical warehouse trip generation rate of 1.71 [ITE 150] trips per thousand square feet), as defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. The vehicle fleet mix is set by the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition as 97 percent of the daily trips are passenger vehicles and three percent are trucks.

Accordingly, while the portion of daily trips attributed to trucks may be lower than for other types of warehouses, the overall daily trips of vehicles are higher, resulting in a conservative trip count.

Because of the conservative trip count, the Project’s TIA analyzes a “worst case scenario” transportation analysis.

As previously stated, the air quality analysis is consistent with the TIA, therefore the fleet mix used to analyze mobile emissions is appropriate. With mitigation, operational emissions, including mobile sources, have been reduced to less than significant.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 70
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 916 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-35
E6 The commenter notes that the Air Quality Assessment used CalEEMod version 2020.4 and suggests that the Lead Agency should consider using the latest CalEEMod version 2022.1.1 (released in May 2022) because the NOP was released on May 2, 2022. However, CalEEMod version 2022.1.1 was not released in May 2022. CalEEMod version 2022.1.0 was released on May 27, 2022 while CalEEMod version 2022.1.1 was released on November 17, 2022. Both of these versions of the model were considered “beta” versions because they contained known bugs and errors. Users were not recommended to use CalEEMod until version 2022.1.3 was released on December 21, 2022, when the model was approved for full launch.9 Air quality and greenhouse gas modeling for the Project was initially completed in August 2022 with additional modeling completed in October 2022 to incorporate mitigation required by the Health Risk Assessment (HRA). Therefore, all modeling for the Project was completed before CalEEMod 2022 was approved for full release. As a result, CalEEMod version 2020.4 was the best available software at the time the analysis was conducted.

E7 The commenter states that CEQA requires a Project to implement all feasible mitigation measures and lists five potential measures to reduce mobile source emissions. The specific measures are discussed in the responses below.

E8 The first measure suggests requiring zero-emission or near zero-emission on-road haul trucks. The suggested measures contained in the comment related to zero- and near-zero emission (ZE and NZE) vehicles are not feasible to implement, because the availability of vehicles equipped with such technology in the Project’s opening year is speculative. Even with adoption of CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Rule, it will take time for ZE and NZE vehicles to become commercially available and to penetrate the market. For example, CARB’s Staff Report for the Proposed Amendments to the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation and the Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification Test Procedure (March 26, 2024) explains that the regulation requires manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of ZE trucks in California. Additionally, by 2035 ZE truck/chassis sales would need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.10 Based on the regulation’s phase-in, it will take time for fleets to turn over and for the ZE percentages of new truck sales to penetrate the market.

As discussed in Draft EIR page 4.7-29, trucks accessing the Project site would be subject to the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. Additionally, trucks are subject to the Heavy-Duty Low NOX Omnibus Regulation and SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 – WAIRE Program. As noted in the comment, these regulations are required for all trucks. These suggested mitigation measures are already part of the existing regulatory environment and would not be considered mitigation under CEQA. For example, CARB already regulates truck emissions with the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, the Mobile Source Strategy (including the low-NOX engine emissions standard), the Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and the Emissions Reduction Plan 9 https://caleemod.com/release-notes
10 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2.pdf Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 71
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 917 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-36
for Ports and Goods Movement, among others. As these regulations are already required, they do not represent CEQA mitigation for the Project.

E9 The second measure suggests requiring a phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner trucks. As noted in Response E8, the availability of such technology during in the Project’s opening year and during its operation is speculative; accordingly, development of a phase-in schedule is not reasonable or feasible. MM GHG-3 requires the Project to provide information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program, to anyone interested in purchasing cleaner trucks.

This program provides funding to replace 2013 or later model year engines.

E10 The third measure suggests requiring the use of a 2010 model year that meets CARB’s 2010 engine emission standards. The CARB Truck and Bus Regulation required trucks to be upgraded to 2010 or new model year engines. The Truck and Bus regulation has been in effect since December 2008 and the final deadline for the last replacement phase of the regulation was January 1, 2023. As this regulation is already required, it does not represent CEQA mitigation for the Project.

E11 The fourth measure suggests limiting the number of trucks allowed to access the Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document. The City disagrees with the suggestion that the Final EIR should include a limit on the daily number of trucks allowed at the Project to levels that were analyzed in the EIR and would require re-evaluating impacts through CEQA should daily truck trips from the Project be anticipated to exceed those levels. The analysis is based on a set of realistic, but conservative, set of assumptions regarding the magnitude of potential activities. The Project’s air quality and GHG analysis is consistent with TIA which assumed a high number of passenger vehicles (4,373 daily trips) which also generate emissions; therefore, Project emissions are not tied strictly to truck trips. Therefore, the City does not anticipate total emissions (combined passenger vehicle and truck trips) to exceed those modeled in the EIR, and future re-evaluation is not necessary.

E12 The fifth measure suggests providing EV charging stations and electrical hookups for truckers to plug in onboard auxiliary equipment. MM GHG-4 requires EV ready infrastructure and EV charging stations in employee parking lots. MM GHG-2 prohibits the Project from including cold storage and trucks would not include refrigeration units that would need to be plugged in. MM GHG-7 requires electrical conduit for future electric trucks. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

E13 The commenter lists three potential mitigation measures to reduce operational air quality impacts from other sources.
1) Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays.

Draft EIR MM GHG-1 requires the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 72
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 918 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-37
2) Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.

California's Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards includes cool roof requirements for new and existing buildings. These requirements are in the following sections of the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 standards:
• Section 10-113(a, b) (Mandatory Certification and Labeling of Roofing Product Reflectance and Emittance)
• Section 110.8(i) (Mandatory Insulation, Roofing Products & Radiant Barriers) • Section 140.1 (Performance Approach: Energy Budgets (Nonresidential)) • Section 140.2 (Prescriptive Approach (Nonresidential)) • Section 140.3(a)1 (Prescriptive Requirements for Building Envelopes (Nonresidential)) Therefore, since Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards applies to the Project, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure. Additionally, the Project’s truck courts would be paved with concrete, which is light-colored. The increased stiffness of concrete makes it able to withstand heavier wheel loads without risk of rutting. 3) Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances. 2022 Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards include requirements to meet or exceed Energy Star standards. Therefore, since these standards apply to the Project, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

E14 The commenter lists 5 design considerations to reduce air quality and health risk impacts. 1) Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs.

The City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, which the Project is required to and has been designed to comply with, also require truck traffic to be routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors with the usage of traffic control features and signage. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure. 2) Design truck entrances and exits so they are not facing sensitive receptors and will not drive past them to enter or exit the site.

The City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies also require truck traffic to be routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors, (e.g., access locations, use of traffic control features, signage). Sufficient landscape buffers and walls are also required to be provided on-site to screen sensitive receptors from truck access, parking, and storage. The Industrial Good Neighbor Policies also require check-in gates and/or guard booths are required to be positioned with a minimum of 150 feet inside the property line for on-site truck queuing.

An additional 75 feet of on-site queuing is required to be added for every 20 loading docks beyond 40 up to 300 feet. Multiple lanes (minimum lane width of 12 feet) are permitted to achieve the required on-site truck queuing. The general queuing and spill-over of trucks onto surrounding public streets are prohibited. The Project is required to and has been designed to comply with these policies, and therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 73
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 919 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-38
3) Design the truck check-in point inside the Project to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.

As described above, the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies include requirements for truck-check-in points and queuing. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
4) Design the Project such that truck traffic inside the Project is as far from sensitive receptors as possible.

As described above, the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies require truck traffic to be routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors, (e.g., access locations, use of traffic control features, signage). Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
5) Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Project site.

The Project is required to provide adequate on-site parking in accordance with the City’s parking standards. The City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies also require facilities to provide adequate on-site parking and queuing for trucks/trailers away from sensitive receptors and prohibit commercial truck and/or trailer parking on the public road right- ofway or adjacent to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

E15 The commenter provides a list of documents to review and suggests adding any applicable mitigation measures. These documents have been reviewed; however, additional mitigation measures are also not necessary to address air quality impacts since the Project has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts to less than significant. Additional mitigation measures with respect to greenhouse gas impacts are not feasible. Greenhouse gas impacts remain significant and unavoidable as a result of mobile source emissions, which are beyond the purview of the Project, even with mitigation. However, State and federal regulations will continue to improve vehicle efficiency and will contribute to the phasing out of combustion engines for zero emission vehicles, resulting in a decrease in mobile emissions over time.

E16 The commenter states that if the Project requires the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, etc., air permits from SCAQMD will be required, and the role of SCAQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. However, the Project is speculative and no end user has been identified. Therefore, the Project has no plans at this time to install emergency generators or other permitted stationary equipment. Emissions from emergency generators were included in the GHG analysis as seen in Table 4.7-3 in order to analyze a worst-case scenario. Following construction of the Project any future tenant that requires the use of a generator or stationary equipment with an internal combustion engine would be required to obtain permits from SCAQMD prior to installation.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 74
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 920 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-39
SCAQMD typically acts as lead agency for its own projects or permit projects filed with the SCAQMD where the SCAQMD has primary approval authority over the project. The SCAQMD is not a lead agency for land use projects such as shopping malls, housing tracts, commercial or industrial parks, sports stadiums, etc. For these types of projects, the SCAQMD has no jurisdictional approval authority. 11
As previously stated, the Project is speculative and there are no known permitted stationary sources identified as part of the Project. Therefore, SCAQMD would remain a Commenting Agency and is not considered a Responsible Agency.

E17 The commenter states that the EIR should include calculations for construction and operation emissions of new stationary and portable equipment. As previously stated, the Project is speculative and does not include any such permitted equipment. Following construction of the Project any future tenant that requires the use of a generator or stationary equipment with an internal combustion engine would be required to obtain permits from SCAQMD.

E18 Refer to Response E1 through Response E17 above. The issues raised in these comments have been addressed in detail, and the City’s responses have been provided in good faith, and contain reasoned analysis, without resort to unsupported conclusory statements.

The comment requests that the City comply with CEQA when responding to SCAQMD’s comments. As requested, the City’s responses to SCAQMD’s comments will be sent to the SCAQMD as part of the Final EIR distribution prior to certification of Final EIR. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted. The comment is included here to provide a complete record of the SCAQMD’s letter. The comment will become part of the administrative record and will be considered by the decision-makers.

E19 The comment includes conclusionary statements and therefore, no further response is warranted. 11 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/frequently-asked-questions.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 75
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 921 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-40
Comment Letter F – Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Katherine Avila, Urban/Regional Planner II
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 76
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 922 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-41
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 77
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 923 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-42
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 78
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 924 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-43
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 79
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 925 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-44
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 80
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 926 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-45
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 81
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 927 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-46
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 82
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 928 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-47
Responses to Comment Letter F – Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Katherine Avila, Urban/Regional Planner II, and Kinika
Hesterly, Urban/Regional Planner IV
F1 This comment contains introductory statements and a brief overview of the Project. The City appreciates and values these comments during the EIR participation process. Responses to specific comments are provided below.

F2 Draft EIR Table 4.15-5: Landfill Information lists the El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum permitted throughput (tons per day), remaining capacity in cubic yards, maximum permitted capacity in cubic yards, and ceased operation date. The Project’s estimated 11,885 pounds (5.9 tons) of waste per day represents 0.04 percent of El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum daily throughput. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs would be accommodated by the El Sobrante Landfill or the Badlands Landfill discussed further below in Response to Comment F4.

F3 The Draft EIR anticipated that solid waste from the Project site would ultimately end up in either El Sobrante Landfill or Badlands Landfill. As concluded in Draft EIR Section 4.15 page 4.15-17, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed in Responses to Comments F2 and F4. However, the availability for the Project to utilize the Lamb Canyon Landfill has been noted.

F4 Draft EIR Table 4.15-5: Landfill Information lists the Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s maximum permitted throughput (tons per day), remaining capacity in cubic yards, maximum permitted capacity in cubic yards, and ceased operation date. The Project’s estimated 11,885 pounds (5.9 tons) of waste per day represents 0.012 percent of Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs would be accommodated by the Badlands Landfill.

F5 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.15 page 4.15-18, the Project would be constructed in compliance with § 5.408.1, the more stringent of the code sections at 65 percent diversion.

Furthermore, MM GHG-5 would require that the Project divert a minimum of 75-percent of landfill waste during operations. Refer to Responses to Comments F6 through F8.

F6 The Project’s landscape irrigation and maintenance would be conducted in conformance with Menifee MC Section 15.04.060 Landscape Irrigation and Maintenance which includes but not limited to routine inspection, adjustments, and repair of the irrigation system and its components; aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning, weeding in all landscape areas and removing any obstruction to irrigation devices. Additionally, the Project’s landscaping would be comprised of drought-tolerant, low-growing shrubs and ground cover pursuant to Menifee MC, Title 9: Planning and Zoning (also refer to as the Menifee Development Code), Section 9.195.040 Landscape Requirements.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 83
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 929 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-48
F7 Comment has been noted. As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, all contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility under SCAQMD Rule 1166.

F8 As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project is required to comply with all City, State, and Federal regulations regarding waste disposal required at the time of Project approval.

F9 The City thanks the Commenter for their letter on the Project’s Draft EIR. No further response is warranted.

F10 The Commenter’s letter on the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been noted. The Commenter’s comments made on the NOP were taken into consideration during the Draft EIR’s environmental impact analysis pertaining to solid waste. The comments contained herein are the same as those addressed by responses F1-F9. Accordingly, refer to responses above and Draft EIR Sections 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems for more information.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 84
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 930 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-49
Comment Letter G – City of Perris – Development Services Department Planning Division Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 85
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 931 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-50
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 86
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 932 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-51
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 87
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 933 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-52
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 88
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 934 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-53
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 89
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 935 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-54
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 90
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 936 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-55
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 91
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 937 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-56
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 92
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 938 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-57
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 93
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 939 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-58
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 94
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 940 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-59
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 95
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 941 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-60
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 96
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 942 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-61
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 97
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 943 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-62
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 98
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 944 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-63
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 99
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 945 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-64
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 100
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 946 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-65
Responses to Comment Letter G – City of Perris,Development Services Department Planning Division Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager
G1 This comment includes introductory statements, a brief description of the Project, and a description of the Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) planning area. Comments have been noted and no further response is warranted.

G2 The commenter states that the Project EIR has not adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts related to air quality, project alternatives, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and transportation. This portion of the comment does not raise specific concerns and therefore no further responses is warranted. Responses to the City of Perris’ specific concerns regarding the inadequacy of the Draft EIR are provided below.

G3 The Project is analyzed as a high cube fulfillment center, which from a traffic perspective is a worst- case scenario. Fulfillment Center Warehouse (Sort) facility has a higher overall daily trip generation rate than other industrial uses, 6.44 trips per thousand square feet (as opposed to a typical warehouse trip generation rate of 1.71 [ITE 150] trips per thousand square feet), as defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. Because of the conservative trip count, the Project’s TIA analyzes a “worst case scenario” transportation analysis and therefore the analysis accounts for impacts that would be caused by other types of warehouses. Additionally, because ITE 155 was used to determine the trip generation rate (which was reasonable to get a most conservative transportation analysis), that same trip rate was used in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk, and Noise Assessments so all studies would have a consistent baseline.

G4 As noted throughout the Draft EIR (and in particular, in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the Project does not include cold storage. Therefore, the analysis modeled the warehouses as unrefrigerated, and the Project would not include emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Pursuant to MM GHG-2, the City will confirm the Project does not include cold storage equipment for warehousing purposes. Additionally, the Project would be conditioned to not allow for refrigerated uses.

G5 Refer to Responses G3 and G4, above, regarding the fact that the Project does not include cold storage. The remainder of the comment claims that the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts on the future residents within the GVSP. This comment is general in nature and does not identify specific deficiencies in the Draft EIR’s analysis.

Therefore, no response can be provided.

G6 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS, including traffic signal warrants, was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 101
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 947 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-66
Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided. Based on the analysis in the TIA, as described in more detail in the Draft EIR Section 4.13: Transportation pages 4.13-21 it is recommended that the northbound shared lane on Wheat Street at Ethanac Road (intersection #9) be modified to be right-in-right-out (RIRO) access. With this improvement, the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service (LOS).

Therefore, no other improvements are recommended at intersection #9 in order to meet the City’s LOS standards. Also based on the analysis in the TIA, it is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Ethanac Road at Byers Road (intersection #10). The implementation of these improvements to address automobile delay will be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA.

G7 Additionally, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA.

The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning this proposed improvement was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. The implementation of this improvement would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, a Project description should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. Since this improvement would be imposed outside of CEQA and was provided for information purposes pursuant to automobile delay, the Project Description does not need to be updated to include this proposed improvement. Nevertheless, any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. Additionally, the improvements associated with the proposed Project are not considered intensive construction work that would expand the scope of project construction impacts already discussed thoroughly in the Draft EIR.

G8 The commenter states that the Project could generate more traffic than what is assumed if any portion of the building is occupied by refrigerated uses. MM GHG-2 prohibits the Project from including cold storage. In addition, City has conditioned the site to prohibit cold storage.

Therefore, the Project would not include additional truck traffic or additional emissions from TRUs, and as such, the Draft EIR did not need to analyze the potential effect of refrigerated trucks.

G9 The commenter states that health risk impacts appear to be based on the emissions generated by mobile sources within the project site and states that the analysis needs to confirm the evaluation of sources traveling along roadways and I-215. The commenter also states that the analysis needs to identify potential impacts to residents north of Ethanac Road.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 102
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 948 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-67
As shown in the HRA appendix (see Draft EIR Appendix B2), diesel emission sources include trucks traveling down Wheat Street, Byers Road, Ethanac Road and the on-ramps and off-ramps accessing I-215. In addition, the HRA includes diesel emissions from on-site truck circulation, truck idling, and heavy construction equipment used during Project construction. The Project does not involve any other potential diesel sources onsite. Modeling for the HRA extends approximately 603 feet north of Ethanac Road which includes the GVSP area identified by the commenter. The HRA analyzed the receptor of maximum exposure, which is identified as a house along Kuffel Road, and determined that impacts would be less than significant with the imposition of MM HRA-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment or incorporation of CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy. As a result, health risks for all other receptors (which are at a greater distance than the receptor of maximum exposure) have been determined to be less than this, including residents in the GVSP located north of Ethanac Road. Accordingly, the Draft EIR already analyzes the subjects raised by this comment and no further analysis is needed.

G10 Review of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that a project range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.

The City deemed that having two alternatives for the Project provides an adequate range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 because those were the alternatives determined which could reduce the Project’s significant effects while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives.

G11 The commenter states that if the Project includes refrigerated uses it would consume more energy that what was analyzed in the EIR. As stated previously, MM GHG-2 prohibits the Project from including cold storage. In addition, City has conditioned the site to prohibit cold storage.

Accordingly, the additional requested analysis is not needed.

G12 The commenter notes that the EIR uses the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold for GHG significance but states that this threshold is not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed in Draft EIR page 4.7-15, the City utilized SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e recommended threshold in the Draft EIR because SCAQMD’s thresholds are supported with substantial evidence from an expert agency.

Based on the supporting analysis outlined in SCAQMD’s draft GHG guidance and meeting notes, the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold would capture 90 percent of GHG emissions from projects in the region. This type of market capture analysis captures a substantial fraction of the GHG emissions from future development to accommodate for future population and job growth and excludes small development projects that would contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 103
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 949 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-68
The City thus relies on use of the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold to evaluate the potential for the Project to result in a significant GHG emissions impact under CEQA because it has been recommended by SCAQMD and SCAQMD is an expert agency in the Southern California region.

Further, the SCAQMD provides substantial evidence that the thresholds are consistent with policy goals and 2050 GHG emissions reduction targets set by the State. Specifically, the thresholds were set at levels that capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from the above-described uses, consistent with EO S-3-05 target of reducing GHGs to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

G13 Refer to Response G8, above. The commenter states that if the Project includes refrigerated uses it would generate more GHG than what was analyzed in the EIR. As stated previously, MM GHG-2 prohibits the Project from including cold storage. In addition, City has conditioned the site to prohibit cold storage.

G14 This comment contends that the Project’s warehouse use is not compatible with the GVSP and residential land uses in the surrounding area. This comment does not raise any specific reasons why a warehouse use cannot be compatible with nearby areas that are used for residential purposes. Notwithstanding the lack of specificity of this comment, the following information is provided.

As shown in Draft EIR Table 2-2 (page 2-2), the Project site and surrounding area has a land use and zoning designation of Economic Development Corridor-Northen Gateway (EDC-NG), respectively. The ECD-NG designation allows for the development of industrial uses, and therefore the proposed industrial uses are permitted within the site and surrounding area. In regards to the Project’s impacts to the residential land uses located in the City of Perris, the Project will comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which requires that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the Project’s localized emissions during construction and operational activity would be less than significant with the implementation of MMsAQ-1 through AQ-3. (pages 4.2-26 through 4.2-29). Additionally, CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 4,508 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project and less than significant impacts were determined. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-14, the Project’ HRA determined that with implementation of MM HRA-1, impacts concerning carcinogenic risk from Diesel Particulate Matter would be reduced below SCAQMD’s maximum cancer risk threshold (page 4.2-34). Lastly, as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4.2-21, Ethanac Road is designated as a truck corridor in the City of Menifee’s General Plan. As such, trucks utilizing Ethanac Road for access is appropriate.

G15 The commenter states that the City of Perris’ noise ordinance is not assessed as part of the Project’s noise analysis. Because the Project is located within the City of Menifee, standards developed by the City of Menifee were utilized to analyze impacts. This is common practice in CEQA documents throughout California. In any event, the City of Perris and the City of Menifee both use 60 dBA as the normally acceptable standard for residential single-family land uses based Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 104
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 950 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-69
on land use compatibility. As shown in Table 4.11-11 of the Draft EIR, 60 dBA is identified as the normally acceptable standard and the greatest increase in traffic noise along Ethanac Road would not be perceptible over existing conditions and therefore would not result in a significant impact.

As a result, noise impacts from the Project would remain the same, regardless of which City’s standards were used.

G16 Acknowledged. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the Draft EIR’s analysis and therefore no technical response is warranted. It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. The Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road The Project Traffic Study also analyzes both Project-specific and cumulative impacts with the inclusion of Cumulative Project traffic in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project Traffic Study includes an area-wide analysis.

G17 As noted in Response to Comment G6, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.

Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided. Based on the City of Perris LOS Standards and Traffic Criteria for Traffic Studies (not dated), below are the current City of Perris LOS standards and criteria:

Level of Service Standards
The City of Perris has established the following standards regarding minimum acceptable level LOS:
• LOS “D” along all City maintained roads (including intersections) and LOS “D” along I-215 and SR-74 (including intersections with local streets and roads). An exception to the local road standard is LOS “E” at intersections of any Arterials and Expressways with SR-74, the RamonaCajalco Expressway, or at I-215 freeway ramps. • LOS “E” may be allowed within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan Area to the extent that it would support transit-oriented development and walkable communities.

Increased congestion in this area will facilitate an increase in transit ridership and encourage development of a complementary mix of land uses within a comfortable walking distance from light rail stations.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 105
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 951 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-70
Thresholds of a Traffic Impact
The City of Perris standards include that a project would be considered to have a project-related effect based on the following criteria:
• A project-related traffic effect is considered direct when a study intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more and causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing plus project conditions.
• A project-related traffic effect is considered direct when a study intersection operates at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.
• A cumulative effect is considered direct when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable Level of Service without the project and with the addition of 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more and causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service. • A cumulative effect is considered an indirect traffic effect when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and the project contributes 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips and causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.

Based on review of the study intersections, below are study intersections located within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW) or located entirely or a majority within the City of Perris:

1. Goetz Road at Case Road (City of Perris)

2. Murrieta Road at Case Road (City of Perris)

3. Goetz Road at Mapes Road (City of Perris)

4. I-215 SB Ramps/SR-74 at Bonnie Drive (Caltrans)

5. I-215 NB Ramps at SR-74 (Caltrans)

6. Goetz Road at Fieldstone Drive (City of Perris)

7. Goetz Road at Ethanac Road (City of Perris)

13. Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road (City of Perris)

14. I-215 SB Ramps at Ethanac Road (Caltrans)

15. I-215 NB Ramps at Ethanac Road (Caltrans)

16. Trumble Road at Ethanac Road (City of Perris)
Based on review of the City of Perris significance criteria and applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris, the recommended improvements noted in the Project Traffic Study at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS, would more than offset the project-related effect, and would address the City of Perris significance criteria.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 106
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 952 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-71
G18 Ethanac Road is currently a truck route. As noted in Response to Comment G16, a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Since the global Traffic Study for the MEDC area has not been completed, the Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The analysis for this Project cannot speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be identified.

Based on the findings in the Project Traffic Study, a 350-foot westbound left-turn pocket is adequate to accommodate the anticipated westbound left-turn volumes at the intersection of Ethanac Road at Byers Road under Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project with Improvement conditions. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final engineering for the Project. See Response to Comment G21 regarding how there are no safety impacts with the 350-foot westbound left-turn pocket due to Ethanac Road being generally straight and flat with good visibility, long sight distance, no visual obstructions, and no sharp curves.

G19 See Response to Comment G18.

G20 See Response to Comment G17.

G21 Refer to Response to Comment G7. The implementation of this improvement is based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant via the Conditions of Approval process as a means to address traffic congestion, not through CEQA since traffic congestion is no longer a significant impact under CEQA. The Applicant will construct the 350-foot westbound left-turn pocket as a Condition of Approval for the Project. Because this improvement addresses a topic outside of CEQA and does not involve significant construction that would impact any of the analyses or conclusions in the EIR, mention of this off-site improvement is not required to be included in the Project Description. However, any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final engineering for the Project.

Ethanac Road is generally a straight and flat road with good visibility, long sight distance, no visual obstructions, and no sharp curves. As a result, there is no safety impact from vehicles or trucks queuing in the westbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Ethanac Road at Byers Road, whether or not the 350-foot westbound left-turn pocket is built. Therefore, there is no evidence that traffic congestion, if it were to occur, would create hazards due to geometric design features.

G22 As shown in Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft EIR, A P.E. stamp and signature has been added to the Project Traffic Study title page.

G23 See Response to Comment G17.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 107
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 953 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-72
G24 The study locations on pages 4 and 5 of the Project Traffic Study have been updated accordingly.

G25 This comment calls for a LOS and queuing analysis for Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac. In the first instance, traffic congestion no longer a significant impact for purposes of CEQA, and therefore a LOS and queuing analysis are outside the scope of the EIR. Notwithstanding that further response to this comment is not required, the intersection of Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. Based on the Project Traffic Study, the intersection would operate at an acceptable Level of Service with the addition of Project traffic. Therefore, no recommended improvements are required for the proposed project at the noted intersection.

G26 See Response to Comment G17. The recommended improvements noted in the Project Traffic Study at deficient roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS, would more than offset the Project-related effect, and would address the City of Perris roadway capacity criteria.

G27 The traffic data collection and volume development approach for the Project Traffic Study was determined based on consultation with City of Menifee staff during the Traffic Scoping Agreement process. Traffic counts and Level of Service (LOS) results under Existing Conditions for the Project Traffic Study were compared with traffic counts and LOS results from more recent traffic studies with overlapping study intersections, which had more recent traffic counts (February 2023). It was observed that the traffic counts for the Project Traffic Study were comparable to the traffic counts in the more recent traffic studies. The LOS results under Existing Conditions between the Project Traffic Study and more recent traffic studies generally remained the same. Therefore, the traffic counts in the Project Traffic Study are considered reasonable.

G28 Detailed turning movement percentages at each study intersection for both passenger car and truck project trips is provided in Appendix F of the Project Traffic Study. No Project trucks were assumed to use Goetz Road north of Ethanac Road or Murrieta Road north of Ethanac Road.

Ethanac Road is currently a truck route. As noted in Response to Comment G16, a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Since the global Traffic Study for the MEDC area has not been completed, the Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The analysis for this Project cannot speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be identified.

G29 Table 4 has been updated accordingly. As noted earlier, based on review of the City of Perris significance criteria and applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris, the recommended improvements noted in the Project Traffic Study at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 108
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 954 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-73
LOS, would more than offset the Project-related effect, and would address the City of Perris significance criteria.

G30 The Traffic Scoping Agreement, including a list of Cumulative Projects (including development projects within the City of Perris) as noted on Table 6, was sent to the City of Perris. The City of Perris did not provide comments on the Traffic Scoping Agreement. It should be noted that the City of Perris provided a NOP Comment Letter (dated May 16, 2022), which include comments regarding Transportation, but did not provide comments with regards to cumulative projects within the City of Perris to be included as part of the Traffic Study.

G31 As noted in Response to Comment G6, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.

Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided. The recommended improvements at the Ethanac Road/I-215 interchange were based on the DRAFT Preliminary Engineering Study Report for Ethanac Road Gap Closure Report (Revised January 2016). Queuing and progression for improvements along Ethanac Road at the I-215 interchange would be reviewed during the design and implementation phase for interchange improvements in the future.

G32 As noted in Response G6, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS, including traffic signal warrants, was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.

Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided. The Project Traffic Study only provides recommended improvements to study intersections and roadway segments that would cause the deficient study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS and would more than offset the Project-related effect. The implementation of improvements is based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final engineering for the Project. The developer/property owner shall pay fair share costs for off-site improvements as detailed in the Project Traffic Study prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The fair share cost estimates shall be based on conceptual exhibits prepared by the developer, reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

G33 Acknowledged, and no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 109
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 955 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-74
G34 Acknowledged. As noted in Response to Comment G18, a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. The Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road.

G35 The City will provide all future notices of the Project to the Commenter. No further response is warranted.

G36 Comments regarding the property owner notification within 1,200 feet have been noted. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Project met the 45-day review period requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15202(d). Letters received within that review period, regardless ending on a Saturday, are included within this FEIR.

G37 This comment includes conclusionary statements and therefore, no further response is warranted.

G38 The Commenter’s letter of initial comments on the Project have been noted.

G39 The Commenter’s letter of comments on the Notice of Preparation have been noted. The environmental issues brought up in the Commenter’s NOP were taken into consideration during the Draft EIR’s environmental impact analysis.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 110
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 956 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-75
Comment Letter H – Blum Collins & Ho LLP
Gary Ho
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 111
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 957 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-76
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 112
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 958 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-77
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 113
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 959 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-78
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 114
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 960 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-79
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 115
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 961 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-80
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 116
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 962 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-81
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 117
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 963 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-82
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 118
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 964 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-83
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 119
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 965 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-84
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 120
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 966 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-85
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 121
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 967 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-86
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 122
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 968 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-87
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 123
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 969 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-88
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 124
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 970 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-89
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 125
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 971 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-90
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 126
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 972 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-91
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 127
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 973 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-92
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 128
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 974 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-93
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 129
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 975 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-94
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 130
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 976 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-95
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 131
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 977 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-96
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 132
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 978 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-97
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 133
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 979 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-98
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 134
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 980 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-99
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 135
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 981 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-100
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 136
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 982 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-101
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 137
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 983 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-102
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 138
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 984 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-103
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 139
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 985 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-104
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 140
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 986 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-105
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 141
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 987 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-106
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 142
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 988 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-107
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 143
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 989 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-108
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 144
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 990 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-109
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 145
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 991 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-110
Responses to Comment Letter H – Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Gary Ho, Matt Hagemann and Paul Rosenfeld
H1 This comment includes introductory statements. No further response is warranted.

H2 This comment includes a summary of the Project’s description. No further response is warranted.

H3 A floor plan, detailed elevations, and conceptual grading plan are included in the Project’s Planning Application. The colored elevations in the EIR depict the conceptual building based on the detailed elevations submitted during the planning application process. A floor plan and detailed elevations were not included in the Draft EIR, nor are they required to be included, since it is not necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Draft EIR to provide information of the Project’s environmental impacts caused during construction and operations of the Project. Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR page 2-3 sets forth the Project’s height, floor area, parking spaces, and other detailed project information, including a Project narrative. In any event, the comment does not state which specific pieces of Project information are missing from the EIR and how that missing information renders the EIR’s analysis deficient. Accordingly, no further response is warranted. Information regarding the Project’s soil import/export has been provided in Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft EIR of this FEIR.

H4 The commenter states the Draft EIR does not include relevant environmental justice issues and references CalEnviroScreen pollution burden results. However, CalEnviroScreen is discussed in Appendix B2 (Health Risk Assessment) and the environmental justice factors are disclosed on pages 11-12. CEQA does not require consideration of potential implications to environmental justice or socioeconomics as a specific resource, further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration. Because the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

H5 The commenter states that the Project area ranks 67th in drinking water and states that poor communities are exposed to more contaminants in their drinking water. The Draft EIR evaluates water quality impacts in Section 4.9 and impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Also, refer to Response H4. The comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects; therefore, no further response is warranted.

H6 The commenter states that the Project community is 60 percent Hispanic, 6 percent African American, and 2 percent Asian American; 79 percent of residents over 25 don’t have a high school diploma; and 47 percent of the households have an income less than the poverty level. Refer to Response H4. Because the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 146
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 992 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-111
H7 The commenter states that the census tract adjacent to the Project site is identified as a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community. Refer to response H4. SB 535 established initial requirements for minimum funding levels to “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs). The legislation also gives California EPA the responsibility for identifying those communities, stating that the designation of disadvantaged communities must be based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.” These funds must be used for programs that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 535 does not include project-specific requirements or prohibit developments in proximity to the designated communities. Because the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

H8 The commenter states that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved Title 24 compliance energy modeling software. With specific regard to the use of CalEEMod for the purposes of modeling energy consumption, the Lead Agency has historically and successfully employed CalEEMod for this purpose. Further, the SCAQMD, the Responsible Agency for air quality considerations, endorses use of CalEEMod to provide a “uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operational from a variety of land use projects.” Through the use of CalEEMod, SCAQMD integrates air quality and energy impact analyses.12 To ensure consistency of and accuracy of analyses in support of SCAQMD policies, the Lead Agency has determined that CalEEMod is appropriate for CEQA modeling of both air quality impacts and energy consumption.

The energy modeling protocols cited by the commenter (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) are used for the performance approach (energy budget) method for demonstrating compliance with the Title 24 Energy Standards. The analysis in EIR Section 4.5 discloses the amount of energy that the Project would require, and is not intended or required to demonstrate compliance for Title 24 energy standard performance.

Additionally, the EIR discloses the Project’s electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, and transportation fuel consumption and determined that the Project’s energy consumption would not be inefficient or wasteful as the Project will be required to comply with the Title 24 Nonresidential Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards published by the CEC, which contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use. Therefore, the Project used the appropriate model to calculate and disclose the Project’s energy use, and also demonstrated that the Project would be required to comply with 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency and CALGreen Standards. The findings and conclusions of the EIR are not affected; no revisions are necessary.

H9 The Draft EIR does contain an analysis of the Project’s compatibility with the RTP/SCS strategies, as noted in Table 4.10-3 of the Land Use Section, which begins on page 4.10-6 of the Draft EIR and Table 4.7-4 of the GHG Section, which begins on page 4.7-28 of the Draft EIR. As shown in these tables, the Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. 12 https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 147
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 993 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-112
Additionally, as noted throughout the Draft EIR, the Project is also consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. However, despite consistency with the above plans, the Project emissions still exceed the numerical GHG threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

H10 The City respectfully disagrees that the Draft EIR does not provide a consistency analysis with applicable goals, policies, and regulations for the Project. Goal S-7 and Policy S-7.1 refer to climate change and GHG emissions. Consistent with Goal S-7 and Policy S-7.1 a GHG Emissions Assessment was prepared to identify and inform the City of GHG impacts. Policy EJ-3.6 refers to continuing to collaborate with SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and WRCOG. The Project would not interfere with the City’s ability collaborate with agencies and the Draft EIR shows that the Project is consistent with all applicable agency policies. Policy C-1.2 refers to traffic impacts from peak-hour level of service (LOS) however, LOS is no longer analyzed under CEQA and therefore this Draft EIR is not required to analyze LOS.

H11 Commenter states that the Project is not consistent with “Policy C-5.3: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the negative environmental impacts of goods movement” because it omits the fact that the Project will have a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions. However, the Draft EIR clearly states that the Project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG. The Project is consistent with Policy C-5.3 because it lowers truck VMT by adding local warehouses so that products are stored closer to where they are needed and reducing vehicle trips. Additionally, the Draft EIR has identified all feasible mitigation measures to minimize GHG impacts (see Draft EIR pages 4.7-24 through 4.7-27).

H12 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning these proposed improvements was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Further, the Project’s land use impacts are based in part upon determining compliance with the City’s General Plan. The Project Applicant is proposing to improve roadways along the Project’s frontage per the City of Menifee General Plan. All roadway improvements associated with the Project would be consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project.

H13 Refer to Response H12 above.

H14 Refer to Response H12 above. As stated above, the Menifee GP Policy C-1.2 does not fully apply as LOS is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA and therefore, a project isn’t required to provide mitigation measures to reduce impacts concerning LOS. Nevertheless, the Project provided recommended improvements that would maintain LOS within the study Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 148
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 994 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-113
intersections identified in the Draft TIA Appendix K and discussed in Section 4.13.7 for informational purposes (pages 4.13-20 through 4.13-24).

H15 As noted throughout the Draft EIR, the EIR prepared for the Project is considered a Project EIR, and not a Program EIR. As such, the analysis contained within the Draft EIR focuses on Project and Project plus cumulative project buildout. All technical studies prepared as part of the Draft EIR are specific to the Project itself, and therefore represents a worst case scenario. Also pertaining to commenter’s issues regarding FAR, Exhibut LU-4 also states in the Notes section that citywide build-out levels historically do not achieve the maximum allowable density/intensity on every parcel, and on average are lower than allowed by the Menifee GP. However, the build-out estimates in the Menifee GP assume variations in the build-out intensity. Therefore, if based on the average, as it states, in some instances the FAR will be higher than the 0.40 FAR. In addition, the GP allows for a maximum of 1.0 FAR. Additionally, pursuant to Menifee GP FEIR, land assumptions were not site specific and the EDC land use designation was generally envisioned for a mixture of residential, commercial, office, industrial, entertainment, educational, recreational uses, and/or other uses. Accordingly, the Project is not inconsistent with the GP buildout scenario.

H16 This is a copy and paste of Comments H12 through H14 above.

H17 Based on the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (page 4), “ ’vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project,” where automobile refers to passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. A VMT Study was prepared for the Project, which noted that the Project would cause a less-than-significant VMT/transportation impact. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for the Project.

Additionally, the ITE Code 155b (High-Cube Fulfillment Center-Sort) was utilized to calculate trips generated by the proposed Project. Given the type of potential clients assumed for the future building, it was determined by the City of Menifee to be the best and highest use for calculating Project trips.

H18 The Project will construct the ultimate half-width cross-section of Byers Road and Wheat Street along the project frontage, consistent with City of Menifee Road Improvement Standards and Specifications(Design Standards, 2019). Also, site access, including curb radii, driveway width, and truck turn design, will be designed consistent with City Design Standards to provide adequate maneuvering and queuing space for trucks/trailers on-site, as well as at the intersection of project driveways and adjacent streets. A copy of the project site plan with applicable truck-turning templates is provided as an attachment to this FEIR. As shown in the truck-turning templates, driveways, truck turning would be sufficient at a 45-foot radius and the Project is subject to the following condition:

Condition #149. Driveways - Final driveway geometrics may be modified in final engineering as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. Driveways shall meet current standard radii on all existing and proposed commercial drive approaches used as access to the proposed development. The developer shall adhere to all City standards and regulations for access and ADA guidelines.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 149
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 995 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-114
As noted in discussion 4.13-4 of the Draft EIR, in compliance with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) access requirement, adequate emergency access would be provided by the Project. It should be noted that the roadways serving the project site are generally straight and flat. The project driveways have been designed so that adequate sight distance for drivers entering and exiting the site is maintained. Based on the items noted in this response and Section 4.13.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project would improve sight distance and safety conditions in the area and would not create hazards due to geometric design features.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 150
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 996 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 151
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 997 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 152
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 998 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-117
H19 The roadways serving the project site are generally straight and flat, with no visual obstructions.

Therefore, there is no evidence that driver visibility will be inadequate and the commenter has not provided evidence otherwise. Accordingly, no further analysis of sight distance is warranted.

H20 The City respectfully disagrees that the Draft EIR does not include a meaningful discussion of potential growth inducing impacts. Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address the “growth inducing” effects of the Project. Pursuant to § 15126.2(d) of the Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

As discussed in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, the Project would not induce growth. Although the Project would potentially induce an increase of 860 employees within the City, the proposed industrial use is accounted for within the Menifee GP, as the Project would be consistent with the planned Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use. Furthermore, employment growth from the Project would not directly induce population growth by 860 persons. Refer to Response to Comment H24 below for more information.

For the reasons discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project’s employee base is expected to come from within the city or immediately surrounding region and would not require new housing; would have no effect on stimulating population growth; and provides sufficient infrastructure to meet its needs concurrent with development.

H21 Refer to Response H15 above.

H22 Review of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that a project provide a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.

The City deemed that having two alternatives for the Project provides an adequate range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and feasible for the Project Applicant.

Additionally, an alternative is not required to meet all Project objectives and eliminate all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as incorrectly stated by the Commenter.

H23 Refer to Response to Comment H24 below.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 153
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 999 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-118
H24 Although the Project would potentially induce an increase of 860 employees within the City, the proposed industrial use is accounted for within the Menifee GP, as the Project would be consistent with the planned Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use. Furthermore, employment growth from the Project would not directly induce population growth by 860 persons. Data from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found that approximately 13 percent of Americans move each year, and of those 21 percent move for jobrelated reasons. 13 percent of 860 is 111 people and 21 percent of 111 people is 23 people.

Therefore, the Project could potentially generate 23 new residents in the City Menifee which represents 0.01 percent of the City’s population growth forecast of 129,800 people by 2045.

The Commenter provides no substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The Project would not result in cumulative citywide or countywide population and housing impacts.

As stated in Draft EIR Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant (EFNTBS), it is reasonably assured that the jobs would be filled by people living in the City, unincorporated County area, and surrounding communities, such as Perris and Murrieta due to a high unemployment rate, currently at 5.7 percent for the City of Menifee, and 5.2 percent for the County of Riverside.

Furthermore, the Project’s potential employment opportunities would provide much needed employment within the City and support the City’s pursuit in a more balanced jobs-housing ratio.

H25 This comment includes conclusionary statements, and therefore no further response is warranted.

H26 Refer to Responses D7, D8, D9, D11, D12, E8, E9, E12, E13, and E14, above. This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration.

As discussed on pages 4.2-18 through 4.2-37, within Draft EIR Section 4.2, air quality impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. GHG impacts would remain significant despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. The commenter provides a list of various suggested mitigation measures, many of which are already include in the Draft EIR and would be implemented by the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. For example, bullets 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are included within Draft EIR MM AQ-1 (prohibiting off-road diesel equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day), MM AQ-2 (limiting heavy equipment idling for more than three minutes), MM AQ-4, MM HRA-1 (Tier 4 construction equipment), MM GHG-1 (rooftop solar/renewable energy), and MM GHG-4 (EV charging).

Bullets 5 and 10 are not considered mitigation because verifying compliance with construction mitigation is already required to be conducted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Regulation) includes requirements for zero emission truck charging/fueling among other emissions reducing measures.

Additionally, bullets 2, 6, 13, and 14 are associated with reducing air quality emissions (not GHG emissions) and are not required because the Draft EIR already mitigates air quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 154
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1000 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

2.0-119
The commenter also does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.). As disclosed in the EIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 155
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1001 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

3.0-1
Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ERRATA
In accordance with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR for the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project includes the DEIR, dated March 2024, as well as any proposed revisions or changes to the DEIR.

The changes to the DEIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document, and instead represent changes to the DEIR to provide clarification, amplification and/or insignificant modifications, as needed as a result of public comments on the DEIR, or due to additional information received during the public review period. These clarifications and corrections do not warrant recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

None of the changes or information provided in the comments identify a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted. In addition, the changes do not reflect a fundamentally flawed or conclusory DEIR.

Changes to the DEIR are listed by Section, page, paragraph, etc. to best guide the reader to the revision.

Changes are identified as follows:

Deletions are indicated by strikeout text.

Additions are indicated by underlined text.

3.2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR

The Project is anticipated to be developed in one phase. Construction for the Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 14 months, beginning in 2024. Additionally, the Project is expected to use tractors, graders, dozers, and scrapers during the grading construction phase; refer to Exhibit 2-8, Conceptual Grading Plan. As shown in Exhibit 2-8, the Project would have a raw cut of 52,000 cubic yards (C.Y.) and raw fill of 197,000 C.Y. for a raw net import of 145,000 C.Y. The Project’s construction schedule is expected to be modeled according to the following timeline:

Demolition phase is expected to occur between March 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 Site preparation is expected to occur between April 1, 2024 to May 15, 2024 Grading is expected to occur between May 16, 2024 to June 30, 2024 Building construction and infrastructure is expected to occur between July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024
Paving is expected to occur between January 1, 2025 to February 28, 2025 Architectural Coating is expected to occur between January 1, 2025 to April 30, 20251 1 Ibid. Page 18-19.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 156
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1002 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Menifee August 2024

3.0-2

In accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in order to achieve coverage for these species. The query of the RCA MSHCP Information Map and review of the MSHCP determined that the Project site is located within the designated survey area for burrowing owl as depicted in Figure 6-4 within Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. In compliance with conservation goals of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, a focused burrowing owl report was conducted on the Project site. Despite regular disturbance, the ample presence of perching opportunities for predators of burrowing owls, and the presence of free-roaming domestic cats and dogs, the Project site supports suitable foraging habitat and suitable burrows for burrowing owl. In order to comply with the conservation goals of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, a Part B-Focused burrowing owl would be conducted during the breeding season prior to development in accordance with MM BIO-2. If burrowing owls are found to occupy the Project site at the time of the focused survey, a relocation plan would need to be written, approved, and implemented prior to site development. If no burrowing owls or sign are found during the focused survey,To ensure that the burrowing owl remain absent from the Project site, a final 30 day pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey would be required in accordance with MM BIO-3 MM BIO-2 to ensure burrowing owl remains absent from the Project site. No other special-status wildlife species surveys were identified.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 157
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1003 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 158
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1004 of 2294 Draft Environmental Impact Report
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
SCH No. 2022040622
Lead Agency
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
(951) 672-6777

CONSULTANT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Kari Cano, Project Manager
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
March 2024
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 159
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1005 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.2 Project Location ........................................................................................................ ES-2 ES.3 Project Description.................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.4 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................ ES-3 ES.5 Alternatives to the Project......................................................................................... ES-3 ES.6 Areas of Controversy................................................................................................. ES-4 ES.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................. ES-5

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report.............................................................. 1-1

1.2 Compliance with CEQA................................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation .................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Lead Agency Information............................................................................................. 1-5

1.5 Final EIR ...................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Format of the EIR ........................................................................................................ 1-6

1.7 Responsible and Trustee Agencies............................................................................... 1-8

1.8 Incorporation by Reference......................................................................................... 1-8

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................................ 2-2

2.4 Land Use Designations and Zoning............................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Proposed Project......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.7 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 2-5

2.8 Discretionary Actions and Approvals............................................................................ 2-5

3.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3-1 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 160
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1006 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ii Table of Contents

3.2 Cumulative Projects List .............................................................................................. 3-2

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.0.1 Approach to the Environmental Analysis..................................................................... 4-1

4.0.2 Section Content and Definition of Terms ..................................................................... 4-1

4.1 AESTHETICS.............................................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.1-2

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-4

4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.1-7

4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................ 4.1-9

4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-12

4.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.1-13

4.1.8 References................................................................................................. 4.1-13

4.2 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-5

4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.2-14

4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.2-18

4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-36

4.2.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.2-37

4.2.8 References................................................................................................. 4.2-37

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-4

4.3.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.3-9

4.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.3-10

4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.3-19 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 161
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1007 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 iii Table of Contents

4.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.3-19

4.3.8 References................................................................................................. 4.3-19

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.4-3

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-8

4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.4-11

4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.4-12

4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.4-18

4.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.4-19

4.4.8 References................................................................................................. 4.4-19

4.5 ENERGY.................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-3

4.5.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.5-8

4.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................ 4.5-8

4.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.5-16

4.5.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.5-17

4.5.8 References................................................................................................. 4.5-17

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................ 4.6-1

4.6.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.6-1

4.6.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.6-1

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-4

4.6.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ................................................. 4.6-7

4.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................ 4.6-9

4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.6-15

4.6.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.6-16

4.6.8 References................................................................................................. 4.6-16 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 162
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1008 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 iv Table of Contents

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.7.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.7.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-3

4.7.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.7-18

4.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.7-21

4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.7-31

4.7.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.7-32

4.7.8 References................................................................................................. 4.7-32

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.8-1

4.8.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.8-1

4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-6

4.8.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.8-18

4.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.8-19

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.8-25

4.8.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.8-26

4.8.8 References................................................................................................. 4.8-26

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.2 Environmental Setting.................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-7

4.9.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.9-13

4.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.9-14

4.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.9-26

4.9.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 4.9-26

4.9.8 References................................................................................................. 4.9-26

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING...................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4.10-1 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 163
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1009 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 v Table of Contents

4.10.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.10-1

4.10.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-3

4.10.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.10-4

4.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.10-5

4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.10-19

4.10.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.10-19

4.10.8 References............................................................................................... 4.10-19

4.11 NOISE..................................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.11-6

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-8

4.11.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................. 4.11-13

4.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................ 4.11-15

4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.11-24

4.11.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.11-27

4.11.8 References............................................................................................... 4.11-27

4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES.................................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.12.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.12.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-2

4.12.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.12-5

4.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.12-6

4.12.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.12-12

4.12.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.12-12

4.12.8 References............................................................................................... 4.12-12

4.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................................ 4.13-1

4.13.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.13.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.13-1

4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-2 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 164
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1010 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 vi Table of Contents

4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.13-8

4.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................ 4.13-11

4.13.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.13-15

4.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.13-16

4.13.8 References............................................................................................... 4.13-26

4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.14-1

4.14.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-4

4.14.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................... 4.14-8

4.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. 4.14-9

4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.14-11

4.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.14-11

4.14.8 References............................................................................................... 4.14-12

4.15 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.15.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.15.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-6

4.15.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria ............................................. 4.15-11

4.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................ 4.15-12

4.15.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.15-18

4.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................. 4.15-19

4.15.8 References............................................................................................... 4.15-19

5.0 ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................... 5- 1

5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................... 5- 2

5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts............................................................................................ 5- 4

5.4 Mandatory Significance of Findings............................................................................. 5-6 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 165
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1011 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 vii Table of Contents

6.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives................................................................................ 6-3

6.4 Alternatives Removed from Further Consideration...................................................... 6-4

6.5 Alternatives to the Project........................................................................................... 6-5

6.6 Comparison of Project Alternatives............................................................................. 6-5

6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................................ 6-16

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Mineral Resources....................................................................................................... 7-3

7.4 Population and Housing............................................................................................... 7-4

7.5 Recreation................................................................................................................... 7-5

7.6 Wildfire....................................................................................................................... 7-6

7.7 References.................................................................................................................. 7-7

8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Lead Agency............................................................................................................... 8- 1

8.2 Environmental Document Preparers............................................................................ 8-1

8.3 Technical Study Preparation........................................................................................ 8-1 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................ ES-6 Table 2-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers..................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Surrounding Land Uses......................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns............................................... 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data................................................................................................ 4.2-4 Table 4.2-3: Sensitive Receptors........................................................................................................ 4.2-5 Table 4.2-4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards........................................................... 4.2-6 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 166
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1012 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 viii Table of Contents
Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ...................................................................... 4.2-10 Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds............................. 4.2-14 Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations .......................................... 4.2-15 Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions ................................................................................... 4.2-22 Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Project Emissions.................................................................. 4.2-23 Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Operational Project Emissions.................................................................... 4.2-24 Table 4.2-11: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates.............................................................................. 4.2-27 Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions........................................................ 4.2-28 Table 4.2-13: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions.......................................................... 4.2-29 Table 4.2-14: Health Risk Results..................................................................................................... 4.2-34 Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2022)........................................ 4.5-2 Table 4.5-2: 2021 Consumption By End-Use Sector............................................................................ 4.5-3 Table 4.5-3: Energy Use During Construction..................................................................................... 4.5-9 Table 4.5-4: Project Annual Energy Use During Operations.............................................................. 4.5-12 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases................................................................................... 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................... 4.7-21 Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................... 4.7-22 Table 4.7-4: SCAG Connect SoCal Consistency.................................................................................. 4.7-28 Table 4.10-1: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers......................................................................................... 4.10-1 Table 4.10-2: Surrounding Land Uses............................................................................................... 4.10-2 Table 4.10-3: Project Compatibility with SCAG Connect SoCal Strategies ......................................... 4.10-6 Table 4.10-4: Consistency with the City’s General Plan .................................................................... 4.10-7 Table 4.11-1: Typical Noise Levels.................................................................................................... 4.11-2 Table 4.11-2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms .................................................................................. 4.11-2 Table 4.11-3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations........................................................................................................................... 4.11-6 Table 4.11-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels........................................................................................ 4.11-7 Table 4.11-5: Existing Noise Measurements..................................................................................... 4.11-9 Table 4.11-6: Sensitive Receptors.................................................................................................... 4.11-9 Table 4.11-7: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .................................... 4.11-12 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 167
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1013 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ix Table of Contents
Table 4.11-8: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels........................................................... 4.11-16 Table 4.11-9: Project Construction Noise Levels............................................................................. 4.11-18 Table 4.11-10: On-Site Composite Noise........................................................................................ 4.11-21 Table 4.11-11: Traffic Noise Levels................................................................................................. 4.11-22 Table 4.11-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration.............................................................. 4.11-23 Table 4.11-13: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels.................................................................. 4.11-26 Table 4.13-1: Project VMT Impact Evaluation – Efficiency Metrics ................................................. 4.13-13 Table 4.13-2: Summary of Project Trip Generation ........................................................................ 4.13-16 Table 4.13-3: Intersection LOS – Opening Year with Improvements............................................... 4.13-21 Table 4.13-4: Summary of Roadway Segment Analysis with Improvements Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project .................................................................................................... 4.13-23 Table 4.13-5: Roadway Segment and Intersection Fair Share Contributions................................... 4.13-23 Table 4.15-1: Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY).......................................................... 4.15-2 Table 4.15-2: Retail and Wholesale - Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison........................ 4.15-2 Table 4.15-3: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison........................................................ 4.15-2 Table 4.15-4: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparisons................................................. 4.15-3 Table 4.15-5: Landfill Information.................................................................................................. 4.15-17 Table 6.0-1: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project................... 6-17 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Vicinity Map......................................................................................................... 2-7 Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................. 2-8 Exhibit 2-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations...................................................................... 2-9 Exhibit 2-4: Existing Zoning................................................................................................................. 2-10 Exhibit 2-5: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 2-11 Exhibit 2-6: Conceptual Elevations...................................................................................................... 2-12 Exhibit 2-7: Conceptual Landscape Plan.............................................................................................. 2-13 Exhibit 3-1: Location of Cumulative Projects......................................................................................... 3-5 Exhibit 4.9-1: Receiving Waterbodies................................................................................................. 4.9-4 Exhibit 4.11-1: Noise Measurement Locations................................................................................. 4.11-8 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 168
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1014 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 x Table of Contents
Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A: NOP and Scoping Meeting
Appendix B: Air Quality Reports
• Appendix B1: Air Quality Assessment
• Appendix B2: Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C: Biological Resources
Appendix D: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E: Energy Assessment
Appendix F: Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for Proposed Warehouse Appendix G: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix H: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I: Hydrology Reports
• Appendix I1: Preliminary Drainage Study
• Appendix I2: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan Appendix J: Acoustical Assessment
Appendix K: Traffic Reports
• Appendix K1: Traffic Study
• Appendix K2: SB 743 VMT Analysis
Appendix L: Water Supply Assessment
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 169
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1015 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ES-1 0.ES | Executive Summary

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction
The environmental impact report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full-disclosure document in order to (1) inform agency decisionmakers and the general public of the direct and indirect potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant adverse environmental impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines § 15168 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040622) has been prepared for the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project) and for the City of Menifee (City).

CEQA requires that projects subject to approval by a public agency of the State of California, and that are not otherwise exempt or excluded, undergo an environmental review process to identify and evaluate potential impacts. CEQA Guidelines § 15050 states that environmental review shall be conducted by the Lead Agency, defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15367 as the public agency with principal responsibility for approving a project. The Project is subject to approval actions by the City, which is, therefore the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15123, this section of the Draft EIR provides a brief description of the Project; identifies significant effects and proposed mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; and describes areas of controversy and issues to be resolved.

This Draft EIR serves as a “Project EIR” as defined in § 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines related to the construction and operation of the Project site. The Draft EIR considers the environmental impacts of the Project, as well as the additive effects of growth throughout the County, neighboring areas, and the City of Menifee. These latter impacts are referred to as cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR also evaluates a range of potential feasible alternatives anticipated to reduce significant impacts of the Project including the No Project Alternative and Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative. This Draft EIR has been prepared for the City, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice that an EIR for the Project was being prepared. The NOP was distributed on May 2, 2022 to solicit comments related to the implementation of the Project. The NOP was circulated with a minimum 30-day public review period ending on May 31, 2022. This process and the comments submitted in response to the NOP is discussed in Section 1.0: Introduction, and Section ES.6:

Areas of Controversy, below.

After receiving public comments on the NOP, the Project was analyzed for its potential to result in environmental impacts. Impacts were evaluated in accordance with the significance criteria presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,”. The criteria in the Environmental Checklist Form (checklist), was used to determine if the Project would result in, “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation measures,” or “potentially significant impact” to a particular environmental resource. In some instances, a project may use the checklist to provide an initial Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 170
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1016 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ES-2 0.ES | Executive Summary
discussion of a project and to screen out certain topics from a full discussion in the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR discusses all environmental resources in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A table listing the significant Project impacts and any associated mitigation measures is included at the end of this summary in Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures.

This Draft EIR describes the existing environmental resources on the Project site and in the vicinity of the site, analyzes potential impacts on those resources that would or could occur upon initiation of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of those impacts determined to be significant. The environmental impacts evaluated in this Draft EIR concern several subject areas, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy/energy conservation, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. As noted in the preceding paragraph, public comment was received during the NOP process and included written letters provided to the City. In addition to the list of the summary of comments below, a copy of the letters with the NOP is provided in Appendix A to this Draft EIR. The comments were used, as intended, to help inform the discussion of this Draft EIR and help determine the scope and framework of certain topical discussions. The Draft EIR will be subject to further review and comment by the public, as well as responsible agencies and other interested jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for a period of 45 days.

Following the public review period, written responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR will be prepared. Those written responses, and any other necessary changes to the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR and will be submitted to the City of Menifee Planning Commission for their consideration. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete” in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City may certify the EIR. The City of Menifee Planning Commission would also consider the adoption of Findings of Fact pertaining to the EIR, specific mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the hearing body would take action concerning the Project.

Regarding the MMRP, CEQA Guidelines § 15097 requires public agencies to set up monitoring and reporting programs to ensure compliance with mitigation measures, which are adopted or made as a condition of project approval and designed to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in environmental impact reports. A MMRP incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this EIR will be considered and acted upon by the City decision-makers concurrent with adoption of the findings of this EIR and prior to approval of the Project.

ES.2 Project Location
The Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215) and approximately

3.0 miles south of State Highway (SH) 74, within the City of Menifee, County of Riverside (see Exhibit 2-1:

Regional Vicinity Map in Section 2.0: Project Description). The Project is north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road, within the City. The Project site is located in the Economic Development Corridor- Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) of the City and is currently bordered by a scattering of existing rural residential homes (1.5 acres) and outbuildings and vacant land (refer to Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 171
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1017 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ES-3 0.ES | Executive Summary
Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map in Section 2.0: Project Description). The Project site comprises eight parcels.

ES.3 Project Description
The Project proposes the development of one concrete tilt-up warehouse that includes approximately 700,037 square feet (SF) of industrial warehouse space (including office space) on a total of 40.03 grossacres. It would include approximately 690,037 SF of warehouse space and 10,000 SF of office space; approximating 700,037 total SF of development. The building would also contain 49 dock doors on the northern portion of the building and 49 dock doors on the southern portion of the building for a total of 98 dock doors. Most dock doors are predominately high dock doors, with several drive thru doors. The height of the proposed building would be 45 feet, 6 inches high and would include 499 automobile parking spaces and 245 truck trailer parking spaces. The Project also includes various discretionary approvals including applications for Tentative Parcel Map No. PLN 22-0041 and Plot Plan No. PLN 21-0370. These actions are described in greater detail in Section 2.0: Project Description. Project background and objectives are also discussed in Section 2.0.

ES.4 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The Project’s potentially significant impacts are discussed in Section 4.1: Aestheticsthrough Section 4.15:

Utilities and Service Systems of this Draft EIR. As noted in these sections, most of the potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Project design features, standard conditions, and feasible mitigation measures. There are unavoidable significant impacts associated with Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o Despite consistency with the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan, and Southern California Association of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) also referred to as the Connect SoCal, incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and compliance with all applicable local, state, or federal regulations or laws, the Project’s operational mitigated mobile source emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD MTCO2e threshold.

ES.5 Alternatives to the Project
State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) requires a Draft EIR to “describe the range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” In response to the potentially significant impacts that were identified, the EIR includes the following alternatives for consideration by decision-makers upon action related to the Project:

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the Project with impacts of not approving the Project. The No Project Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 172
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1018 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ES-4 0.ES | Executive Summary
Analysis is required to discuss the existing conditions (at the time the Notice of Preparation was published on May 2, 2022), as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future, if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and services.

Under the No Project Alternative, the following would occur:
• The Applicant would not improve the site with the proposed industrial building, and associated infrastructure improvements, and the site would remain predominately undeveloped.

Alternative No. 2: Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative This Alternative assumes the construction of two smaller warehouse buildings totaling approximately 595,031 SF of building space on the same 40.3-acres of land. Each of the two warehouse buildings would be approximately 297,515 SF. Compared to the proposed Project, the total warehouse building space in Alternative 2 would be overall approximately 105,000 SF smaller or (15% smaller) than the proposed Project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, an alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. The No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would avoid many of the proposed Project’s impacts. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior Alternative, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2) requires that another alternative that could feasibly attain most of the Project’s basic objectives be chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Based on the analysis conducted in Section 6.0: Alternatives, Alternative 2 was chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. These alternatives are further discussed in Section 6.0: Alternatives.

ES.6 Areas of Controversy
State CEQA Guidelines §15123 (b)(2) and (3) require that this section of the Project EIR identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to mitigate the significant effects. The following issues of concern have been identified during the review period of the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and public meetings:
• Aesthetic Impacts
• Potential development next to residential land uses.
• Comprehensiveness of the Draft EIR.
• Feasibility of mitigation measures.
• Adequate air quality analysis, greenhouse gas emissions analysis, and noise analysis. • Hydrology/flooding and transportation/traffic issue as they pertain to Project. • Traffic impacts associated with development
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 173
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1019 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 ES-5 0.ES | Executive Summary
The aforementioned issues have been considered in this Draft EIR, where applicable, in Sections 4.1:

Aesthetics through 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems. However, despite the incorporation of Project Design Features, Standard Conditions of Approval, and feasible mitigation measures, significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions remain.

ES.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures is a summary of significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Project as identified in this EIR. Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15, for a detailed description of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. All impacts of the Project can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the exception of greenhouse gas emissions.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 174
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1020 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 175
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1021 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 176
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1022 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 177
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1023 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 178
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1024 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 179
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1025 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 180
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1026 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 181
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1027 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 182
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1028 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 183
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1029 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 184
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1030 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 185
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1031 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 186
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1032 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 187
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1033 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 188
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1034 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 189
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1035 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 190
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1036 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 191
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1037 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 192
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1038 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-1 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000 et seq, and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 15000 et seq. This Draft EIR has been prepared for the City of Menifee (City) and evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of one 700,037 square foot industrial warehouse building with associated facilities and improvements on 40.03 gross-acres of land. Associated facilities and improvements of the Project sites include office space, loading dock doors, on-site landscaping, detention basins, and related on-site and off-site improvements. The Project is generally bounded by Kuffel Road to the north, Wheat Street to the west, Corsica Lane to the south (approximately 330 feet), and Byers Road to the east.

The Project site’s existing land use designation is Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC-NG). The Project site’s existing zoning designation is EDC-NG. The proposed building’s end user is speculative in nature.

This Draft EIR evaluates the potentially significant and adverse impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the Project. Section 2.0, Project Description, provides detailed descriptions of the construction and operational components of the Project. Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, discusses the approach to the environmental analysis; section content and definition of terms; and cumulative analysis approach. Following public review of the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared, in which the City of Menifee will respond to public comments on the Draft EIR.

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
According to § 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a proposed project. The purpose of this Draft EIR for the proposed Project is to review the existing conditions at and in the vicinity of the Project site; identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts; and suggest feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce significant adverse environmental effects, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description and Section 6.0, Alternatives to the proposed Project. The potential impacts include both temporary construction-related effects and the long-term effects of development, operation, and maintenance of the Project, as described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems.

The intent of this EIR is to address the potential Project impacts utilizing the most current and detailed plans, technical studies, and related information available. This EIR will be used by the City as the Lead Agency, other responsible and trustee agencies, interested parties, and the general public to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project (refer to Section 2.8, Discretionary Actions and Approvals, for a list of anticipated responsible and trustee agencies and Project approvals).

Therefore, this EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all entitlements associated with the Project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the Project. The City, as Lead Agency, can approve subsequent actions without additional environmental Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 193
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1039 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-2 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
documentation unless otherwise required by § 21166 of the CEQA Statutes and § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Statutes § 21166 states that:

When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.
b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines § 15162 states that:
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 the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which 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;
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 194
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1040 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-3 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
(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.

1.2 Compliance with CEQA
According to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15064[f][1]), preparation of an EIR is required whenever a project may result in a significant effect on the environment. An EIR is an informational document used to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project while substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project. CEQA requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental effects of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects.

This Draft EIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by § 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. As defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15160, a project EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. This Draft EIR identifies and analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by § 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis considers the activities associated with the Project in order to determine the short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with their implementation.

This EIR discusses both temporary and permanent impacts and direct and indirect impacts of the Project, in addition to cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Based on significance criteria, the effects of the Project are categorized as either “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant with mitigation incorporated,” or “significant unavoidable impact” (refer to Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis). Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts, to avoid or lessen, to the extent feasible and possible, the Project’s environmental impacts. In the event the Project results in significant unavoidable impacts even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the decision-makers may approve the Project based on a “Statement of Overriding Considerations.” This determination requires the decision-makers to balance the benefits of the Project to determine if they outweigh identified unavoidable impacts. The CEQA Guideline § 15093 provides, in part, the following:

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 195
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1041 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-4 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
• CEQA requires that the decision-maker balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
• Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reason to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information on the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under § 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines and PRC § 21081(a)(3). • If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the Project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.

1.3 Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City provided opportunities for various agencies and the public to participate in the environmental review process. During preparation of the Draft EIR, efforts were made to contact various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments on the scope of review in this document. This included the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to various responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15082 and PRC § 21084.4, the City circulated the NOP to public agencies, special districts, members of the public who had requested such notice, and property owners within a 300-foot radius. The NOP was distributed on May 2, 2022, with the 30-day public review period concluding on June 1, 2022.

Public Scoping Meeting
A notice of a public scoping meeting for the Project was included within the NOP. A public in-person scoping meeting was held on May 17, 2022, at City Council Chambers located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to obtain comments from the public and agencies regarding the scope of the environmental document. A total of eight comment letters were received in response to the NOP. The comment letters received during the NOP comment period (May 2, 2022 through June 1, 2022), along with the NOP are included in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Notice.

Areas of concern that were identified during the comment period include:
• Air quality and noise impacts on
students/community
• Implementation of local hire and skilled and
trained workforce requirements
• Biological Resources impacts/MSHCP
Consistency
• Transportation impacts
• Community impacts • Tribal Cultural Resources impacts • Drainage facilities • Vehicle miles traveled
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 196
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1042 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-5 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Native American Consultation
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, further discussed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, essentially requires local governments to consult with Native American tribes to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to potential tribal cultural resources. In accordance with AB 52, the City requested formal tribal consultation with tribes on December 9, 2022. The following tribes were contacted for consultation: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Rincon Cultural Resources Department, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. To date, responses have been received from Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and are detailed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources.

1.4 Lead Agency Information
The Draft EIR is available to the general public for review at the location listed below and on the City’s website at:
• https://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents • Menifee City Hall
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15087 and 15105, this Draft EIR would be circulated for a 45-day public review period. The public is invited to comment in writing on the information contained in this document. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR and are encouraged to provide information that they believe should be included in the EIR.

All comment letters should be sent to:

Ryan Fowler, Principal Planner
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92589
[email protected]

1.5 Final EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day Draft EIR public review period, the City will evaluate all written comments received during the Project’s public review period on the Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088, the City will prepare written responses to comments raising environmental issues. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines § 15132 (Contents of Final Environmental Impact Report) requires the preparation of a Final EIR which will include:
a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 197
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1043 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-6 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; d) The Lead Agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088 (Evaluation of and Response to Comments), after the Final EIR is completed, the City will provide a written proposed response to each public agency on comments made by that public agency at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR.

Certification of the Final EIR
The Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, will be considered by the City of Menifee City Council for certification, consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15090, which states the following:

Prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that:
1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; 2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decisionmaking body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and
3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

Regarding the adequacy of an EIR, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15151, “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” Project Consideration
After certification of the Final EIR, the City Council may consider approval of the Project. A decision to approve the Project would be accompanied by specific, written findings, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15091 and, if necessary, a specific, written Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15093.

1.6 Format of the EIR
The purpose of this Draft EIR is to provide environmental review of the Project, such that the City, as the lead agency, will be able to utilize this EIR to satisfy CEQA for Project-related permits or approvals and to provide CEQA analysis.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 198
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1044 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-7 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
This Draft EIR is organized into nine sections:

Section ES Executive Summary provides a project summary, summary of environmental impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives.

Section 1.0 Introduction provides CEQA compliance information.

Section 2.0 Project Description provides Project history, as well as the environmental setting, Project characteristics and objectives, phasing, and anticipated permits and approvals that may be required for the Project.

Section 3.0 Basis of Cumulative Analysis describes the cumulative analysis’ proposed approach and methodology.

Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis provides a discussion of the existing conditions for each of the environmental impact areas. This section also describes methodologies for significance determinations, identifies both short-term and long-term environmental impacts of the Project, recommends mitigation measures to reduce the significance of environmental impacts, and identifies any areas of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts. This section includes a discussion of cumulative impacts that could arise as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project.

Section 5.0 Additional CEQA Considerations, summarizes unavoidable significant impacts, and discusses significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and mandatory findings of significance.

Section 6.0 Alternatives describes potential Project alternatives, including alternatives considered but rejected from further consideration, the No Project Alternative, various Project Alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant, describes potential impacts that have been determined not to be significant throughout the EIR process.

Section 8.0 EIR Consultation and Preparation identifies the CEQA Lead Agency and EIR preparation team, as well as summarizes the EIR consultation process.

Based on significance criteria, the effects of the proposed Project have been categorized as either “less than significant,” “less than significant with mitigation,” or “potentially significant.” Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts, to avoid or lessen impacts. In the event the proposed Project results in significant impacts even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the decision-makers are able to approve a proposed Project based on a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This determination would require the decision-makers to provide a discussion of how the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh identified unavoidable impacts. The CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following:
• CEQA requires that the decision-maker balance the benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 199
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1045 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-8 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
• Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the Project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines).

1.7 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Lead Agency
City of Menifee
For this Project, the City of Menifee is the lead agency under CEQA. This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with PRC § 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR § 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires lead agencies to consider potential environmental effects that may occur with implementation of a project and to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects to the environment when feasible. When a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency with primary responsibility for carrying out or approving the project (the lead agency) is required to prepare an EIR.

Trustee, Responsible, and Cooperating Agencies
Other federal, state, and local agencies are involved in the review and approval of the Project, including trustee and responsible agencies under CEQA. Under CEQA, a trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. A responsible agency is an agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Responsible and trustee agencies are consulted by the CEQA lead agency to ensure the opportunity for input and also review and comment on the Draft EIR. Responsible agencies also use the CEQA document in their decision-making. Several agencies other than the City of Menifee may require permits, approvals, and/or consultation in order to implement various elements of the Project.

1.8 Incorporation by Reference
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15148 or have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports.

The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review online. Information contained within these documents has been utilized for various sections of this EIR.

1. City of Menifee General Plan. The City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) is the comprehensive, long-term planning document that decision makers will use to guide growth and development in the City for the next several decades. The information contained in the individual sections or Elements that comprise this General Plan will shape the physical development of the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 200
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1046 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-9 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose
City. Public and private decision-makers will refer to this General Plan to formulate decisions with respect to land use and development.

The General Plan consists of the several elements:
• Land Use Element • Community Design Element
• Housing Element • Economic Development Element
• Circulation Element • Safety Element
• Open Space and Conservation Element • Noise Element
The City’s General Plan was used throughout this EIR since it contains policies and regulations relevant to the proposed Project. These elements are available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan

2. City of Menifee General Plan EIR. The City of Menifee General Plan EIR serves as the comprehensive update for the City of Menifee General Plan. The General Plan EIR includes the adopted associated CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to certain significant environmental impacts identified in the FEIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program. The General Plan EIR was used sporadically throughout the EIR since it contains preliminary environmental analysis for all environmental thresholds pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. All General Plan EIR documents can be viewed on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Environmental-Impact-Report

3. City of Menifee Municipal Code. The City of Menifee Municipal Code (Menifee MC) is continuously updated. The Menifee MC establishes detailed zoning districts and regulations based on the General Plan. On December 18, 2019, the City Council adopted the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code became effective January 17, 2020. The Zoning Code (Title 9: Planning and Zoning) serves as the City’s implementation tool for the General Plan. Whereas the General Plan is a policy document that sets forth direction for development decisions, the Zoning Code is a regulatory document that establishes specific standards for the use and development of all land uses, structures, subdivisions, and development in the City. The Zoning Code also indicates which land uses are permitted or prohibited in the various zones.

The Menifee MC includes all the City’s zoning ordinance provisions and has been supplemented over time to include other related procedures such as subdivision regulations, environmental review procedures, and an advertising and sign code. Menifee MC regulations and maps must be consistent with the General Plan land uses, policies, and implementation programs. The Menifee MC is referenced throughout this Draft EIR to establish the proposed Project’s baseline requirements according to the City’s regulatory framework.

The Menifee MC can be accessed online at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/318/Municipal-Code
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 201
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1047 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 1-10 1.0 | Introduction and Purpose

4. Southern California Association of Governments. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal was adopted in September 2020. The Connect SoCal aims to create a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The Connect SoCal charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation – so that the region can grow in accordance with smart and sustainable growth strategies.

The Connect SoCal can be accessed online at: https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 202
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1048 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 2-1 2.0 | Project Description

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Purpose
The City of Menifee (City), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project). The following Project Description is provided in conformance with CEQA Guidelines § 15124. It discusses the geographic setting, Project location, Project setting, current City land use and zoning designations, Project characteristics, Project objectives, and discretionary actions required to implement the Project. This information will be the basis for analyzing the Project’s impacts on the existing physical environment in Section 4.0 of this EIR. The Project Description contains the following:

1. The precise location and boundaries of the Project shown on a detailed map, along with a regional location map;

2. A statement of the objectives sought by the Project including the underlying purpose of the Project and Project benefits;

3. A description of the Project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics along with engineering and public service facilities details;

4. A statement describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of all necessary approvals and permits, a list of agencies that may use the document in their decision-making, and a list of related consultation and environmental review necessary under local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and policies.

The information presented within the Project Description will both accurately describe the Project and assist in further review and assessment of its potential environmental impacts.

2.2 Project Location
The Project site is located approximately 1.5 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215) and approximately

3.0 miles south of State Highway (SH) 74, within the City of Menifee, County of Riverside (see Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity Map). The Project is north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road, within the City. The Project site is located in the Economic Development CorridorNorthern Gateway (EDC-NG) of the City and is currently bordered by a scattering of existing rural residential homes (1.5 acres) and outbuildings and vacant land (refer to Exhibit 2-2, Local Vicinity Map).

The Project site comprises eight parcels; refer to Table 2-1, Assessor Parcel Numbers.

Table 2-1: Assessor Parcel Numbers
Parcel APN
1 330-190-002
2 330-190-003
3 330-190-004
4 330-190-005
5 330-190-010
6 330-190-011
7 330-190-012
8 330-190-013
Source: Riverside County. (2021). Map My County.
https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public. (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 203
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1049 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 2-2 2.0 | Project Description

2.3 Surrounding Land Uses
Existing land uses surrounding the Project site include scattered existing rural residential homes and outbuildings, proposed future industrial sites, and vacant land. North of the Project site is Kuffel Road and existing land uses include existing rural residential homes and outbuildings and a stormwater detention basin. East of the Project site is Byers Road and existing land uses include vacant undeveloped land and a single-family residence with associated out structures. South of the Project site is Corsica Lane and vacant undeveloped land and a single-family residence with associated out structures. Lastly, west of the Project site is Wheat Street and beyond is a mix of vacant and developed land. Developed land includes a mix of single family residential, Carreon Automotive Repair and Tanzer German Shepherd Dogs, LLC. See Table 2-2, Surrounding Land Uses for surrounding land uses as well as existing land use designations and zoning classifications.

Table 2-2: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning Classification
North Vacant undeveloped land
single-family residential
Economic Development
Corridor-Northern Gateway
EDC-NG
Economic Development CorridorNorthern Gateway
EDC-NG
East
Vacant undeveloped land
Single-family residential
Economic Development
Corridor-Northern Gateway
EDC-NG
Economic Development CorridorNorthern Gateway
EDC-NG
South Vacant undeveloped land
Single-family residential
Economic Development
Corridor-Northern Gateway
EDC-NG
Economic Development CorridorNorthern Gateway
EDC-NG
West
Vacant undeveloped land Singlefamily residential Commercial development
Economic Development
Corridor-Northern Gateway
EDC-NG
Economic Development CorridorNorthern Gateway
EDC-NG
Sources: City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General-Plan--Land-Use-Map---March-2023?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

City of Menifee. (2023). Zoning Map. Retrieved at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning-Map---March2023?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

2.4 Land Use Designations and Zoning
The City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) Land Use Map was amended March 23, 2023. 1 The Project
site’s existing land use designation is Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) (see Exhibit 2-3, Existing General Plan Land Use Designation). The Menifee GP envisions the EDC-NG as an industrial park area with more intensive industrial uses, the Project would be consistent with the Menifee GP.2
The City’s Zoning Map was amended March 23, 2023.
3 The Project site’s existing zoning is EDC-NG
(see Exhibit 2-4, Existing Zoning). The Project’s proposed industrial component is allowed under the EDCNG zoning designation. 1 City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/GeneralPlan--Land-Use-Map---March-2023?bidId= (accessed August 2023). 2 City of Menifee. (2023). General Plan Land Use Element. Page 24. Retrieved at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/17714/FINAL_Land-Use-Element_11823?bidId= (accessed October 2023). 3 City of Menifee. (2023). Zoning Map. Retrieved at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning-Map---March2023?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 204
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1050 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 2-3 2.0 | Project Description

2.5 Existing Conditions
The Project site is currently composed of vacant land with two single-family residential structures and associated out buildings on a single parcel. The existing structures are proposed to be demolished. The site is a rectangular-shaped property that consists of eight individual parcels totaling 40.03 gross acres.

The Project site as identified in the Menifee GP is intended to provide economic vitality and flexibility in land use options to promote economic development along the City's major corridors. It is intended that the majority of the City's new development will be located in this land use designation, to promote infill development and to preserve the rural areas that are an integral part of the City’s community character.4

2.6 Proposed Project
The Project applicant proposes the development of approximately 700,037 square feet (SF) of industrial warehouse building on a total of 40.03 gross-acres (refer to Exhibit 2-5, Conceptual Site Plan). The proposed concrete tilt-up build would include approximately 690,037 SF of warehouse space and 10,000 SF of office space; approximating 700,037 total SF of development. The building would also contain 49 dock doors on the northern portion of the building and 49 dock doors on the southern portion of the building for a total of 98 dock doors. Most dock doors are predominately high dock doors, with several drive thru doors. The height of the proposed building would be 45 feet, 6 inches high and would include 499 automobile parking spaces and 245 truck trailer parking spaces (refer to Exhibit 2-6, Conceptual Elevations).

Landscaping
Landscaped areas for the Project site approximate 162,886 SF, which is 10.7 percent landscaping on the Project site. Landscaping will be provided along all streets in the parkway, on the front setbacks, on all sides of the Project site, adjacent to the building on the south, east, and west sides, and throughout the parking areas. The stormwater detention basin located off-site to the north of the Project site would be planted with grasses and shrubs tolerant of seasonal water inundation (refer to Exhibit 2-7, Conceptual Landscape Plan).

Circulation
Regional Project access would be from I-215 via the potential truck route, Ethanac Road.5Local access would be provided via Ethanac Road to Wheat Street or Byers Road.

Access to the Project site for both automobiles and trucks is proposed off the following:
• One 40-foot access driveway is on the northwest side of the building on Wheat Street. • One 40-foot access driveway is on the southwest side of the building on Wheat Street. • One 56-foot access driveway is on the northeast side of the building on Byers Road. • One 30-foot access driveway is on the east side of the building on Byers Road. 4 City of Menifee. (2013). Community Design Element CD-5: Economic Development Corridor Design. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/882/Community-Design-Element (accessed August 2023). 5 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Exhibit C-7: Potential Truck Routes. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1024/C-7-Truck_Routes_HD0913?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 205
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1051 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 2-4 2.0 | Project Description
• One 40-foot access driveway is on the southeast side of the building on Byers Road.

Emergency vehicle access is provided around the building with a minimum 26-foot wide fire lane.

Project Phasing and Construction
The Project is anticipated to be developed in one phase. Construction for the Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 14 months, beginning in 2024. Additionally, the Project is expected to use tractors, graders, dozers, and scrapers during the grading construction phase.6The Project’s construction schedule is expected to be modeled according to the following timeline:
• Demolition phase is expected to occur between March 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 • Site preparation is expected to occur between April 1, 2024 to May 15, 2024 • Grading is expected to occur between May 16, 2024 to June 30, 2024 • Building construction and infrastructure is expected to occur between July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024
• Paving is expected to occur between January 1, 2025 to February 28, 2025 • Architectural Coating is expected to occur between January 1, 2025 to April 30, 20257 The Project’s construction schedule is calculated through CalEEMod, which generates default construction phases and schedule assumptions on the Construction Phases screen based on user inputs in the Land Use model. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers, for non-linear land use types, construction surveys performed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) are used to define the default phases and durations based on the total Project acreage.8 Additional information on the Construction Phases Screen could be found in the CalEEMod User Guide. For further information on construction and operations, see Section 4.1, Air Quality.

Off-Site Improvements
Industrial Collector streets consist of two-lane divided sections with a painted median which could be utilized where left turn pockets are needed.9The following street improvements are anticipated for the Industrial Collector Streets:
• Byers Road at the Project’s frontage would serve as the north/south roadway for automobiles and trucks to and from the Project site. Improvements to Byers Road at the Project frontage would include widening to it’s ultimate half width as a 2-lane industrial Collector (78-foot right—ofway)10 plus 12 feet. The road would be paved and would include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and a landscaped parkway.
6 Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 31 – Table 11. 7 Ibid. Page 18-19.
8 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2022). User Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1 – Appendix C, Emission Calculation Details for CalEEMod. Available at: https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide. (accessed December 2023). 9 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Page 5. Retrieved at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/18127/Complete-Circulation-Element_060723?bidId= (accessed October 2023). 10 Half-width street means any public or private street right-of-way or easement which is less than the full required width and is established so that that the additional half-width right-of-way or easement may be provided at a later date to complete a full- width roadway.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 206
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1052 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 2-5 2.0 | Project Description
• Wheat Street at the Project’s frontage would serve as the north/south roadway mainly for passenger automobiles and employees to and from the Project site. Improvements to Wheat Street at the Project’s frontage will include widening to a half-width plus 12 feet. The street will be paved and will include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and a landscaped parkway.

The following street improvements are proposed:
• Kuffel Road will serve as a west/east General Local roadway. Improvements to Kuffel Road will include widening to a half-width plus 12 feet. The road will be paved and will include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping adjacent to the stormwater detention basin.

For further information on off-site roadway improvements, see Section 4.13, Transportation.

2.7 Project Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the Project by the City and Project applicant:

1. Develop the site in accordance with the City General Plan and Zoning in the Economic Development Corridor Northern Gateway (EDC) which envisions more intense development at the industrial boundary of the City adjacent to Ethanac Road.

2. Develop a project that will contribute to the balanced growth in the City in a responsible and strategic manner.

3. Develop an area that takes advantage of the existing infrastructure and support systems including the local workforce.

4. Positively contribute to the economy of the region through new capital investment and the creation of new employment opportunities.

5. Expand the local and regional tax base.

6. Develop a project that is economically feasible.

7. Develop and operate a project that will attract quality tenants and will be competitive with other approved or proposed similar regional facilities.

8. Develop a project that will contribute to the build out of regional road and flood infrastructure that will benefit the project as well as the broader EDC area.

9. Develop the EDC-NG, through the development of a land use consistent with the development standards, and criteria relevant to the site.

10. Facilitate the development of underutilized land currently planned for industrial uses that maximizes the use of the site and responds to regional market demand.

2.8 Discretionary Actions and Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of the EIR for the Project. It is expected that the City, at a minimum, would consider the data and analyses contained in this EIR when making their permit determinations. Prior to development of the Project, discretionary permits and approvals must be obtained from local, state, and federal agencies, as listed below.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 207
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1053 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 2-6 2.0 | Project Description
• Tentative Parcel Map No. PLN 22-0041 proposes to consolidate 8 parcels into one (1) industrial parcel. The Project site is approximately 40.03 gross acres and 36.81 net acres. • Plot Plan No. PLN 21-0370 proposes a 700,037 square foot warehouse/industrial building with 10,000 square feet of office space and 690,037 square feet of warehouse space on a 36.8 net acre (40.03 gross acre) site. The project will provide a total of 499 vehicular parking stalls and 245 trailer stalls. There will be three (3) points of access on Byers Road and two (2) points of access on Wheat Street.

Other permits required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: issuance of encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities; security and parking area lighting; demolition permits; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits and permits for new utility connections. The Project may also require business emergency plan approval (for hazardous materials storage greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet or 500 pounds or any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances) and permits for any existing well and/or existing onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS)/septic system removal.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 208
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1054 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 209
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1055 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 210
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1056 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 211
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1057 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 212
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1058 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 213
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1059 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 214
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1060 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 215
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1061 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 3-1 3.0 | Basis of Cumulative Analysis

3.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction
A project’s cumulative impact is “an impact to which that project contributes and to which other projects contribute as well. The project must make some contribution to the impact; otherwise, it cannot be characterized as a cumulative impact of that project.”1 Under the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) cumulative impact analysis requirements, the pertinent question is not only whether there is a significant cumulative impact but also whether the effects of an individual project are cumulatively considerable. Thus, the analysis must assess whether the additional amount of impact resulting from the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project) should be considered significant in the context of the existing cumulative effect. Importantly, this does not mean that any contribution to a cumulative impact should be considered cumulatively considerable.

State CEQA Guidelines § 15355 provides the following definition of cumulative impacts:
“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

State CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a) further addresses the discussion of cumulative impacts, as follows:
1) As defined in § 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.
2) When the combined cumulative impact associated with the project’s incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant.
3) An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency 1 Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 690, 700.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 216
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1062 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 3-2 3.0 | Basis of Cumulative Analysis
shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b), the discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should include the following elements:
1) Either:

A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency, or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projects may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
2) When utilizing a list, as suggested in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. Location may be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic. 3) Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. 4) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. 5) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects, including examination of reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.”

3.2 Cumulative Projects List
The cumulative study area varies from one environmental topic to another depending upon the nature of impacts related to the topic. For example, cumulative aesthetic considerations encompass the surrounding areas with direct views of the Project site, while air quality is a regional issue that is analyzed on a broader scale, and greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed on an even broader scale.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A), to adequately determine the Project’s potential cumulative impacts, this EIR includes the use of a list of past, present, and future projects that have been approved but are not yet constructed/occupied, and projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process but have not yet been approved; Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects and Exhibit 3-1:

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 217
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1063 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 3-3 3.0 | Basis of Cumulative Analysis
Location of Cumulative Projects. The list of projects provided in Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects includes projects that had an active application or were undergoing environmental review at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released, this list will not change as new projects begin the application and approval process after release of the NOP or before certification of this EIR.

The cumulative impacts analyses are provided in Sections 4.1: Aesthetics through 4.15: Utilities and Service Systems. These analyses describe the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of the Project together with the cumulative projects listed in the table. Not all related projects would contribute to significant cumulative impacts for each topical area. For example, not all related projects would have visual impacts. The cumulative impact analyses in each topical area provides an evaluation of the cumulative projects and how these would contribute to cumulative impacts. Some of the impacts are very site-specific and would not compound the impacts associated with the Project. In other cases, short-term impacts would not contribute to cumulative impacts, because the construction of the cumulative project and the development of the Project would not occur in the same time period or be near to each other.

Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects
Project Land Use Size
1 Industrial Warehouse Building Warehousing 2,300.000 KSF 2 Green Valley Single-Family Detached Housing 623 DU
Multi-family Housing (Mid-Rise) 842 DU
3 On-Deck Hotel
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 6 Fueling Position Hotel 120 Room
Quality Restaurant 5,500 KSF
Fast-Food Restaurant w/o Drive-thru 3,000 KSF
Automated Car Wash 4,500 KSF
4 Paragon Framing High-Cube Short-Term Storage 5.000 KSF General Office Building 5.454 KSF
5 Perris Travel Center Gasoline Station w/ Convenience Market 16 FP 6 MR-27 LLC Single-Family Detached Housing 172 DU
7 Motte Country Plaza Shopping Center 4.888 KSF
8 Ethanac Square Automated Car Wash 2.080 KSF
9 Menifee Commerce Center Warehousing 1,640.130 KSF
10 Forterra Pipe General Office Building 4.200 KSF
11 Cimarron Ridge Single-Family Detached Housing 756 DU 12 Valley Blvd Tract Map Single-Family Detached Housing 68 DU 13 Sagewood (DR Horton) Single-Family Detached Housing 174 DU 14 McLaughlin Village Single-Family Detached Housing 126 DU 15 RV Supercenter Recreational Vehicle Sales 17.600 KSF 16 Talavera (KB Homes) Single-Family Detached Housing 173 DU 17 Legado Single-Family Detached Housing 1,022 DU
18 Underwood KB Homes) Single-Family Detached Housing 543 DU 19 Remington/McCall Mesa) Single-Family Detached Housing 264 DU 20 Stonegate (Enclave) Single-Family Detached Housing 177 DU 21 Skyview (Woodside Homes) Single-Family Detached Housing 246 DU 22 McCall-Encanto Gas Station
Gasoline Station w/ Convenience Market 2 Fueling Position Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru 3.900 KSF
Automated Car Wash 1.040 KSF
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 218
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1064 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 3-4 3.0 | Basis of Cumulative Analysis
Project Land Use Size
23 McCall Square Shopping Center 84,200 KSF
Mini-Warehouse 150,541 KSF
24 Quail Hills Single-Family Detached Housing 152 DU
25 Goetz/Ethanac Commercial
Convenience Market w/ Gasoline Pumps 8 Fueling Position Discount Home Furnishing Superstore 3 KSF
Shopping Center 7.040 KSF
26 Barnett Warehouse Warehousing 251.780 KSF
27 Planning Area 9 Single-Family Detached Housing 173 DU 28 Vista Ridge Apartments Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 30 DU 29 Northern Gateway Commerce
Center Warehousing 1,316.754 KSF
KSF = 1000 Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit; FP = Fueling Position Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Traffic Study. Table 6 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 219
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1065 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 220
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1066 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 3-6 3.0 | Basis of Cumulative Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 221
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1067 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4-1 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.0.1 Approach to the Environmental Analysis
Organized by environmental resource category, Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, provides an integrated discussion of the affected environmental including existing environmental and regulatory settings and feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project). Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, discusses including significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and mandatory findings of significance.

4.0.2 Section Content and Definition of Terms
The environmental and regulatory settings, impacts, and feasible mitigation measures related to each environmental impact area are described in Section 4.1 through Section 4.15. Section 4.0 is organized into the following environmental topic areas:
• Section 4.1: Aesthetics • Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality • Section 4.2: Air Quality • Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning • Section 4.3: Biological Resources • Section 4.11: Noise • Section 4.4: Cultural Resources • Section 4.12: Public Services • Section 4.5: Energy • Section 4.13: Transportation
• Section 4.6: Geology and Soils • Section 4.14: Tribal Cultural Resources • Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Section 4.15: Utilities and Service System • Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
The environmental issues related to agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, and wildfire were found to result in no impacts or less than significant impacts.

Therefore, these environmental topics are discussed in Section 7.0, Effects Not Found to be Significant.

Each section is organized into the following subsections:
• “Introduction” briefly introduces the section’s purpose, environmental issues that would be addressed, and key source documentation used to prepare the analysis. • “Environmental Setting” provides an overview of the existing physical environmental conditions in the study area that could be affected by implementation of the Project. • “Regulatory Setting” identifies the plans, policies, laws, and regulations that are relevant to each resource area and describes permits and other approvals necessary to implement the Project.

As noted above, the Draft EIR needs to address possible conflicts between the Project and the requirements of federal, state, regional, or local agencies, including consistency with adopted land use plans, policies, or other regulations for the area. Therefore, this subsection summarizes Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 222
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1068 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4-2 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
or lists the potentially relevant policies and objectives, such as from the applicable City of Menifee General Plan and Municipal Code.
• “Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria” provides the criteria used in this document to define the level at which an impact would be considered significant in accordance with CEQA.

Significance criteria used in this Draft EIR are based on the checklist presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, factual or scientific information and data, and regulatory standards of federal, state, regional, and local agencies.
• “Impacts and Mitigation Measures” are listed numerically and sequentially throughout each section. A bold font impact statement precedes the discussion of each impact and provides a summary of each impact and its level of significance. The discussion that follows the impact statement includes the analysis on which a conclusion is based regarding the level of impact. • “Cumulative Impacts” identifies potential environmental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in combination with the Project. • “Significant Unavoidable Impacts” describes impacts that would be significant and cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant impact, and thus would be unavoidable. To approve a project with unavoidable significant impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency is required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. If a project’s benefits are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a)).
• “References” identifies the sources used in and throughout the subsection.

A project’s impact is determined by comparing anticipated effects to the existing conditions of an area, in light of the thresholds of significance identified in the Draft EIR. Under CEQA, the existing environmental setting normally represents baseline conditions against which impacts are compared to determine significance. The environmental baseline is typically set as the date of Notice of Preparation distribution unless more recent data is determined appropriate for utilization in the Draft EIR. Project componentspecific analyses are conducted to evaluate each potential impact on the existing environment.

If necessary, feasible “Mitigation Measures” are recommended to avoid, minimize, offset, or otherwise compensate for significant and potentially significant impacts of the Project, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (§ 15126.4). Each mitigation measure is identified by resource area, numerically, and sequentially. For example, mitigation measures in Section 4.2, Air Quality, are numbered AQ-1, AQ-2, and so on. Sections 4.1 through 4.15 provide a brief discussion of the potentially significant impacts versus a given mitigation measure, if applicable.

A significant effect on the environment is defined for CEQA purposes as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project. A potentially significant impact is one that, if it were to occur, would be considered a significant impact; however, the occurrence of the impact is uncertain. A “potentially significant” impact and “significant” impact are treated the same under CEQA in terms of procedural requirements and the need to identify Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 223
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1069 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4-3 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
feasible mitigation. A “less than significant” impact is one that would not result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment (applicable significance thresholds would not be exceeded in consideration of Project design features and existing laws, ordinances, standards, or regulations).

Both direct and indirect effects of the Project are evaluated for each environmental resource area. Direct effects are those that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable consequences that may occur at a later time or at a distance that is removed from the Project area, such as growth-inducing effects and other effects related to changes in land use patterns, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on the physical environment.

When there is no impact, or the impact is determined to be “less than significant” prior to mitigation, no mitigation measures are required. Where sufficient feasible mitigation is not available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the impacts are identified as remaining “significant and unavoidable.” Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 224
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1070 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-1 4.1 | Aesthetics

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to aesthetics and other visual resources in the vicinity of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project), within the City of Menifee (City). Impacts are discussed in terms of the changes that would result from Project implementation and includes analysis of adverse effects on a scenic vista(s), changes to scenic resources (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway, consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and the introduction of new sources of substantial light or glare. As necessary, feasible mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce the significance of impacts are recommended.

This section and environmental discussion use information from the following City of Menifee (City) documents:
• City of Menifee General Plan (GP)
• City of Menifee GP Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts
When viewing a landscape, people can have different responses to that landscape based on what is seen, their expectations of views, and because of proposed or current changes to the visual landscape. Viewer responses will vary based upon the viewer’s values, familiarity, concern, or expectations of that landscape as well as the scenic quality. Because each person’s attachment to and value for a landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. Nonetheless, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers, equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) generally have high concern for scenery and landscape character. People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at an industrial site would generally have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. Regarding travelers navigating through a landscape, the visual sensitivity of these types of viewers is affected by the travel speed at which they are moving, the landscape they are viewing, and area in which they are traveling, for example, an interstate or scenic highway. Other considerations may include changes as seen by viewers from hiking trails or stationary viewers from a residence.

The visual sensitivity of a viewer also is affected by variables such as the viewing distances to the landscape. For example, a project feature or natural environment can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance the observer is from the viewed object. At closer ranges greater detail of an object or landscape is visible. In these instances, changes to viewed object have a greater potential to influence the visual quality of the object because changes to form or scale (the object’s relative size in relation to the viewer) are more noticeable. When the same object is viewed at background distances, details may be imperceptible while changes to the overall forms of terrain and vegetation may be evident.

In the middle ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the foreground), and landscape elements are seen in Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 225
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1071 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-2 4.1 | Aesthetics
context with landforms and vegetative patterns (e.g., the background). Nonetheless, changes in views from all distances can result in negative consideration from viewers.

Specific terms and concepts are used to assess the visual elements, aesthetic setting, and potential for a project to have effects on visual resources. These terms are included in the discussions throughout this section and are listed below.

Scenic Vista. An area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, state, or local agency.

Scenic Highway. Any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal, state, or local agency.

Sensitive Receptors. Viewer responses to visual settings are inferred from a variety of factors, including distance and viewing angle, types of viewers, number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities.

The viewer type and associated viewer sensitivity are distinguished among project viewers in recreational, residential, commercial, military, and industrial areas. Viewer activities can range from a circumstance that encourages a viewer to observe the surroundings more closely (such as recreational activities) to one that discourages close observation (such as commuting in heavy traffic). Viewers in recreational areas are considered to have high sensitivity to visual resources. Residential viewers generally have moderate sensitivity but extended viewing periods. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are generally considered to have low sensitivity.

Viewshed. A project’s viewshed is defined as the surrounding geographic area from which the project is likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway orientations. “Project viewshed” is used to describe the area surrounding a project site where a person standing on the ground or driving a vehicle can view the project site.

Visual character typically consists of landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural modifications that impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas typically include open space, landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced by many different landscape attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition of geometric forms, and uniqueness of textures among other characteristics.

4.1.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Visual Setting
The Project site is approximately 40 gross acres and is comprised of eight parcels. The Project site is predominately vacant with two single residences and associated accessory structures on a single parcel.

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Romoland, California Quadrangle 7.5-minute topographic map, the Project site is located at approximately 1,430 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The contour lines in the area of the subject property indicate the area is sloping toward the north-northeast.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 226
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1072 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-3 4.1 | Aesthetics
Views of the Project sites includes scattered existing rural residential homes and outbuildings, and vacant land. North of the Project site is Kuffel Road and existing land uses include existing rural residential homes and outbuildings, and a stormwater treatment basin. East of the Project site is Byers Road and existing land uses include vacant undeveloped land and a single-family residence with associated out structures.

South of the Project site is Corsica Lane and vacant undeveloped land and a single-family residence with associated out structures. Lastly, west of the Project site is Wheat Street, vacant undeveloped land, and commercial uses including the Carron Automotive Repair shop, located along Aaron Alan Drive.

Scenic Vistas
Topography and a lack of dense vegetation or urban development offer scenic views throughout the City, including to and from hillside areas. According to the City’s General Plan Draft EIR Section 5.1, scenic features in the City include gently sloping alluvial fans, rugged mountains and steep slopes, mountain peaks and ridges, rounded hills with boulder outcrops, farmland, and open space. Scenic vistas provide views of these features from public spaces. Scenic views from the City and Project site include the San Jacinto Mountains to the east-northeast and east, the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest, and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest.1 The City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) does not officially designate any scenic vistas near the Project site. The closest visible scenic vistas to the Project site are the hillsides west of Goetz Road within the City of Perris, Goetz Road is approximately 0.50 miles to the west of the Project site. According to Menifee GP Exhibit OSC-2, Quail Valley, located to the south of the Project site, has a number of steep hillsides that influence development patterns in the area. Menifee's two tallest peaks-Quail Hill at 2,250 feet and Bell Mountain at 1,850 feet-are important landmarks in the City.

Scenic Highways
The Menifee GP identifies enhanced landscape corridors and scenic corridors in the City (https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1061/Exhibit_CD-2_Corridors_HD0913?bidId=) and scenic highways (https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1025/C-8- Scenic_Highways_HD0913?bidId=). The Project site is located south of Ethanac Road which is an “Enhanced Landscape Corridor.”
There are no scenic highways officially designated by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in or near the City. According to Menifee GP Exhibit CD-8, State Highway (SH) 74, located to the northeast of the Project, is currently eligible for state scenic highway designation by Caltrans. The eligible segment of SH 74 extends from Interstate 5 (San Juan Capistrano) to SH 111 in Palm Desert.2SH 74 is located approximately 2.2 miles to the northeast of the Project site, due to the distance between the Project and SH 74, it is not anticipated that the Project would obstruct views from this highway. 1 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1: Aesthetics. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1101/Ch-05-01-AE?bidId= (accessed August 2023). 2 State of California. Scenic Highways https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 227
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1073 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-4 4.1 | Aesthetics
Light and Glare
Light and glare sources around the Project site are typical to those found in semi-urban environments.

Primary sources of light and glare include adjacent residential and commercial development, and roadways from vehicle headlights. There are no streetlights present along roadways adjacent the Project site (Byers Road, Kuffel Road, Wheat Road and Corsica Lane).

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
State
California Department of Transportation
The California Scenic Highway Program (CSHP) was created in 1963 to preserve and protect highway corridors in areas of outstanding natural beauty from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent lands. Caltrans designates highways based on how much of the landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which views are compromised by development.

Caltrans manages the CSHP, which is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State laws governing State Scenic Highways are found in Streets and Highways Code §§ 260 to 263. A highway may be designated as scenic based on certain criteria, including how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the landscape’s scenic quality and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The CSHP’s Scenic Highway System List identifies scenic highways that are either eligible for designation or have already been designated as such.

Section 261 requires local government agencies to take the following actions to protect the scenic appearance of a scenic corridor:
• Regulate land use and density of development
• Provide detailed land and site planning
• Prohibit off-site outdoor advertising and control on-site outdoor advertising • Pay careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping • Scrutinize the design and appearance of structures and equipment Official designation requires a local jurisdiction to enact a scenic corridor protection program that protects and enhances scenic resources.

Local
City of Menifee General Plan
Community Design Element
The Menifee GP Community Design Element is intended to enhance the current community identity through the identification of design techniques, guidelines, and features that will enhance the visual Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 228
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1074 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-5 4.1 | Aesthetics
character of the City and its neighborhoods. It serves as a practical guide to City leaders, developers, business owners, and residents as they provide direction to implement new projects and is intended to stimulate design creativity in the City.3
Goals and policies from the Community Design Element applicable to the Project include:

Goal CD-3 Projects, developments, and public spaces that visually enhance the character of the community and are appropriately buffered from dissimilar land uses so that differences in type and intensity do not conflict.

Policy CD-3.3 Minimize visual impacts of public and private facilities and support structures through sensitive site design and construction. This includes, but is not limited to:
appropriate placement of facilities; undergrounding, where possible; and aesthetic design (e.g., cell tower stealthing).

Policy CD-3.5 Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually integrated and connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street scene.

Policy CD-3.8 Design retention/detention basins to be visually attractive and well integrated with any associated project and with adjacent land uses.

Policy CD-3.10 Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence.

Policy CD-3.14 Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments.

Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences.

Policy CD-3.15 Require property owners to maintain structures and landscaping to high standards of design, health, and safety.

Policy CD-3.16 Avoid use of long, blank walls in industrial developments by breaking them up with vertical and horizontal façade articulation achieved through stamping, colors, materials, modulation, and landscaping.

Policy CD-3.17 Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses.

Policy CD-3.19 Design walls and fences that are well integrated in style with adjacent structures and terrain and utilize landscaping and vegetation materials to soften their appearance.

Policy CD-3.20 Avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls.

Goal CD-6 Attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community.

Policy CD-6.3 Require property owners to maintain the existing landscape on developed nonresidential sites and replace unhealthy or dead landscaping. 3 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Community Design Element. Retrieved at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/882/CommunityDesign-Element (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 229
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1075 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-6 4.1 | Aesthetics
Policy CD-6.4 Require that lighting and fixtures be integrated with the design and layout of a project and that they provide a desirable level of security and illumination.

Policy CD-6.5 Limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory.

City of Menifee Municipal Code
Title 9: Planning and Zoning Chapter 9.205 Lighting Standards Menifee MC Chapter 9.205 establisheslighting standards to encourage effective, nondetrimental lighting; maintain nighttime safety, utility, security and productivity; and encourage lighting practices and systems which will minimize light pollution. Prevent glare and light trespass, conserve energy and resources, and curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual environmental, and preserve the visibility of night skies in accordance with the lighting Standards requirements set forth in Chapter 6.01 (Dark Sky, Light Pollution) of this MC. If there is any conflict between this Chapter and Chapter 6.01, the more restrictive shall apply.

City of Menifee Design Guidelines
Industrial Design Guidelines
Some general standards concerning design, landscaping, screening and light and glare that apply site-wide include:
• Where industrial uses are adjacent to sensitive non-industrial uses, appropriate buffering techniques, such as setbacks, screening, and landscaping, should be provided to mitigate any negative effects of industrial operations.
• Architectural enhancements, windows, special landscaping and hardscape treatments and other design features that will provide interest should be concentrated in areas visible from public view and public areas within the site. This includes views from streets, freeways, and the public areas of adjacent properties.
• Project sites shall be designed so that areas used for loading, outdoor storage (where allowed), and other potentially unsightly areas are screened from public view. • Specialty (decorative) paving material should be provided to enhance and identify main driveway entries, transitions from public to private streets, building entries, plazas, seating areas and the like.
• Building mass is the preferred method for screening loading areas and outdoor storage areas.

Where building mass is not utilized, a combination of screen walls, berms, landscaping and elevation changes are to be used to screen public views. • Large areas of smooth finish concrete wall panels should be enhanced with some form of texture.

Consider using heavy textured paint or forming textures into selected areas of wall panels to avoid a glossy/ high glare look on building surfaces.
• Screen walls and fences should not exceed a height of 8 feet. When additional height is needed to provide adequate screening, berms within landscaped areas should be provided to reduce the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 230
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1076 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-7 4.1 | Aesthetics
perceived height of the wall as seen from public view. The height from the top of the berm to the top of the wall should not exceed 8 feet. The berm/landscape area in front of the screen wall should be landscaped with shrubs and trees that will, at maturity, exceed the height of the wall. • Landscaping should be grouped into larger areas, rather than distributing it into areas of little impact such as behind buildings, internal yard/loading areas and other areas outside of the public view. An exception to this provision occurs when such landscaping is needed for buffer or screening purposes.
• Lighting, including security lighting, should be carefully designed to avoid direct glare into neighboring properties and to be architecturally compatible with the character of the development.
• Lighting should be used to provide for illumination for the security and safety of on-site areas such as parking, loading, shipping and receiving, pathways and other work areas. • Building entrances and street numbers should be well-lit and illuminated to be visible from the street.

Industrial Good Neighbor Policies4
The purpose of the Good Neighbor Policies (Policies) is to provide local government and developers with ways to address environmental and neighborhood compatibility issues associated with permitting warehouse, logistics and distribution facilities. The intent of the City’s Good Neighbor Policies, in siting new warehouse, logistics and distribution uses, include:
• Minimize impacts to sensitive uses.
• Protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation facilities.
• Protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities.

The Policies apply to all new warehouse, logistics and distribution facilities (“industrial uses”), any building larger than 100,000 square feet in size or any sized building with more than 10 loading bays (dock-high).

The Industrial Good Neighbor Policies apply to the Project, and the Project would comply with the General Performance Standards associated with site design, access, and layout.

4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G has been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the development of the site would have a significant environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs:
• Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
▪ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
4 City of Menifee. 2020. Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. Retrieved at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16937/Industrial-Good-Neighbor-Policies?bidId= (Accessed October 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 231
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1077 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-8 4.1 | Aesthetics
▪ Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ▪ In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ▪ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project site is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning aesthetics. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts at the Project site.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on aesthetic resources examines the temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on significance criteria/threshold’s application outlined above. For each criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) temporary impacts and (2) permanent impacts. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project site and the surrounding characteristics and geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are from field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn personnel on May 2022; review of Project site plan, maps, and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐ level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on scenic resources or visual character considers the site’s aesthetic resource value and the severity of the Project component’s visual impact (e.g., the nature and duration of the impact).

For example, a Project component resulting in a severe impact on a site with a low aesthetic resource value would result in a less than significant impact concerning scenic or visual character. In other words, new conspicuous structures or visual changes in areas with a low aesthetic resource value may not necessarily result in substantial adverse effects on visual resources.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 232
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1078 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-9 4.1 | Aesthetics

4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.1-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Construction and Operations
Construction activities would result in temporary changes to the visual characteristics of the site as viewed from the surrounding uses from temporary grading, equipment staging, and associated building construction associated with the Project would result in temporary changes to the existing visual characteristics of the Project site as viewed immediately from surrounding properties near Wheat Street, Byers Street, Kuffel Road, and Corsica Lane. Temporary changes would also occur from motorists along Ethanac Road to the north. Construction activities are anticipated to last for 11 to 14 months within one phase.

Although buildout of the Project would convert the existing predominately vacant land with two residences to industrial uses, the Project would be designed in accordance with applicable state and local regulations including Menifee Municipal Code (Menifee MC), Industrial Design Guidelines, City of Menifee Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and GP Policies. As noted in Section 2.0, Project Description, and as shown in Exhibit 2-6: Conceptual Elevations, the proposed building height for the vast majority of the warehouse would be 45 feet 6 inches which is well within the maximum allowed building height of 100’ for industrial buildings. The proposed building height would not exceed the allowed 100 feet building height within the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) zoning district.

Consistent with Menifee MC design standards, Design Guidelines, Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and GP Policies, the Project would also include setbacks (i.e., berms and landscape) and the proposed warehouse building would be sited away to screen the warehouse from surrounding properties.

Lastly, the Menifee GP does not officially designate any scenic vistas near the Project site. Since the Project site would be developed in accordance with Menifee MC design standards, Design Guidelines, Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and GP Policies and because of the limited or non-existent scenic vistas, the Project would not adversely affect a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.1-2 Would the Project Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
As previously discussed in Section 4.1.2, the Project site is not located near a scenic highway or scenic vista. Menifee GP Exhibit CD-2 shows that the Project is located near an “Enhanced Landscape Corridor”, located along Ethanac Road to the north.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 233
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1079 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-10 4.1 | Aesthetics
As shown in the Caltrans State Scenic Highway System Map and Menifee GP Exhibit CD-8, there are no state or county scenic highways officially designated in or near the City. State Highway (SH) 74, located approximately two miles to the northeast is currently eligible for scenic highway designation, but is not officially designated as a scenic highway. Even if SH 74 is officially designated as a state scenic highway, the Project site is 2.2 miles southwest from SH 74, which indicates that no impact would occur. Concerning the Enhanced Landscape Corridor near the Project at Ethanac Road, construction activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable state and local standards and regulations. Furthermore, the Project’s proposed components would be developed in compliance with applicable Menifee GP Policies and MC design standards and regulations to ensure no impacts to Ethanac Road would occur.

Therefore, construction and operation of the Project site would not damage or obstruct a scenic resource (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.1-3 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Public Resources Code § 21071 defines an urbanized area as:
a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau5, the 2020 population of Menifee was 102,527 and therefore meets criterion a-1. Thus, a-1 is applicable to the Project. This discussion will analyze whether or not the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Construction and Operations
The Project would be consistent with the site’s applicable General Plan land use designation and zoning district. Project construction and operation would comply with the EDC-NG District development standards.

The Project’s construction activities would be limited to an assumed construction time. However, buildout of the Project would permanently change the existing setting for industrial uses consisting of one tilt-up 5 U.S. Census Bureau. (2022) Quickfacts – City of Menifee. Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/menifeecitycalifornia/POP010220#POP010220 (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 234
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1080 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-11 4.1 | Aesthetics
warehouse and associated infrastructure. As previously discussed in Impact 4.1-1, the proposed Project components would be designed in accordance with applicable state and local regulations including, but not limited to Menifee GP Policies and MC industrial design guidelines. The Project site would incorporate trees along the Project site property line to buffer public views, in compliance with Title 9 of the City’s MC. This would ensure that the Project does not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Since the Project would be consistent with existing zoning and would be designed to not degrade the existing visual character of the area, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.1-4 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Construction
As previously discussed, the Project site is largely undeveloped with two residencies at the Project’s northeastern portion. Immediately north of the Project site are existing single-family residential development, while areas to the immediate east, south, and west are mostly undeveloped vacant land with scattered single-family residences. Minimal sources of light and glare currently exist in the Project’s immediate vicinity. Existing lighting sources include outdoor lighting and lighting emitted from the surrounding single-family residences, and from vehicle headlights from the surrounding roadways.

Although construction activities associated with the Project would create a new source of light and glare versus the existing conditions, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours of construction, as regulated by the Menifee MC. Menifee MC § 8.01.010 Hours of Construction states “Any construction within the city located within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.”6 Nighttime lighting would not be required until the site is operational. Therefore, no short-term construction impacts associated with light and glare would occur and the impact would be less than significant.

Operations
The proposed warehouse and associated infrastructure would be designed with both interior and exterior lighting. The Project’s lighting would be consistent with Menifee GP Policy CD-6.4 and MC Chapter 9.205, Lighting Standards which states that all lighting, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for signs, structures, landscaping, parking, loading, unloading and similar 6 City of Menifee. (2023). Menifee Municipal Code. Retrieved from: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/menifee_ca/0-0-0- 1773 (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 235
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1081 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-12 4.1 | Aesthetics
areas shall be focused, directed, and arranged to prevent glare or direct illumination on streets or adjoining property. Concerning glare, the proposed warehouse windows would be designed with nonreflective material to minimize glare from natural lighting. Therefore, impacts concerning light and glare during the Project’s operational phase would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of aesthetic resource impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development according to the related projects; see Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects.

When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, several factors must be considered. The context in which the Project is being viewed would also influence the potential significance of a cumulative aesthetic impact. Although the Project would result in a change in visual contrast with the surrounding uses, the Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and Zoning district for the Project site. The Project, taken in sum with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not substantially affect the views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest of the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest, which do not provide a unique or special view to the area. The City is becoming more urbanized and the contrast of the potential development, in comparison to the surrounding natural environment would be minimal.

A majority of the Project site is vacant land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances associated with historic agricultural activities, and routine weed abatement/disking activities. The ground-surface of vacant land is dominated by dense native grasses and weeds, and heavily compacted soils. The Project site also contains non-conforming single-family residences and accessory structures.

The Project site is located in the Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway land use and zoning designation. The EDC-NG designation was envisioned by the City as an employment center that focuses on providing opportunity for business park development and more traditional industrial development.

The Project would be consistent with the EDC-NG designation and introduce the development of approximately 700,037 square feet (SF) of industrial warehouse space (including office space) within one building. The Project includes irrigated landscape areas comprising of approximately 162,886 SF, which is

10.7 percent landscaping on the Project site. Landscaping will be provided along all streets in the parkway, on the front setbacks, on all sides of the Project site, adjacent to the building on the south, east, and west sides, and throughout the parking areas. The Project would also include a detention basin that would screen the building from the residential uses located north of the Project. The detention basin area would be landscaped with grasses and shrubs tolerant of seasonal water inundation.

For a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the cumulative nature of the Project site taken with other projects, as seen together or in proximity to each other must be cumulatively considerable. As concluded in the impact analysis above, the Project’s potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 236
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1082 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.1-13 4.1 | Aesthetics
light and glare are less than significant. Mitigation measures beyond the required conformance to applicable policies and guidance in the Menifee MC design standards, Design Guidelines, Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and GP Policies, are not required. Cumulative projects are required to adhere to similar state and local regulations including applicable general plan policies and municipal code design standards to ensure that impacts to aesthetic resources are minimized. Therefore, the Project’s impacts to aesthetic resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

4.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning aesthetic resources were identified.

4.1.8 References
City of Menifee. (2020). Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. Retrieved at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16937/Industrial-Good-NeighborPolicies?bidId= (accessed October 2023).

City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1:

Aesthetics. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1101/Ch-05-01-AE?bidId=.

City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Community Design Element. Retrieved at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/882/Community-Design-Element.

City of Menifee. (2023). Menifee Municipal Code. Retrieved from:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/menifee_ca/0-0-0-1773.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Quickfacts – City of Menifee. Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/menifeecitycalifornia/POP010220#POP010220.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 237
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1083 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-1 4.2 | Air Quality

4.2 AIR QUALITY
Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discusses potential air quality impacts associated with development and implementation of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project). The current conditions were observed as the baseline for the analysis and were compared to the potential effects anticipated for the Project. The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along with relevant federal, State, regional, and local air pollutant regulations. Feasible mitigation measures to avoid/reduce impacts are identified, as needed.

This analysis is based primarily on the following technical report located in Appendix B, Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments.
▪ Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2024). Air Quality Assessment. (Appendix B1) ▪ Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2024). Health Risk Assessment. (Appendix B2) Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed in Section 4.2.3, Regulatory Setting below.

The SCAB is part of a semi-permanent high-pressure zone in the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is occasionally interrupted by periods of extreme heat, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit with little variance. With more oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas.

Contrasting the steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rainfall occurs between the months of November and April. Summer rainfall is reduced to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier activity in the east and over the mountains.

Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “ocean effect” is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.

Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 238
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1084 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-2 4.2 | Air Quality
Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter months. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

In addition to the characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which air pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is called the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions is a critical determinant leading to highly degraded air quality for the SCAB in the summer and generally good air quality in the winter.

Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.

Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.

ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-1, Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles, and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing; asthma;
chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat;
nonfatal heart attacks; and premature
death in people with heart or lung disease.

Impairs visibility.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen
Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways;
causes wheezing, coughing, and pain when
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 239
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1085 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-3 4.2 | Air Quality
Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.

Motor vehicle exhaust industrial
emissions, gasoline storage and transport,
solvents, paints and landfills.
inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity;
aggravates lung and heart problems.

Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless gas formed when fuel
containing sulfur is burned and when
gasoline is extracted from oil. Examples
are petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and
heart problems. In the presence of
moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide
converts to sulfuric acid which can damage
marble, iron and steel. Damages crops and
natural vegetation. Impairs visibility.

Precursor to acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver
oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the
cardiovascular and nervous system.

Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can
lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other
sources that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Precursor to O3.

Contributes to global warming and
nutrient overloading which deteriorates
water quality. Causes brown discoloration
of the atmosphere.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead
emissions have historically been motor
vehicles (such as cars and trucks) and
industrial sources. Due to the phase out of
leaded gasoline, metals processing is the
major source of lead emissions to the air
today. The highest levels of lead in air are
generally found near lead smelters. Other
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers.

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in
food, water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in
the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can
adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous
system, and other organs. Excessive
exposure to lead may cause neurological
impairments such as seizures, mental
retardation, and behavioral disorders.

Even at low doses, lead exposure is
associated with damage to the nervous
systems of fetuses and young children,
resulting in learning deficits and lowered
IQ.
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gases [ROG]) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 7 – Table 1 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 240
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1086 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-4 4.2 | Air Quality
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particlephase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station (located approximately seven miles to the southwest). Local air quality data from 2020 to 2022 are provided in Table 4.2-2, Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of State or federal air quality standards for each year.

Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.130 0.118 0.121
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.100 0.097 0.091
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 18 18 17
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 54 44 37
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.829 2.022 3.272
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.0436 0.0437 0.0372 Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10)
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 241
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1087 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-5 4.2 | Air Quality
Criteria Pollutant 2020 2021 2022
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 192 90 91.8
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20
µg/m3)
— — —
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 1 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) — — —
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 41.6 28.8 16.2
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) — — —
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
Measurements taken at the Lake Elsinore-W Flint Street Monitoring Station at 506 W Flint Street, Lake Elsinore, California 92530 (CARB# 33158) All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/ adam) except for CO, which were retrieved from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php).

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 9 – Table 2 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The Project site is surrounded by vacant/undeveloped, agriculture, and scattered residential land uses to the west, south, and east. Land use north of the Project site is primarily residential. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 4.2-3, Sensitive Receptors.

Table 4.2-3: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project Single-family Residences 90 feet to the north
Single-family Residences 100 feet to the west
Single-family Residence 100 feet to the east
Single-family Residence 180 feet to the south
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 10 – Table 3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 242
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1088 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-6 4.2 | Air Quality
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent airpermitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how it would attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.

The EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-4, State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards below.

State
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 4.2-4, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years.

Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a State standard and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. The applicable State standards are summarized in Table 4.2-4 below.

Table 4.2-4: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)

0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3
) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3
)

0.100 ppm (188
µg/m3)
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 243
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1089 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-7 4.2 | Air Quality
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)

0.053 ppm (100
µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)

0.075 ppm (196
µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
3, 4, 6,
9 24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 9 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3
) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3
) NA
Notes:
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available. 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e. all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded.

Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard. 2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

NAAQS are set by the EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than

0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017.

Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area.
5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 In February 2024, EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 12.0 to 9.0 μg/m3. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standards, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 12 – Table 4 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles (DRRP) in October 2000. The DRRP's goals Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 244
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1090 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-8 4.2 | Air Quality
include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline.1CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be less than half those in 2010, further reducing statewide cancer risk and non-cancer health effects.2The DRRP includes regulations to establish cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in‐use diesel engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel.

Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California.

The regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Heavier trucks must be retrofitted with PM filters beginning January 1, 2012, and older trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. Beginning January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses are required to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to most privately and federally‐owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. Small fleets with three or fewer diesel trucks can delay compliance for heavier trucks and there are several extensions for low‐mileage construction trucks, early PM filter retrofits, adding cleaner vehicles, and other situations. Privately and publicly owned school buses have different requirements.

Heavy‐Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program
The purpose of the CARB ATCM to Limit Diesel‐Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of diesel‐fueled commercial vehicles. The driver of any vehicle subject to this ATCM is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location and is prohibited from idling a diesel‐ fueled auxiliary power system (APS) for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).

CARB Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In‐Use Trucks, beginning in 2008, requires that new 2008 and subsequent model‐year heavy‐duty diesel engines be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.

Section 2485 and Section 2449 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations limits diesel‐fueled motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes. Section 2485 limits idling for diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed to operate on publicly maintained highways and streets within California. Section 2449 limits idling for offroad diesel-fueled fleets.

CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every 1 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000.
2 California Air Resources Board, Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health, accessed October 2023.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 245
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1091 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-9 4.2 | Air Quality
new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. • Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

Executive Order N-79-20
Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020.

Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that State and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 246
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1092 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-10 4.2 | Air Quality
The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards.

On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8-hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation. With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.

SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.

The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining State and federal standards. The State and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.2-5, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status.

Table 4.2-5: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme)
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 247
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1093 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-11 4.2 | Air Quality
Pollutant State Federal
(1 Hour Standard)
Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Extreme) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) – Non-Attainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment Non-Attainment (Moderate) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Non-Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Non-Attainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) – Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) Attainment –
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Unclassified –
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 14– Table 5 The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction and operational activities associated with the Project:
▪ SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 248
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1094 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-12 4.2 | Air Quality
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
▪ SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. ▪ SCAQMD Rule 1301 (General) – This rule is intended to provide that pre-construction review requirements to ensure that new or relocated facilities do not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS, while future economic growth within the SCAQMD is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal is to achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of nonattainment air contaminants or their precursors. Rule 1301 also limits emission increases of ammonia, and Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from new, modified or relocated facilities by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). ▪ SCAQMD Rule 401 (Visible Emissions) – A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. ▪ SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) - Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NOX and PM emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 249
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1095 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-13 4.2 | Air Quality
pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Local
City of Menifee General Plan
Open Space & Conservation Element
The City of Menifee's Open Space & Conservation Element provides policy direction for Menifee's parks and open space areas, recreational trails, and the conservation, development, and utilization of the City's natural resources with an overall goal of maintaining the high quality of life Menifee residents have enjoyed for generations, while also preserving and protecting the numerous nonrenewable and unique cultural and historic resources located within the City.3 Goals and policies from the Open Space & Conservation Element applicable to air quality and the Project include:

Goal OSC-9 Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter.

Policy OCS-9.1 Meet state and federal clean air standards by minimizing particulate matter emissions from construction activities.

Policy OCS-9.2 Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses.

Policy OCS-9.3 Comply with regional, state, and federal standards and programs for control of all airborne pollutants and noxious odors, regardless of source.

Policy OCS-9.5 Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 1 one of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.

City of Menifee Design Guidelines – Appendix A: Industrial Good Neighbor Policies4 According to the City’s Design Guidelines, the purpose of the Good Neighbor Policies (Policies) is to provide local government and developers with ways to address environmental and neighborhood compatibility issues associated with permitting warehouse, logistics and distribution facilities. The Policies were designed to promote economic vitality and sustainability of businesses, while still protecting the general health, safety, and welfare of the public and sensitive receptors within the City of Menifee.

Sensitive receptors include residential neighborhoods, schools, public parks, playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and other public places where residents are most likely to spend time.

The intent of the City of Menifee’s Good Neighbor Policies, in siting new warehouse, logistics and distribution uses, include:
3 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/250/OpenSpace-and-Conservation-Element (accessed August 2023). 4 City of Menifee. (2022). Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/Design-Guidelines_Amended-March-2-2022?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 250
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1096 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-14 4.2 | Air Quality

1. Minimize impacts to sensitive uses

2. Protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location, and operation of facilities

3. Protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities The Policies apply to all new warehouse, logistics and distribution facilities (“industrial uses”), excluding pending applications that have been deemed complete as the effective day of this policy, that include any building larger than 100,000 square feet in size or any sized building with more than 10 loading bays (dockhigh). There are general performance standards, as well as site design, access and layout standards, signage and information standards, and environmental considerations, including air quality and noise and traffic.

Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from the Environmental Checklist Form in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An impact of the Project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following criteria:
▪ Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
▪ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ▪ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard?
▪ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ▪ Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
SCAQMD Thresholds
The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations.

According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 4.2-6, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.

Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 251
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1097 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-15 4.2 | Air Quality
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 6 Local Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site are above State and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD also developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent state or federal ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The Project site is located within SCAQMD SRA 24. Table 4.2-7, Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, 4-acre (interpolated), and 5-acre project in SRA 24. Because the nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 90 feet (27 meters) to the north of the Project site, the thresholds for distances of 25 meters or less are listed below (per SCAQMD guidance).

Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size Maximum Pounds Per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 118/118 602/602 4/1 3/1
2 Acres 170/170 883/883 7/2 4/1
4 Acres 237/237 1,346/1,346 11/3 7/2
5 Acres 270/270 1,577/1,577 13/4 8/2
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
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. Page 18 – Table 7 LSTs associated with all acreage categories are provided in Table 4.2-7 for informational purposes. Table

4.2-7 shows that the LSTs increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The construction LST acreage is determined based on daily acreage disturbed. The operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the Project site. Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 252
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1098 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-16 4.2 | Air Quality
Methodology
The air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project.

Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

Construction
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road emissions factors in CalEEMod.

Construction was modeled according to the following timeline:
• Demolition: February 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
• Site Preparation: April 1, 2024 to May 15, 2024
• Grading: May 16, 2024 to June 30, 2024
• Building Construction and Infrastructure: July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 • Paving: January 1, 2025 to February 28, 2025
• Architectural Coating: January 1, 2025 to April 30, 2025 Operations
Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products, architectural coating, and landscape equipment), energy sources (natural gas usage), mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips), and off-road equipment. Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Emissions from each of these categories are discussed below.
• Area Sources. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site.

Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications, which emit VOCs during product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries. It should be noted that the default area source VOC emission factor developed for CalEEMod is based on a Statewide factor and is not applicable to the Project. The entire Project would not use consumer products as specified by CalEEMod user guide. The warehouse includes an office and may have small kitchen areas and bathrooms that would use cleaning products, however the majority of the square footage for the Project (99 percent) would be used for Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 253
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1099 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-17 4.2 | Air Quality
warehousing/distribution. Negligible quantities of personal care products, home, lawn, and garden products, disinfectants, sanitizers, polishes, cosmetics, and floor finishes would be used.

As the CalEEMod consumer product rates are based on a Statewide average, ROG emissions are likely overestimated for the proposed warehouse Project and therefore conservative. • Energy Sources. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Electricity usage was calculated outside of CalEEMod based on Project specific data provided by the applicant. Natural gas usage is based on default consumption rates in CalEEMod.
• Mobile Sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air 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, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within Appendix K1 incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Refer to Section 4.13, Transportation of this EIR for more information.
• Off-Road Equipment. Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road cargo handling equipment used during operational activities. For this Project, it was assumed that the warehouses would include 14 forklifts and 2 off-highway trucks for loading and unloading goods per the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper. 5 It should be noted that the
Project does not include cold storage. Therefore, the air quality analysis models the warehouses as unrefrigerated, and the Project would not include emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs).
• Emergency Backup Generators. As the Project warehouse is speculative, it is unknown whether emergency backup generators would be used. Backup generators would only be used in the event of a power failure and would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. Nonetheless, emissions associated with this equipment were included to be conservative. Emissions from an emergency backup generator for the warehouse building was calculated from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix A of Appendix B1. However, CalEEMod default emissions rates were used. If backup generators are required, the end user would be required to obtain a permit from the SCAQMD prior to installation. Emergency backup generators must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.
5 Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. p. 20. Refer to Appendix B1 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 254
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1100 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-18 4.2 | Air Quality
As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.

The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes area sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. The on-site one-way trip length is conservatively anticipated to be 1.33 miles, which is approximately 4.0 percent of the 33.2-mile truck trip length modeled in CalEEMod.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.2-1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction and Operations
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. 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 CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the State and federal ambient air quality standards. 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 SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the 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 AQMPs. The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State (California) and national air quality standards. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 255
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1101 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-19 4.2 | Air Quality
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.

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 CAAQS and NAAQS.

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 4.2- 8 in Impact 4.2-2 below, the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with Mitigation Measures(MM) AQ-1 and MM AQ-2. As shown in Table 4.2-10 in Impact 4.2-2 below, MMsAQ-3 through AQ-5 would reduce operational NOX emissions to below operation emission standards. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contains 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’s existing General Plan land use designation is Economic Development Corridor (EDC) Northern Gateway, and the Project’s existing zoning designation is Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC – NG). The Project’s proposed land uses would be consistent with the EDC land use designation and the City’s Zoning Code. Furthermore, the Project would also be designed consistently with all applicable planning policies and design standards as set forth within the Menifee Municipal Code.

The AQMP contains 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 AQMP. 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.

As noted above (and discussed further in Impact 4.2-2 below), MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5 would reduce construction and operational air pollutant emissions below SCAQMD’s emission thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not increase the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or cause or contribute to new violations for these pollutants. As the Project would not exceed any of the CAAQS and NAAQS, the Project would also not delay timely attainment of air quality standards or interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. In addition, because the Project is consistent with land use projections that form the basis of the AQMPs, the Project would be consistent with the emissions forecasts in the AQMP. Impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 256
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1102 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-20 4.2 | Air Quality
MM AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all unpaved offsite access roads to either be stabilized using a chemical dust suppressant or paved prior to the start of the grading phase of construction.

MM AQ-2 The Project's contractors shall be prohibited from idling heavy equipment for more than three minutes and prohibited from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day. The Project's general contractor shall designate an officer to monitor the construction equipment operators on-site for compliance.

MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits (not building shell permits), the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
• Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options.
• Incorporate bicycle parking and storage, and self-service bicycle repair areas. • Provide on-site meal options in employee break areas as well as kitchen amenities to prepare and/or heat meals.
• Provide a ride-matching service (e.g., bulletin boards, website, smartphone application) to connect carpool participants and provide preferential parking for rideshare vehicles to support carpool/vanpool/rideshare transportation modes. • Post Riverside Transit Agency schedules in conspicuous areas. • Reference Riverside Transit Agency schedules when creating employees’ operating schedules.

MM AQ-4 All outdoor cargo handling equipment (such as yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission (i.e., powered by electricity or other alternative fuels). The warehouse building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

MM AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Community Development Department shall confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks within the project site shall have posted signage posted that states:
• Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 257
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1103 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-21 4.2 | Air Quality
• Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after three minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager, the SCAQMD, and CARB to report violations.
• Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas. • The Operator shall designate an officer to monitor trucks on-site for compliance. • To the extent feasible, the Project shall restrict the turns trucks can make entering and exiting the facility to route trucks away from sensitive receptors by posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to head northbound to Ethanac Road (designated truck route).
• Signs and drive aisle pavement markings shall clearly identify the on-site circulation pattern to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicular travel. • All signage installed as part of the Project shall be legible, durable, and weatherproof.

Impact 4.2-2 Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
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 O3-precursor pollutants (i.e. ROG and NOX) and PM10 and 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, road 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 largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 258
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1104 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-22 4.2 | Air Quality
Construction activities associated with the Project are conservatively estimated to be completed within approximately 15 months. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements (see Appendix A of Appendix B1 for more information regarding the construction assumptions).

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 were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) 1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, described in the Regulatory Setting subsection above and identified in PPP-1.

Table 4.2-8, Construction-Related Emissions, shows that unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for PM10. The majority of PM10 emissions are generated during the grading phase of construction and from construction vehicles accessing the Project site from unpaved roads. MM AQ-1 requires all unpaved offsite access roads to either be stabilized using a chemical dust suppressant or paved prior to the start of the grading phase of construction. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce construction PM10 emissions to below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Additionally, MM HRA-1 requires that the Project Applicant, prior to issuance of grading permit, to prepare and submit documentation to the City that demonstrates that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). Therefore, the Project’s construction-related impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2024 4.52 92.53 47.41 0.37 245.19 26.80
Year 2025 43.62 10.05 21.92 0.04 2.27 0.92
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No Yes No
Mitigated Emissions1, 2, 3
Year 2024 3.37 77.22 47.41 0.37 47.62 26.26
Year 2025 42.84 1.67 21.92 0.04 1.84 0.53
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
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

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reduction percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. Refer to Appendix A of Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 259
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1105 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-23 4.2 | Air Quality

2. Mitigation measure AQ-1 requires unpaved access roads either be stabilized with dust suppressing chemicals or paved prior to the grading phase of construction.

3. Although not required to meet SCAQMD NOX thresholds, the Health Risk Assessment determined that MM HRA-1 was necessary to reduce carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks during construction. MM HRA-1 requires construction equipment to meet CARB Tier 4 Final standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). The results of MM HRA-1 have been included in Table 4.2-8 for informational purposes.

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 8 Operations
Operational Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and off-road cargo handling equipment such as forklifts and yard trucks. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-9, Unmitigated Operational Project Emissions. Table 4.2-9 shows that Project emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx.

Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Project Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 16.06 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.04 0.38 0.32 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile – Vehicle Emissions 11.90 25.61 102.28 0.30 27.30 7.55 Off-Road – Forklifts 1.76 16.66 23.51 0.03 0.88 0.81
Off-Road – Yard Trucks 1.02 8.83 9.94 0.02 0.42 0.39
Back-up Generators 1.69 4.71 4.30 0.01 0.25 0.25
Total Emissions 32.47 56.19 140.52 0.36 28.88 9.03
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
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 Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 9 As noted above, Table 4.2-9 shows that unmitigated operational Project emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. CARB is addressing emissions from heavy duty vehicles through various regulatory programs including lower emission standards, restrictions on idling, the use of post‐combustion filter and catalyst equipment, and retrofits for diesel truck fleets. These programs are expected to result in significant reductions in ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions as they are fully implemented by 2023.

Federal and State agencies regulate and enforce vehicle emission standards. It is not feasible for the City of Menifee to effectively enforce a prohibition on trucks from entering the property that are otherwise permitted to operate in California and access other properties in the City, region, and State. Even if the City were to apply such a restriction, it would cause warehouse operators using older truck fleets to travel to other facilities in the SCAB where the restriction does not apply, thereby resulting in no improvement to regional air quality. Based on data from CARB, most heavy‐duty trucks entering the Project site would meet or exceed 2010 model year emission standards when the Project becomes fully operational in 2025 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 260
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1106 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-24 4.2 | Air Quality
as all trucks are required to meet or exceed such standards by 2023. Specifically, according to CARB EMFAC inventories, approximately 50 percent of all instate heavy‐duty trucks met the 2010 engine standard in 2019, 59 percent in 2020, and 62 percent in 2021. Additionally, 65 percent and 90 percent of trucks are projected to meet the 2010 engine standard in 2022 and 2023 respectively.6 Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Project Emissions shows operational emissions after incorporating operational mitigation measures. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ-4 requires that all forklifts used onsite are electric or employ other zero emission technology. MM AQ-5 requires signage for on-site circulation and limiting idling emissions.

Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Operational Project Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 16.06 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions 0.04 0.38 0.32 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile – Vehicle Emissions1 11.84 25.52 101.21 0.30 26.99 7.47 Off-Road – Forklifts2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road – Yard Trucks 1.02 8.83 9.94 0.02 0.42 0.39
Back-up Generators 1.69 4.71 4.30 0.01 0.25 0.25
Total Emissions 30.65 39.44 115.94 0.33 27.69 8.14
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
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

1. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ-2.

2. MM AQ-3 requires all forklifts to be electric or use other zero emission technology.

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 10 Table 4.2-10 shows that with implementation of MMs AQ-3 through AQ-5, operational emissions for NOX would be reduced below the SCAQMD’s thresholds, and therefore impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Plans, Programs, and Policies
Existing requirements based on local, state, or federal regulations or laws are frequently required independently of CEQA review. Typical requirements include compliance with the provisions of the Building Code, CalGreen Code, local municipal code, SCAQMD Rules, etc. Because Plans, Programs, and Policies (PPP) are neither Project specific nor a result of development of the Project, they are not considered to be project design features or Mitigation Measures.

PPP-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
6 Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment. p. 25. Refer to Appendix B1 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 261
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1107 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-25 4.2 | Air Quality
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
• All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

PPP-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.

PPP-3 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

PPP-4 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Landscape Water Use Efficiency requirements (Chapter 15.04 of the City’s Municipal Code).

PPP-5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Section 110.10) require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing additional rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

PPP-6 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 262
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1108 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-26 4.2 | Air Quality
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11. • Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11. • To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

PPP-7 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 2305, the Project operator will track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee.

PPP-8 Trees shall be installed in automobile parking areas to provide 50 percent shade cover of parking areas within fifteen years in accordance with section 9.195.040 of the Menifee Municipal Code (Development Code). Trees shall be planted that are capable of meeting this requirement.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5 in Impact 4.2-1 above.

HRA-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Menifee that demonstrate the following:
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). These requirements shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

Impact 4.2-3 Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 263
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1109 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-27 4.2 | Air Quality
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The Project applicant proposes the development of approximately 700,037 SF of industrial warehouse space on a total of 36.8 net acres. The Project would include the construction of one concrete tilt-up building, parking lot, and offsite improvements. The Project is anticipated to be developed in one phase and construction is anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 14 months, beginning in 2024.

The nearest sensitive receptorsto the Project are single-family residential buildings located approximately 90 feet (27 meters) to the north of the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. 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.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-11, EquipmentSpecific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.

The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Perris Valley (SRA 24) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to five acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of four acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a fouracre threshold were interpolated and utilized in the Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B1) for this Project.

Table 4.2-11: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction Phase Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 11 The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptorsto the construction area are the residential buildings located approximately 90 feet (27 meters) to the north of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.

SCAQMD’s LST guidance recommends using the 25-meter threshold for receptors located 25 meters or less from a project site. Therefore, the LSTs for 4 acres at 25 meters were used for the construction analysis which is consistent with the SCAQMD LST methodology. Table 4.2-12, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions presents the localized emissions during each construction activity for the Project Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 264
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1110 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-28 4.2 | Air Quality
after incorporating mitigation measures. Table 4.2-12 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak days of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2024 20.88 19.71 1.03 0.90
Site Preparation 2024 27.18 18.34 8.90 5.07
Grading 2024 32.38 27.72 5.15 2.69
Building Construction 2024 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58
Paving 2025 8.58 14.58 0.41 0.39
Architectural Coating 2025 1.15 1.81 0.05 0.05
Paving and Architectural Coating Combined1 9.73 16.39 0.46 0.44 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 25 meters) 237 1,346 11 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
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. Paving and Architectural Coating activities are scheduled to overlap, therefore emissions from both activities would occur on the same day.

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 12 Operations
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
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 (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes a warehouse, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions for operations.

LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters in SRA 24 were utilized in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment because the closest receptors to the Project area are located approximately 90 feet (27 meters) to the north and the thresholds increase with distance. Although the Project site is approximately 36.8 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was also conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.

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 4.2-13, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources and four percent of Project-related mobile sources (four percent of the daily VMT is approximately equal to the distance of each vehicle on-site driving around the perimeter of Project), since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site. Table 4.2-13 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants for Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 265
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1111 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-29 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-13: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources and On-Site Generators and Mobile
Sources1

14.56 18.46 1.75 0.94
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,577 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
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. Includes all on-site emissions and four percent of warehouse mobile source emissions.

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Air Quality Assessment.– Table 13 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 (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 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 Program7 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 federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality standards 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 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.

NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.

Breathing ground-level O3 can result in health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.

According to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs, O3, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric 7 Ibid. p. 32
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 266
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1112 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-30 4.2 | Air Quality
utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2022 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to meet the 2015 O3 standard by 2037 would lead to sufficient NOX emission reductions. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.

The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

There are significant challenges with correlating specific health effects that will occur as a result of a project’s significant criteria air pollutant emissions. Generally, models that correlate criteria air pollutant concentrations with specific health effects focus on regulatory decision-making that will apply throughout an entire air basin or region. These models focus on the region-wide health effects of pollutants so that regulators can assess the costs and benefits of adopting a proposed regulation that applies to an entire category of air pollutant sources, rather than the health effects related to emissions from a specific proposed project or source. Because of the scale of these analyses, any one project is likely to have only very small incremental effects which may be difficult to differentiate from the effects of air pollutant concentrations in an entire air basin. In addition, such modeling efforts are costly, and the value of a project-specific analysis may be modest in relation to that cost. Furthermore, the results, while costly to produce, may not be particularly useful. For regional pollutants, it is difficult to trace a particular project’s criteria air pollutant emissions to a specific health effect. Moreover, the modeled results may be misleading because the margin of error in such modeling is large enough that, even if the modeled results report a given health effect, the model is sufficiently imprecise that the actual effect may differ from the reported results; that is, the modeled results suggest precision, when in fact available models cannot be that precise on a project level.

As discussed above, the mass emissions thresholds developed by SCAQMD and used by CEQA lead agencies throughout southern California to determine potential significance of project-related regional changes in the environment are not directly indicative of exceedances of applicable ambient air standards.

Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of O3 or PM. The effects on ground-level ambient concentrations of Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 267
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1113 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-31 4.2 | Air Quality
pollutants that may be breathed by people are also influenced by the spatial and temporal patterns of the emission sources. In other words, the effect on O3 and PM concentrations from a given mass of pollutants emitted in one location may vary from the effect if that same mass of pollutants was emitted in an entirely different location in the SCAB. The same effect may be observed when the daily and seasonal variation of emissions is taken into account. Regional-scale photochemical modeling, typically performed only for NAAQS attainment demonstration and rule promulgation, account for these changes in the spatial, temporal, and chemical nature of regional emissions.

Emissions from the construction and operation of the Project would vary by time of day, month, and season, and the majority of Project-related emissions, being generated by mobile sources (cars and trucks) driving to and from the site, would be emitted throughout a wide area defined by the origins and destinations of people traveling to and from the Project. As SCAQMD has stated “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.”8
Specifically, for extremely large regional projects, the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3. Based on its recent experiences applying regional scale models to relatively small increase in emissions, SCAQMD stated in its Amicus Brief in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case: “[A] project emitting only 10 tons per year of NOX or VOC is small enough that its regional impact on ambient ozone levels may not be detected in the regional air quality models that are currently used to determine ozone levels.”9The Brief makes it clear that SCAQMD does not believe that there must be a quantification of a project's health risks in CEQA documents prepared for individual projects. Any attempt to quantify the proposed Project's health risks would be considered unreliable and misleading. Also, the Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O3-related health impacts. Therefore, the Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant (refer to Tables 4.2-12 and 4.2-13). 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 State or federal ambient air quality standard. 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 ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass 8 Ibid. p. 34
9 Ibid. p. 34
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 268
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1114 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-32 4.2 | Air Quality
emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to O3 and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Setting section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.

The NAAQS and CAAQS were developed to protect the most susceptible population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions. As stated earlier, the mass emission thresholds were established primarily in conjunction with federal permitting “major source” thresholds. If emissions were below these “de minimis” emission rates, then the Project is presumed to conform with the NAAQS.10 While based on the status of an air basin level of attainment of the health-based NAAQS, emissions in excess of the mass emission thresholds from one project does not mean the air basin would experience measurably higher ground level concentrations, or more frequent occurrences of ground level concentrations in exceedance of standards, or delay timely attainment of a particular NAAQS.

O3 concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level O3 concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project.

Due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project-level mass emissions and regional O3 formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health effects associated with the Project cannot be identified. Given this is speculative, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from the criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO 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 standard.

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. The modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would 10 Ibid. p. 35
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 269
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1115 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-33 4.2 | Air Quality
not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. 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 vicinity intersections resulting from 4,508 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Construction and Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
Project construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of required off-road diesel equipment required. Operational activities would also include the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks.

The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the Project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM that any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any one location, and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions.

The HRA (Appendix B2), was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. Refer to the following discussion concerning carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic risk.

Carcinogenic Risk
Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 270
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1116 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-34 4.2 | Air Quality
architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

Operational vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using emission factors for course particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) generated with the EMFAC developed by CARB. EMFAC is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on‐road mobile sources. EMFAC incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed, and number of starts per day. The model includes the emissions benefits of the truck and bus rule and the previously adopted rules for other on‐road diesel equipment. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences approximately 90 feet north of Project site.

Table 4.2-14, Health Risk Results shows the unmitigated and mitigated health risk for the combined construction and operation of the Project. Based on OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines, the exposure duration for a resident is 30 years, beginning with the third trimester; the exposure duration for workers is 25 years. Operations would commence following construction. As such, construction would not overlap with operations. The analysis calculates risk based on exposure to construction concentrations during the initial 15 months of the exposure duration and operational concentrations for the remainder of the exposure duration. Project emissions would result in a maximum cancer risk of 13.94 in one million, which would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The Project includes MM HRA-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment or incorporation of CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). Implementation of the MM HRA-1 would reduce cancer risk to 1.8 in one million; refer to Table 4.2-14). Therefore, impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-14: Health Risk Results
Exposure Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million) Chronic Noncancer Hazard
Unmitigated Emissions
Residential Receptors Houses along Kuffel
Road, 90 feet north of Project1

13.94 0.0083
Worker Receptors – Farm adjacent to southern
boundary of Project1

0.33 0.0083
Threshold 10 1.0
Threshold Exceeded Yes No
Mitigated Emissions (Tier 4 Final Construction Equipment) 2 Residential Receptors Houses along Kuffel
Road, 90 feet north of Project1

1.80 0.0012
Worker Receptors – Farm adjacent to southern
boundary of Project1

0.09 0.0015
Threshold 10 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No
1 According to OEHHA, the REL for DPM is 5 and the target organ is the respiratory system. 2 The “Mitigated Emissions” exposure scenario shows the risk with the incorporation of MM HRA-1 (Tier 4 Final Construction Equipment).

Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Health Risk Assessment. Page 21 – Table 3 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 271
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1117 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-35 4.2 | Air Quality
Non-Carcinogenic Risk
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non‐cancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. Non‐cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non‐cancer health effects are anticipated. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population. According to OEHHA, the REL for DPM is 5 and the target organ is the respiratory system.11
Chronic non-carcinogenic impacts are shown in Table 4.2-14. A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The chronic hazard was calculated based on the highest annual average concentration at the maximally exposed individual receptor. The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with emissions from the Project would be 0.0083, respectively which would not exceed the hazard index threshold of 1.0 for exposure to hazardous substances. It should be noted that there is no acute REL for DPM and acute health risk cannot be calculated. The Project includes MM HRA-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment or incorporation CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS). Implementation of the MM HRA-1 would further reduce the chronic hazard; refer to Table 4.2-

14. Therefore, impacts associated with chronic exposure to hazardous substances would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 in Impact 4.2-1 above. Refer to MM HRA-1 in Impact 4.2-2 above.

Impact 4.2-4 Would the Project Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse 11 Kimley-Horn & Associates. (2022). Health Risk Assessment. p. 21. Refer to Appendix B2 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 272
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1118 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-36 4.2 | Air Quality
rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant.

Operations
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.

Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
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. 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 shown in Table 4.2-8, construction of the Project would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for PM10. However, with the implementation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2, construction impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, as shown in Table 4.2-14, cancer risk exceeded the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in in one million due to TAC exposure from construction equipment. However, the implementation of MM HRA-1 reduced impacts to less than significant levels.

Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

Cumulative Long-Term 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 ambient air quality standards. 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.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 273
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1119 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.2-37 4.2 | Air Quality
As shown in Table 4.2-9, the Project operational emissions (primarily from vehicle and forklift emissions) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. However, with the implementation of MMs AQ-3 through AQ-5, operational impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable long-term contribution to air pollutant emissions.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts concerning air quality would occur.

References
City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan.

Menifee. (2022). Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/Design-Guidelines_AmendedMarch-2-2022?bidId= Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2024). Air Quality Assessment. (Appendix B1) Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2024). Health Risk Assessment. (Appendix B2) Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 274
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1120 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.3-1 4.3 | Biological Resources

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on biological resources that may result from implementation of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project). The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts of the Project, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts anticipated from implementation of the Project. This includes construction and operations of the warehouse building. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to biological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations will serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with the implementation of the Project.

The setting, context, and impact analysis in this section are based primarily on a biological resource study conducted by ELMT Consulting that is contained in Appendix C, Biological Resources Report:
• ELMT Consulting, Inc. (2022). Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP) Consistency Analysis. • ELMT Consulting, Inc. (2023). Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report.

4.3.2 Environmental Setting
Project Site Conditions
At present, the northeast corner of the Project site consists of existing residential development, a vehicle storage yard, and vacant, undeveloped land. The majority of the Project site is undeveloped and has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances associated with historic agricultural activities, and routine weed abatement/disking activities. Historic aerials show these activities have been ongoing since at least 1966.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site occurs in a gradually urbanizing area that supports some primarily tract home developments and undeveloped parcels. Historically, the area supported agricultural land uses. At present, the Project site is bounded to the west, north, and east by Wheat Street, Kuffel Road, and Byers Road, respectively, with residential developments and undeveloped, vacant land beyond. The site is bounded to the south by residential development, former agricultural land, and undeveloped, vacant land. As part of the Project, off-site improvement would occur. Off-site improvements include Construct curb and gutter, sidewalk, and driveway improvements on Wheat Street, Byers Road, and Kuffel Road adjacent to Project site. Also refer to Section 4.13, Transportation, Table 4.13-5, Mitigation Measures for Study Intersections, which notes a list of other Project specific recommended improvements.

Like the Project site, the off-site areas that are to be improved have been previously disturbed as most of these are utilized for traffic movement around the Project site. The improvements would occur in areas currently in use. No undisturbed areas occur off-site and no impacts to biological resources would occur from the implementation of off-site improvements.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 275
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1121 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.3-2 4.3 | Biological Resources
Topography and Soils
The Project site is relatively flat, is located at an approximate elevation of 1,424 to 1,458 feet above mean sea level, and slopes marginally from south to north. Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the Project site is underlain by the following soil units:

Auld clay (2 to 8 percent slopes), Buchenau loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, slightly saline-alkali), Las Posas loam (2 to 8 percent slopes), and Porterville clay (2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately deep). Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., agricultural activities, grading activities, weed abatement).

Vegetation
No native plant communities occur within the boundaries of the Project site. The Project site supports one plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. The vegetation community and land cover types are described in further detail below.

Non-Native Grassland
The majority of the Project site supports a non-native grassland that occurs in varying densities throughout the site, except the southwest and southeast corners and portions of the site perimeter. This plant community is dominated by non-native grasses such as oats (Avena spp.) and bromes (Bromus spp.) and supports primarily weedy/early successional species. Common plant species observed in the non-native grassland plant community include red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarum), common mustard (Brassica rapa), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), annual lupine (Lupinus bicolor), and Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata). Non-native grasses occur in the highest densities in the southern portion of the site, where they are nearly exclusive along a swale.

Disturbed
Disturbed portions of the Project site occur primarily on the perimeter of the Project site. These areas support the same species as the non-native grassland plant community, but dominance is shared among species such as Mediterranean mustard and red-stemmed filaree. These areas are routinely mowed for weed abatement.

Developed
The northeast corner of the Project site supports developed areas associated with the residential development.

Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting and denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed during the field survey or that are expected to occur within the Project site. The discussion is to be used as a general Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 276
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1122 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.3-3 4.3 | Biological Resources
reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather condition in which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation.

Fish
No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on the Project site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site.

Amphibians
No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site.

Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site.

Reptiles
The Project site provides a limited amount of habitat for a few reptile species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance associated with the on-site weed abatement activities. The only reptilian species observed during the field investigation was Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes).

Other common reptilian species that are anticipated to occur within the Project site include common sideblotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans) and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances on-site, and surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected to occur on-site.

Birds
The Project provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human disturbance and agricultural land uses. Bird species detected during the field survey included:
• great egret (Ardea alba)
• Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae)
• house sparrow (Haemorhous mexicanus)
• rock pigeon (Columba liva)
• Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto)
• Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna)
• American kestrel (Falco sparverius)
• killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
• Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans)
• European starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
• red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 277
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1123 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.3-4 4.3 | Biological Resources
• bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
• black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Nesting Birds
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted during breeding season. Although heavily disturbed, the Project site has the potential to provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to urban environments. Additionally, the disturbed habitats have the potential to support birds that nest on the open ground such as killdeer.