Menifee City Council
November 20, 2024

Noise Descriptors
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dBA.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 454
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1300 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-4 4.11 | Noise
Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The way older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semicommercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be perceived by humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a barely perceivable difference. • A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial. • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 455
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1301 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-5 4.11 | Noise
Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss. While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.

Annoyance. Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of people begin to report annoyance. 1 Groundborne Vibration
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 4.11-3, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations, shows the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.
1 Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. p. 10.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 456
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1302 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-6 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations
Maximum
PPV (in/sec)
Vibration Annoyance
Potential Criteria
Vibration Damage Potential
Threshold Criteria FTA Vibration Damage Criteria

0.008 --
Extremely fragile historic buildings,
ruins, ancient monuments --

0.01 Barely Perceptible -- --

0.04 Distinctly Perceptible -- --

0.1 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings --

0.12 -- --
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration
damage

0.2 -- -- Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings

0.25 -- Historic and some old buildings --

0.3 -- Older residential structures Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)

0.4 Severe -- --

0.5 --
New residential structures, Modern
industrial/commercial buildings Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 10 - Table 3 Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur.

However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earth-moving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate constructiongenerated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

4.11.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks, and trains are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise.

Existing Noise Sources
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix K1). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels.

The average daily noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the Project site are included in Table 4.11-4, Existing Traffic Noise Levels. Table 4.11-4 shows the existing traffic-generated noise level on Project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from 54.86 dBA CNEL to 66.73 dBA CNEL 100 feet from the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 457
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1303 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-7 4.11 | Noise
centerline. As previously described, CNEL is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Table 4.11-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT dBA CNEL 100 Feet from
Roadway Centerline
Case Road Goetz Road to Murrieta Road 7,642 61.93
Murrieta Road to Mapes Road 5,815 60.75
Goetz Road Case Road to Mapes Road 7,669 61.06
Mapes Road to Ethanac Road 11,487 62.66
Murrieta Road
Case Road to Ethanac Road 2,521 54.86
Ethanac Road to Rouse Road 7,947 59.89
Chambers Avenue to McCall Blvd. 7,587 59.68
Ethanac Road
Goetz Road to Wheat Street 14,349 63.65
Wheat Street to Murrieta Road 14,391 63.64
Murrieta Road to Evans Road 17,715 64.91
Case Road to I-215 SB Ramps 25,161 66.73
I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps 18,907 65.26
I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road 14,139 64.10
McLaughlin
Road
Byers Road to Murrieta Road N/A N/A
Murrieta Road to Evans Road N/A N/A
Byers Road Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road N/A N/A
Wheat Road Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road N/A 57.45
McCall Blvd.

Murrieta Road to Sun City Blvd. 8,375 62.78
Bradley Road to I-215 SB Ramps 28,352 62.58
I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps 27,453 62.62
I-215 NB Ramps to Encanto Drive 27,638 61.93
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; N/A = data not available; SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 18 - Table 6.

Stationary Sources
The nearest source of stationary noise in the Project vicinity would come from existing single-family residential properties scattered around the Project site. Noise sources from residential uses typically include mechanical equipment such as heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), automobile related noise such as cars starting and doors slamming, and landscaping equipment. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise.

Noise Measurements
The Project applicant proposes the development of approximately 700,037 SF of industrial warehouse space (including office space) within one building on a total of 36.8 net acres. The Project would include 393 automobile parking spaces and 221 truck trailer parking spaces. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted four short-term noise measurements; refer to Appendix A of Appendix Jfor more information. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 8:40 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. on Wednesday, September 7, 2022. Measurements of Leq are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 4.11-5, Existing Noise Measurements and shown on Exhibit 4.11-1, Noise Measurement Locations.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 458
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1304 of 2294 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 459
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1305 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-9 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-5: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location1 Measurement
Period Duration Leq(dBA)
ST-1
Corner of Byers Road and Ethanac Road, northeast of Project site. 8:40 – 8:50 a.m. 10 Minutes 57.2
ST-2 Kuffel Road, north of Project site. 8:56 – 9:06 a.m. 10 Minutes 46.5 ST-3
Wheat Street, near Aaron Alan Drive intersection, west of Project site 9:11 – 9:21 a.m. 10 Minutes 48.4
ST-4 Byers Road, east of Project site. 9:30 – 9:40 a.m. 10 Minutes 44.4

1. Noise monitoring locations were selected to represent the ambient conditions at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 18 – Table 7 Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Noise sensitive uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and places of assembly. Vibration sensitive receivers are generally similar to noise sensitive receivers but may also include businesses, such as research facilities and laboratories that use vibration-sensitive equipment. The Project site is surrounded by vacant/undeveloped, agriculture, and scattered residential land uses to the west, south, and east. North of the Project is primarily residential. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 4.11-6, Sensitive Receptors.

Table 4.11-6: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from
the Project Description
Single-family Residences 90 feet to the north Houses along north side of Kuffel Road, between Wheat Street and Byers Road
Single-family Residences 100 feet to the west Houses along west side of Wheat Street, between Kuffel Road and Corsica Lane
Single-family Residence 100 feet to the east House along east side of Byers Road, between Kuffel Road and Corsica Lane
Single-family Residence 180 feet to the south House along north side of Corsica Lane, between Wheat Street and Byers Road
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 20 - Table 8

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting
To limit population exposure to physically or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the Federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

Federal
Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Guidance The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report to provide guidance on procedures for assessing impacts at different stages of transit project development. The report covers both construction and operational noise impacts and describes a range of measures for controlling excessive noise and vibration. The specified noise criteria are an earlier version of the criteria provided by the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. In general, the primary concern regarding vibration relates to potential Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 460
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1306 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-10 4.11 | Noise
damage from construction. The guidance document establishes criteria for evaluating the potential for damage for various structural categories from vibration.

State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.

California Building Code - Title 24, Part 2
The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, hotel rooms, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings and habitable rooms (including hotels), the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

Local
City of Menifee General Plan
Noise Element2
The City of Menifee General Plan (City GP) Noise Element contains the following goals and policies that address noise:

Goal N-1 Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure.

Policy N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications.

Policy N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the city's Municipal Code, Title 2 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Noise Element. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/901/Noise-Element (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 461
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1307 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-11 4.11 | Noise
24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes.

Policy N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.

Policy N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors:

Land Use (Residential) Interior Standards Exterior Standards 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 40 Leq (10 minute) 45 Leq (10 minute)
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 55 Leq (10 minute) 65 Leq (10 minute)
Source: ibid.

Policy N-1.8: Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses. Consider federal, state, and city noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review.

Policy N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise-producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors and require that new noise-producing land be are designed with adequate noise abatement measures.

Policy N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction.

Land Use Compatibility
The noise criteria identified in the City of Menifee Noise Element are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation related noise. The compatibility criteria, shown on Table 4.11-7, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, provides the City with a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise levels. The Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure matrix describes categories of compatibility and not specific noise standards.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 462
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1308 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-12 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-7: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 14 - Table 5.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 463
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1309 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-13 4.11 | Noise
City of Menifee Municipal Code
The Menifee Municipal Code establishes the following noise provisions relative to the Project:3 • All construction activities shall adhere to Menifee MC Section 8.01.010, which requires projects within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence to operate Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and prohibits construction from occurring on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. Compliance with City of Menifee Municipal Code Section

8.01.010 would reduce construction-related noise impacts. • Menifee MC Section 9.210.070 discusses the vibration levels for site development: All uses shall be so operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the sources is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains and temporary construction is exempted from this standard.4 City of Menifee Design Guidelines – Appendix A: Industrial Good Neighbor Policies5 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:

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 (dock high). There are general performance standards, as well as site design, access and layout standards, 3 City of Menifee. (2023). City of Menifee Municipal Code. Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/overview (accessed August 2023).
4 City of Menifee. (2023). Development Code Section 9.210.070 Vibrations. Available at: https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/menifee-ca/docviewer.aspx?secid=1550&keywords=noise%27s%2Cnoised%2Cnoises%2Cnoises%27%2Cnoising%2Cnoise#secid-1551 (accessed August 2023).
5 City of Menifee. (2022). Design Guidelines. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/DesignGuidelines_Amended-March-2-2022?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 464
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1310 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-14 4.11 | Noise
signage and information standards, and environmental considerations, including air quality and noise and traffic. The Project would comply with the Policies below specifically relating to noise:
• Use of perimeter walls, buildings, and/or enhanced landscaping to reduce noise impacts as appropriate.
• If a public address (PA) system is being used in conjunction with an industrial use, the PA system shall be oriented away from sensitive receptors and the volume set at a level not readily audible past the property line.
• Prepare a construction traffic control plan prior to grading, detailing the locations of equipment stating areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors.

4.11.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.

Construction noise modeling was conducting using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). The City of Menifee’s General Plan and Municipal Code does not establish maximum numerical construction noise levels for potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes as the generation of noise levels in excess of standards or as a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant temporary construction noise levels at sensitive receiver locations, a construction-related noise level threshold has been adopted from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Due to the lack of standardized construction Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 465
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1311 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-15 4.11 | Noise
noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that are considered reasonable criteria for evaluating construction noise impacts. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses, 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) for commercial uses, and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for industrial uses.6
Operations
Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the Menifee MC and GP. Menifee GP Noise Element N-1 section identifies a daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) standard of 55 dBA (interior) and 65 dBA (exterior) for residential receptors and a nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) standard of 40 dBA (interior) and 45 dBA (exterior).

The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan.

An analysis was conducted of the Project’s effect on traffic noise conditions at off-site land uses. Without Project traffic noise levels were compared to With Project traffic noise levels. The environmental baseline is the Without Project condition. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model. Therefore, the modeling effort is considered a worst-case representation of the roadway noise.

In general, a 1.5-dBA increase is not perceptible, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable.

Vibration
Ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential ground-borne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria.

For a structure built traditionally, without assistance from qualified engineers, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage.

FTA guidelines show that modern engineered buildings built with reinforced-concrete, steel or timber can withstand vibration levels up to 0.50 in/sec and not experience vibration damage. The Caltrans 2020 6 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 466
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1312 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-16 4.11 | Noise
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual identifies the vibration threshold for human annoyance, vibrations levels of 0.04 in/sec begin to cause annoyance and levels of 0.2 in/sec is used for building damage.

4.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.11-1 Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
On-Site Construction Noise
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

During construction, exterior noise levels could affect residents surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur near the existing residential uses scattered around the Project construction area. However, it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require industrial saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, dozers, scrapers, and tractors during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.11-8, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels and includes noise levels at 90 feet, the distance from the Project boundary to the nearest sensitive receptor.

Table 4.11-8: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50
feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 90
feet from Source1
Air Compressor 80 75
Backhoe 80 75
Compactor 82 77
Concrete Mixer 85 80
Concrete Pump 82 77
Concrete Vibrator 76 71
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 467
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1313 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-17 4.11 | Noise
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50
feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 90
feet from Source1
Crane, Mobile 83 78
Dozer 85 80
Generator 82 77
Grader 85 80
Impact Wrench 85 80
Jack Hammer 88 83
Loader 80 75
Paver 85 80
Pneumatic Tool 85 80
Pump 77 72
Roller 85 80
Saw 76 71
Scraper 85 80
Shovel 82 77
Truck 84 79

1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 24 - Table 9.

Although the construction equipment noise levels in Table 4.11-8 are from FTA’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, the noise levels are based on measured data from a U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency report which uses data from the 1970s, the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model uses data from the early 1990s, and other measured data. Since that time, construction equipment has been required to meet more stringent emissions standards and the additional necessary exhaust systems also reduce noise from what is shown in the table.

Project Construction Noise Levels
The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative exterior construction noise standards.

However, Section 8.01.010 states construction activities within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence can only occur Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. While the Menifee Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses, 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) for commercial uses, and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for industrial uses.

The noise levels calculated in Table 4.11-9, Project Construction Noise Levels, show the exterior construction noise for the Project without accounting for attenuation from existing physical barriers.

Construction noise has been calculated with FHWA’s RCNM. The nearest noise sensitive receptors are residences to the north of the Project sites. Construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously to represent a worst-case noise scenario as construction activities would routinely be spread throughout the construction site and would operate at different intervals.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 468
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1314 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-18 4.11 | Noise
Table 4.11-9: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Receptor Location Relative to Construction Activity FTA’s Construction Noise Threshold
(dBA Leq)
3 Exceeded? Land Use Direction
Average
Distance
(feet)1
Worst Case Modeled
Exterior Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Demolition Residential North 210 74.0 80 No
Site Preparation Residential North 675 65.0 80 No
Grading Residential North 675 65.6 80 No
Building Construction Residential North 675 64.3 80 No
Combined Paving and
Architectural Coating Residential North 675 58.0 80 No
Notes:

1. Distances for construction noise are based on FTA methodology and may not match sensitive receptor distances in other section s. FTA methodology is based on the average distance from the nearest sensitive receptor. Demolition would occur exclusively in the northeast corner of the site, thus the average distance used in the RCNM model was 210 feet. Other construction phases would occur throughout the entire site, thus the average distance used in the RCNM model was 675 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors to the north.

2. Modeled noise levels conservatively assume the simultaneous operation of all pieces of equipment.

3. Federal Transit Administration noise threshold of 80 dBA for residences.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 26 - Table 10.

FTA’s construction threshold is an 8-hour Leq, which accounts for the percentage of time each individual piece of equipment operates under full power in that period. Additionally, construction equipment moves throughout the site during that period. Construction noise is measured in Leq which is used to measure average noise over an 8-hour workday. During an 8-hour period the construction equipment will move throughout the site. As construction equipment moves, the distances from the nearest receptor will change, therefore an average distance from the nearest sensitive receptor is used. Not all equipment would operate at the closest distance to the receptors and some equipment would operate further away.

The demolition phase of construction would be the loudest at the residences to the north of the Project sites based on the equipment used and the average distance of the demolition activities. During demolition, Table 4.11-9 shows that noise levels at these sensitive receptors would reach 74.0 dBA Leq and therefore do not exceed the applicable FTA 80 dBA 8-hour Leq construction threshold, resulting in a less than significant impact.

In addition, as required by the City Municipal Code, construction activities within one—fourth mile from an occupied residence may only occur between Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and construction activities are prohibited from occurring on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. Therefore, construction noise would have a less than significant impact.

Operations
Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project would include:
• Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); • Slow moving trucks on the Project site, approaching and leaving the loading areas; • Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 469
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1315 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-19 4.11 | Noise
• Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and • Off-Site Traffic Noise.

As discussed under the City of Menifee Design Guidelines, the City includes Policies for new warehouses, logistics, and distribution facilities that are intended to reduce operational noise impacts. These include perimeter walls or enhanced landscaping to reduce noise and orienting PA systems so that they are not readily audible past the property line. A wall surrounding the Project would reduce noise levels by 8 to 5 dBA, depending on whether the wall has gaps in it. The analysis shall conservatively assuming the perimeter wall will provide a reduction of 5 dBA.

Mechanical Equipment
The Project is located near residential properties to the north, south, east, and west. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is approximately 90 feet north of the property boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to the operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. 7 Based on conceptual site plans, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the building would be located 290 feet to the east. At this distance, and after taking into account a 5 dBA reduction for the perimeter wall, mechanical equipment noise would attenuate to 31.7 dBA which is below the City’s exterior ambient noise standards of 45 dBA for nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) and 65 dBA for daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) for residential receptors.

Operation of mechanical equipment would increase ambient noise levels at the property line of these receptors from 44.4 dBA (refer to Table 4.11-5) to 44.6 dBA, an increase of 0.2 dBA which is not perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, mechanical equipment noise would result in a less than significant impact.

Warehouse Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The proposed warehouse building includes dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/light industrial operations. The dock-high doors are approximately 250 feet from the closest property line (residential uses located to the south).

Vehicular access to the Project site would consist of several driveways, two driveways along Wheat Streat and two driveways along Byers Road. Loading dock noise is approximately 68 dBA at a distance of 30 feet.

The property line of the closest sensitive receptor is located approximately 250 feet from the nearest proposed loading area. At this distance and after taking into account a 5 dBA reduction for the perimeter wall, loading dock noise would attenuate to 44.6 dBA which is below the City’s exterior ambient noise standards of 45 dBA for nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) and 65 dBA for daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) for residential receptors. The ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor would increase from

44.4 dBA (refer to Table 4.11-5) to 47.5 dBA, an increase of 3.1 dBA, which is barely perceptible to most 7 Ibid. p. 27
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 470
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1316 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-20 4.11 | Noise
people. Furthermore, loading dock doors would also be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Noise levels associated with trucks and loading or unloading activities would not exceed the City’s standards and impacts would be less than significant.

Parking Noise
The Project would provide approximately 393 automobile parking stalls and 221 trailer parking stalls in total. Automobile parking stalls will be located along the east and west perimeter of the Project and trailer parking would be located along the north and south perimeter of the Project. Nominal parking noise would occur within the on-site parking facilities. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA8at 50 feet and may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech.9It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.

Based on peak p.m. traffic, a maximum of 840 vehicles would access the parking lot in a single hour.

According to the trip generation information presented in the Traffic Study, 97 percent of these vehicles (815) accessing the site would be passenger vehicles and the remaining three percent (25) would be trucks. For a worst-case scenario all vehicles are assumed to park in the lot nearest to sensitive receptors, passenger vehicles will park in eastern lot, approximately 120 feet from the property line of sensitive receptors located east of the Project and trucks will park in the southern lot, approximately 32 feet from the property line of sensitive receptor to the south. At these distances and after taking into consideration the 5 dBA reduction from the perimeter wall, parking lot noise at the sensitive receptors to the east would be 42.9 dBA and parking lot noise at the sensitive receptor to the south would be 41.4 dBA, both of which are below the City’s exterior ambient noise standards of 45 dBA for nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) and 65 dBA for daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) for residential receptors.

Parking lot noise would increase ambient noise levels at the property line of these receptors. Ambient noise for sensitive receptors to the east of the Project would increase from 44.4 dBA (refer to Table 4.11-5) to 46.7 dBA, an increase of 2.3 dBA which is not perceptible to the human ear. Ambient noise for sensitive receptors to the south of the Project would increase from 44.4 dBA (refer to Table 4.11-5) to 46.2 dBA, an increase of 1.8 dBA which is not perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, parking lot noise would result in a less than significant impact.
8 Ibid. p. 28.
9 Ibid. p. 28.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 471
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1317 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-21 4.11 | Noise
On-Site Composite Noise
Each on-site operational noise source would impact the closest sensitive receptor to the Project site.

Table 4.11-10, On-Site Composite Noise shows the overall noise level generated by the Project at each of the closest sensitive receptors and the combined noise level experienced by the sensitive receptors from operations. A noise level of 5 dBA is considered readily noticeable. Therefore, ambient noise level increases of less than 5 dBA would be considered less than significant.

Table 4.11-10: On-Site Composite Noise
Sensitive Receptor
Modeled
Exterior
Operational
Noise (dBA Leq)
Ambient Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Ambient +
Project
Combined
Noise Level
Incremental
Increase
Exceed
Threshold?1
Sensitive Receptor 1
North of Project 38.4 46.5 47.1 0.6 No
Sensitive Receptor 2
West of Project 44.1 48.4 49.8 1.4
No
Sensitive Receptor 3
East of Project 47.0 44.4 48.9 4.5 No
Sensitive Receptor 4
South of Project 46.2 44.4 48.4 4.0
No
Refer Acoustical Assessment for noise modeling results.

1. An increase in ambient noise of 5 dBA is readily noticeable and considered significant.

As shown in Table 4.11-10, none of the closest sensitive receptors would experience a noise level increase greater than 4.5 dBA. Therefore, on-site operational noise impacts with regard to increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.

Based on the Traffic Study, the Project would result in approximately 4,508 daily trips. The Opening Year “2024 Without Project” and “2024 With Project” scenarios are compared in Table 4.11-11, Traffic Noise Levels. Table 4.11-11 shows roadway noise levels without the Project would range from 45.26 dBA CNEL to 69.02 dBA CNEL and between 47.29 dBA CNEL and 69.54 dBA CNEL with the Project.

In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. As shown in Table 4.11-11 a maximum increase of 2.04 dBA would occur on McLaughlin Road.

Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to produce an increase in noise levels that are considered significant. It should be noted that although traffic volumes increase significantly on Byers Road and Wheat Street, traffic noise is not significant on these roadways. Byers Road and Wheat Street are both currently unpaved roads which would be paved as part of off-site Project improvements. Vehicles traveling on unpaved and gravel roads are 4-dBA louder than vehicles on paved roads.10 Therefore “2024 With Project” noise levels on these roads would decrease when compared to “2024 Without 10 Ibid. p. 28
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 472
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1318 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-22 4.11 | Noise
Project” noise levels on unpaved roads. As shown in Table 4.11-11, traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.11-11: Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
2024 Without Project 2024 With Project
Change
Normally
Acceptable
Standard2
Significant
ADT dBA CNEL Impact 1 ADT dBA CNEL1
Case Road Goetz Road to Murrieta Road 8,731 62.51 8,731 62.51 0.00 60 No Murrieta Road to Mapes Road 6,422 61.18 6,499 61.23 0.05 60 No Goetz Road Case Road to Mapes Road 9,027 61.77 9,291 61.89 0.13 60 No Mapes Road to Ethanac Road 13,124 63.24 13,520 63.37 0.13 60 No Murrieta
Road
Case Road to Ethanac Road 2,964 55.56 3,041 55.68 0.11 60 No Ethanac Road to Rouse Road 13,529 62.20 13,886 62.31 0.11 60 No Chambers Avenue to McCall Blvd. 13,956 62.32 14,378 62.45 0.13 60 No Ethanac
Road
Goetz Road to Wheat Street 20,946 65.29 21,518 65.81 0.52 60 No Wheat Street to Murrieta Road 23,868 65.84 27,853 66.83 0.99 60 No Murrieta Road to Evans Road 30,680 67.29 34,213 68.01 0.72 60 No Case Road to I-215 SB Ramps 42,664 69.02 46,215 69.54 0.51 60 No I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps 33,257 67.71 35,257 68.19 0.47 60 No I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road 25,449 66.65 25,801 67.00 0.36 60 No McLaughlin
Road Byers Road to Murrieta Road 276 45.26 441 47.29 2.04 60 No Byers Road Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road 2,878 56.65 5,884 55.76 -0.893 60 No Wheat Street Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road N/A N/A 1,550 49.90 N/A 60 No McCall Blvd.

Murrieta Road to Sun City Blvd. 11,550 58.85 11,807 58.95 0.10 60 No Bradley Road to I-215 SB Ramps 33,718 63.54 33,975 63.57 0.03 60 No I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps 33,948 63.50 34,282 63.54 0.04 60 No I-215 NB Ramps to Encanto Drive 34,886 63.63 35,324 63.69 0.05 60 No ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level. N/A = data not available; SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

2. Noise levels up to 60 dBA CNEL are considered Normally Acceptable. Potential impacts occur when the Project change exceeds 3 dBA and the land use compatibility standard is exceeded (i.e., both must occur).

3. ”2024 With Project” traffic noise on Byers Road and Wheat Street will decrease despite an increase in vehicle traffic because part of the Project’s off-site improvements include paving those roads.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 29 - Table 11 Conclusion
As demonstrated in Tables 4.11-9 through 4.11-11, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Table 4.11-9 confirms that construction of the Project would not exceed construction noise thresholds. As discussed under operational noise and shown in Table 4.11-10, the Project would not result in noise levels that exceed applicable daytime and nighttime thresholds. In addition, Table 4.11-11 shows that traffic noise generated by the Project would not exceed applicable noise standards. Therefore, the Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 473
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1319 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-23 4.11 | Noise
Impact 4.11-2 Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction
Construction can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.

Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.

Table 4.11-12, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment. Vibration levels at 50 feet, the distance from the Project boundary to the nearest existing structure is also included in Table 4.11-12. Ground-borne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 4.11-12, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.0011 to 0.0315 in/sec PPV at 50 feet from the source of activity.

Table 4.11-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 50 Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0315
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0315
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0269
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0011
1 Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 30 - Table 12.

The nearest structure to the Project construction site is approximately 50 feet away. Table 4.11-12 shows that at 50 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.0315 in/sec PPV, Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 474
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1320 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-24 4.11 | Noise
which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and below the 0.04 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant.

Operations
The Project would include truck movement activity at the Project site. These movements would generally be low-speed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. For perspective, Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).” Since the Project’s truck movements would be at low speed (not at freeway speeds) and would be over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), Project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive ground-borne vibrations; no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground-borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. The Project would not create or cause any vibration impacts during operations.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.11-3 For or a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The closest airport to the Project site is the Perris Valley Aviation Airport located approximately one mile to the north. Although the Project is within two miles of the Perris Valley airport, it is outside of the 55 CNEL noise contour.
11 Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstrip-related noise levels and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
11 Ibid. p. 31.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 475
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1321 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-25 4.11 | Noise

4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels.

Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction project noise impacts if other construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant and would comply with the Menifee GP Goals and Policies, and Menifee MC noise standards.

Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to comply with applicable City regulations related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the Project and other projectsin the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Opening Year Without Project scenarios to the Opening Year Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.

A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase. • Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Opening Year With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the Project. • Incremental Effects. The “Opening Year With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Opening Year Without Project” noise level.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 476
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1322 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-26 4.11 | Noise
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

Table 4.11-13, Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Opening Year Without Project,” and “Opening Year With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts.

Table 4.11-13: Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Existing1
Opening
Year
Without
Project1
Opening
Year With
Project1
Combined Effects Incremental Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference In dBA
Between Existing
and Opening
Year With Project
Difference In dBA
Between Opening
Year Without
Project and Opening
Year With Project
Case Road
Goetz Road to
Murrieta Road 61.93 62.51 62.51 0.58 0.00 No
Murrieta Road to
Mapes Road 60.75 61.18 61.23 0.48 0.05 No
Goetz Road
Case Road to Mapes
Road 61.06 61.77 61.89 0.83 0.13 No
Mapes Road to
Ethanac Road 62.66 63.24 63.37 0.71 0.13 No
Murrieta
Road
Case Road to
Ethanac Road 54.86 55.56 55.68 0.81 0.11 No
Ethanac Road to
Rouse Road 59.89 62.20 62.31 2.42 0.11 No
Chambers Avenue to
McCall Blvd 59.68 62.32 62.45 2.78 0.13 No
Ethanac
Road
Goetz Road to
Wheat Street 63.65 65.29 65.81 2.16 0.52 No
Wheat Street to
Murrieta Road 63.64 65.84 66.83 3.19 0.99 No
Murrieta Road to
Evans Road 64.91 67.29 68.01 3.10 0.72 No
Case Road to I-215
SB Ramps 66.73 69.02 69.54 2.81 0.51 No
I-215 SB Ramps to I215 NB Ramps 65.26 67.71 68.19 2.92 0.47 No I-215 NB Ramps to
Trumble Road 64.10 66.65 67.00 2.91 0.36 No
McLaughlin
Road
Byers Road to
Murrieta Road N/A 45.26 47.29 N/A 2.04 No
Byers Road Ethanac Road to
McLaughlin Road N/A 56.65 55.76 N/A -0.89 No
Wheat
Road
Ethanac Road to
McLaughlin Road N/A N/A 49.90 N/A N/A No
McCall Blvd.

Murrieta Road to
Sun City Blvd.

57.45 58.85 58.95 1.49 0.10 No
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 477
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1323 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-27 4.11 | Noise
Roadway Segment Existing1
Opening
Year
Without
Project1
Opening
Year With
Project1
Combined Effects Incremental Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference In dBA
Between Existing
and Opening
Year With Project
Difference In dBA
Between Opening
Year Without
Project and Opening
Year With Project
Bradley Road to I215 SB Ramps 62.78 63.54 63.57 0.79 0.03 No I-215 SB Ramps to I215 NB Ramps 62.58 63.50 63.54 0.96 0.04 No I-215 NB Ramps to
Encanto Drive 62.62 63.63 63.69 1.07 0.05 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level, N/A = data not available; SB = Southbound; NB = Northbound

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Acoustical Assessment. Page 33 - Table 13.

Table 4.11-13 showsthe increase for combined effects and incremental effects and none of the segments meet the criteria for cumulative noise increase. The Project would not result in long-term mobile noise impacts based on Project-generated traffic as well as cumulative and incremental noise levels. Therefore, the Project, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. The Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative Stationary Noise
The stationary noise sources of the Project would not result in an incremental increase in nontransportation noise sources in the Project vicinity. Furthermore, as discussed under operations, the operational noise generated by the Project would be less than significant and would not result in cumulatively considerable impact. Existing daytime ambient noise levels are less than the noise limits established in the City’s municipal code and the increase in over ambient conditions is less than 5 dBA (refer to Table 4.11-10). Similar to the Project, other planned and approved projects that exceed the City’s noise thresholds would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Asstationary noise sources are generally localized, there is a limited potential of other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact, and even if there was such a significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative operational noises.

Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 478
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1324 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.11-28 4.11 | Noise

4.11.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with noise would occur.

4.11.8 References
City of Menifee. (2023). Development Code Section 9.210.070 Vibrations. Available at:
https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/menifee-ca/docviewer.aspx?secid=1550&keywords=noise%27s%2Cnoised%2Cnoises%2Cnoises%27%2Cnoising %2Cnoise#secid-1551 (accessed August 2023).

City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Noise Element. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/901/Noise-Element
City of Menifee. (2023). City of Menifee Municipal Code. Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/menifee/latest/overview Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2024). Acoustical Assessment. (Appendix J) Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 479
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1325 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-1 4.12 | Public Services

4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES

4.12.1 Introduction
This section evaluates potential CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project) impacts on public services by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating its relationship to existing and planned public services, facilities, and availability to serve the City of Menifee (City) population. For abbreviation purposes, the general term “public services” in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes the following: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other services. This section identifies potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project, which includes construction and operation of the warehouse.

In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the emphasis in this Draft EIR is on impacts to public services that could result from implementation of the Project and that could require construction or expansion of existing public service facilities resulting in a physical impact on the environment. The environmental setting discussion is based largely on review of relevant documents and information including the following:
• City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP)
• City of Menifee website

4.12.2 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE for fire services (“Menifee Fire Department”), providing a full range of fire protection services. The fire department responds to fires; rescues; traffic accidents; medical emergencies; and requests for general public assistance.1There are four fire stations in the City. Station 68 is located at 26020 Wickerd Road, approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the Project site, and Station 76 is located at 29950 Menifee Road, approximately four miles southeast of the Project site. Station 5 is located at 28971 Goetz Road in Menifee. Also nearby is Station 7 located at 28349 Bradley Road, Sun City, CA 92586, and Station 54 located at 25730 Sultans Road, Homeland, CA 92548. Station 7 is approximately 2.7 miles southeast of the Project site and Station 54 is approximately five miles east of the Project site.

Police Protection
Police protection services would be provided by the Menifee Police Department (MPD). The MPD is comprised of the Operations Division (Patrol, SWAT, Traffic, and K9 Unit) and Investigations and Support Services (Investigations Unit, Problem-Oriented Policing Team, Crime-Scene Investigators, Code Enforcement, and Records Bureau).2The MPD station is located at 29714 Haun Road Unit-A, Menifee, CA 92586, approximately four miles southeast of the Project site. 1 City of Menifee. (2022). Fire Department. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/103/Fire-Department (accessed August 2023). 2 City of Menifee. (2022). Menifee Police Department. Available at https://menifeepolice.org/ (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 480
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1326 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-2 4.12 | Public Services
Schools
The Project site is within the boundaries of the Romoland School District3and the Perris Union High School District.4Schools closest to the Project site include Hans Middle School located at 27625 Sherman Road, Menifee, CA 92585, approximately 2.5 miles southeast; Romoland Elementary School located at 25890 Antelope Road, Romoland, CA 92585, approximately 2.6 miles east; and Ridgemoor Elementary School located at 25455 Ridgemoor Road, Sun City, CA 92586, approximately 2.8 miles south of the Project site.

Parks and Recreation
The City currently has 15 City-owned parks and 22 Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District-owned parks within the City for public use.
5 The closest parks to the Project site are Monument Ranch Park located at 163 Monument Parkway, Perris, CA 92570, approximately 0.5 mile west; and Goetz Park located at 3020 Goetz Road, Perris, CA 92570, approximately 0.6 mile north of the Project site.

Other Public Facilities
Other public facilities present in the City include the Lazy Creek Recreation Center (26480 Lazy Creek Road, Menifee, CA 92586), located approximately 3.6 miles south, Kay Ceniceros Senior Center (29995 Evans Road, Sun City, CA 92586), located approximately 3.8 miles south, and Sun City Library (26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard, Sun City, CA 92586), located approximately 2.5 miles southeast. 6 4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) establishes minimum requirements for fire prevention and fire protection systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. This is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings, facilities, storage, and processes. The IFC includes general and specialized technical fire and life safety regulations addressing fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, use and storage of hazardous materials, protection of emergency responders, industrial processes, and many other topics. The IFC is issued by the International Code Council, an international organization of building officials.
3 Romoland School District. 2017. 2016-2017 Elementary School Boundaries. Available at:
https://www.romoland.net/cms/lib/CA01902709/Centricity/domain/19/documents/BoundaryMap_4-11-2017.pdf (accessed August 2023). 4 Perris Union High School District. (2023). School Boundaries Map. Available at: https://www.puhsd.org/Content2/school-boundaries-andtransfers (accessed August 2023). 5 City of Menifee. (2023). Parks. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/285/Parks (accessed August 2023). 6 City of Menifee. (2022). Public Facilities Map. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/12095/Menifee-PublicFacilities-Map (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 481
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1327 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-3 4.12 | Public Services
State
California Senate Bill 50 and California Government Code (Section 65995(b)) and Education Code (Section 17620)
California Senate Bill (SB) 50 places limitations on the power of local governments to require mitigation of school facilities by developers. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts can collect fees to offset the cost of expanding school capacity, which becomes necessary as development occurs. These fees are determined based on the square footage of proposed uses. As a part of SB 50, school districts must base their long-term facilities needs and costs on long-term population growth in order to qualify for this source of funding. Payment of statutory school fees is deemed to be adequate mitigation of school impacts under CEQA. Prior to SB 50, case law allowed cities to consider and impose conditions to mitigate impacts of new development on school facilities.

SB 50 amended California Government Code (CGC) § 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code § 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. CGC § 65995(b)(3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments. Currently, the maximum impact fees allowed by SB 50 are as follows:
• In the case of residential construction, one dollar and ninety-three cents ($1.93) per square foot of assessable space.
• In the case of any commercial or industrial construction, thirty-one cents ($0.31) per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space. (CGC §65995, subd. (b)).

According to CGC § 65995(3)(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the CGC.

California State Assembly Bill 2926: Facilities Act of 1986 To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development, Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 was enacted in 1986 and authorizes a levy of impact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The bill was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added §§ 66000 et seq. to the CGC. Under this statute, payment of school impact fees by developers serves as CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities.

Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code (Sections 66000 through 66008)) Enacted as AB 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency, such as the City of Menifee, establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied. This Act became enforceable on January 1, 1989.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 482
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1328 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-4 4.12 | Public Services
California State Assembly Bill 97
Approved in July 2013, AB 97 revises existing regulations related to financing for public schools, by requiring state funding for county superintendents and charter schools that previously received a generalpurpose entitlement. AB 97 authorizes local educational agencies to spend, for any local educational purpose, the funds previously required to be spent for specified categorical education programs, including, among others, programs for teacher training and class size reduction. 2022 California Building Code
The 2022 State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Industrial buildings are plan checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all industrial buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
2022 California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9) sets forth requirements including those for building materials and methods pertaining to fire safety and life safety, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to building, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. The Fire Code also is intended to aid firefighters and other emergency responders during their operations. The 2022 CFC has been enforced as of January 1, 2023. Project applications submitted after January 1, 2023, are subject to adherence with the 2022 CFC.

Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the MAA, local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 483
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1329 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-5 4.12 | Public Services
Local
City of Menifee General Plan
Safety Element
According to the City’s Safety Element, it provides a strategy for City staff, residents, developers, and business owners to effectively address natural and man-made hazards in the City, including seismic and geological issues; flood hazards; fire hazards; hazardous materials; wind hazards; and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.
7 Goals and policies from the Safety Element applicable to the Project include:

Goal S-4: A community that has effective fire mitigation and response measures in place, and as a result is minimally impacted by wildland and structure fires.

Policy S-4.1 Require fire-resistant building construction materials, the use of vegetation control methods, and other construction and fire prevention features to reduce the hazard of wildland fire.

Policy S-4.4 Review development proposals for impacts to fire facilities and compatibility with fire areas or mitigate.

Community Design Element
The City’s 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 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 in the City and is intended to stimulate design creativity in the City.8
A goal and policy from the Community Design Element applicable to the Project includes:

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-3.9 Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.

4.12.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, includes questions pertaining to public services. The issues presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as thresholds of significance in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant adverse environmental impact if it:
7 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Safety Element. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/893/Safety-Element (accessed August 2023).
8 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Community Design Element. Available 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: 484
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1330 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-6 4.12 | Public Services
• Would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
▪ Fire protection?
▪ Police protection?
▪ Schools?
▪ Parks?
▪ Other public facilities?
Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning public services. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts associated with public services.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on public services examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project and the surrounding characteristics/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 based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn; review of Project 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 public services standards considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.

4.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.12-1 Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 485
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1331 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-7 4.12 | Public Services
A significant impact would result if development of the Project site would result in a significant increase in demands for fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, or other facilities such that new or physically altered stations, schools, parks, or other facilities or locations from which services are provided would be needed. If the construction or operation of such facilities would cause substantial environmental effects due to the expansion or construction of facilities on new sites needed to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, a potentially significant impact could result.

I) FIRE PROTECTION?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The City is served by the Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE, providing a full range of fire services.

The Project site would be served by Station 7 located at 28349 Bradley Road, Menifee, CA 92586, and Station 54 located at 25730 Sultanas Rd, Homeland, CA. Station 7 is approximately 2.7 miles southeast of the Project site and Station 54 is approximately five miles east of the Project site. Station 7 is equipped with one three-person fire engine and one two-person medic squad; Station 7 has an approximate five minute response time to the Project area and receives approximately 7,193 calls per year.9Station 54 is equipped with one three-person fire engine. Station 54 receives approximately 1,900 calls/year.

The Menifee Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) currently reviews all new development plans, and future development is required to conform to all fire protection and prevention requirements, including, but not limited to, building setbacks, emergency access, and fire flow. The Project applicant must be able to demonstrate sufficient fire flow. The Project would be required to comply with the most current provisions of the Fire Fee Schedule,10 which requires a fee payment that the City applies to the funding of fire protection facilities. Mandatory compliance with the Fire Fee Schedule and plan review would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition, property tax revenues generated from development of the site would also provide funding to offset potential increases in the demand for fire protection at Project build-out. The Project would comply with the Riverside County Fire Department Technical Policies and Standards, California Fire Code (CFC), and CBC, including Project features that aid in fire safety and support fire suppression activities, such as fire sprinklers, paved access, and required aisle widths.

Additionally, the Project would be designed in accordance with Menifee MC’s fire safety and fire suppression features, including type of building construction, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, and paved access. The proposed building would be of concrete tilt-up construction that contains a low fire hazard risk rating. Fire protection apparatus ingress and egress would be available via four driveways and the Project site’s internal circulation (a 26-foot-wide fire lane with red curbs and signage per fire department standards) would allow fire apparatus access around the building. There are currently no fire hydrants present on adjacent Project roadways. Fire hydrants shall be located no closer than 40 feet from a building. A fire hydrant shall be located within 200 feet of the fire department connection for buildings 9 Rivera-Bu, Sonya. (2023). Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE. May 31, 2023. Public Services and Utilities Questionnaire (Fire Service). 10 Menifee Fire Department. (2023). Fire Fee Schedule. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16893/2023-FIREFEE-SCHEDULE?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 486
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1332 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-8 4.12 | Public Services
protected with a fire sprinkler system. In addition, a fire alarm system is proposed to be installed, as well as ESFR (Early Suppression, Fast Response) ceiling-mounted fire sprinklers. ESFR systems are located in ceiling spaces as with conventional fire sprinkler systems, but they incorporate large, high volume, high-pressure heads to provide the necessary fire protection for warehouse buildings that may contain high-piled storage. While most other sprinklers are intended to control the growth of a fire, an ESFR sprinkler system is designed to suppress a fire. To suppress a fire does not necessarily mean it would extinguish the fire but rather it is meant to "knock" the fire back down to its source.

The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable fire protection and prevention requirements and pay DIF’s ($0.32 per square foot) toward the construction of new fire facilities. CAL FIRE, Station 7 and 54, which would service the Project site, do not currently meet the Menifee GP’s four minute11 adequate response time goal. Station 7 is the busiest fire station with no ability to expand or add additional resources. 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 facilities. Because the Project site is not residential, although some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for fire and emergency services would not be significantly impacted due to construction and operation of the Project warehouse. Additionally, development of the site would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of funding to offset any increases in demands for public services generated by the Project. Lastly, the Project would be consistent with planned industrial uses per the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway. When it is determined that a new fire station would be required, the City would determine if that Project would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CAL FIRE has indicated that an additional fire station located in the northeast quadrant of the City would be an ideal location for a future fire station. No such plans exist for the construction of the station at this time.

Through payment of DIF and implementation of state and local regulation including but not limited to the Menifee MC fire safety/suppression design standards, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
11 Determined by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2020) Standard 1710, Standard for the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations to the public by career fire departments, Sections 4.1.2.1 (4) & (7).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 487
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1333 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-9 4.12 | Public Services
II) POLICE PROTECTION?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Police protection services for the City and Project site would be provided by the MPD. MPD is a new department, authorized by the City Council, to be created in late 2018 and officially opened to serve the public on July 1st, 2020. The MPD operates out of its headquarters at 29714 Haun Road, which is approximately four miles southeast of the Project site. As with fire protection services discussed above, the Project site is already within the service area of the MPD. The MPD is authorized to serve the City with 118 full-time employees of which 91 are sworn officers and 27 are not sworn (professional staff members).12 According to the Department of Finance, the City’s population (in January 1, 2023) was 110,034.
13 This represents a service ratio of 0.83 sworn officers per 1,000 population.

MPD is comprised of two divisions: Operations and Investigations & Support Services. Within these divisions numerous units are used to serve the public. These include SWAT (in partnership with the cities of Murrieta and Hemet), K-9, Traffic, Patrol, Crime Scene Investigators, Code Enforcement, Records, Investigations Unit, Problem Oriented Policing, and Court Ordered Registrants. The Patrol unit is the largest unit within the department and calls for routine and emergency service are typically handled by this unit. Between 2021-2022 there were a total of 50,342 calls for service. The average response time for Priority 1 calls was 9:08 minutes. The targeted numbers for 2022-2023 are 55,000 total calls and a response time to Priority One calls of 7:00 minutes. MPD’s goal response time for Priority 1 calls is 7:00 minutes. This goal can be achieved through such measures as a False Alarm Ordinance.14 The MPD would be provided the opportunity to review the Project’s design to verify that all feasible CPTED strategies are incorporated, consistent with Menifee GP Policy CD-3.9. CPTED is a way of designing the built environment to create a safer built environment. CPTED elements include the strategic use of nighttime security lighting, avoidance of landscaping and fencing that limit sightlines, and use of a single, clearly identifiable point of entry. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Project developer would be required to pay a $0.17 per square foot in DIF to expand law enforcement facilities.15 Funding for the operation and maintenance of existing services comes from the City’s General Fund, Measure DD funds, as well as County Service Area 86 monies. The Project does not contain residential uses and it is not anticipated that the Project would increase the number of residents in the City. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project site would be adequately served by existing MPD facilities, equipment, and personnel such that new facilities would not be required. Although some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for police services would not be significantly impacted due to construction and operation of the Project warehouse. Additionally, development of the site would 12 Gutierrez, David. MPD. March 24, 2022. Personal communication (email). 13 State of California – Department of Finance. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023.

Available at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-thestate-2020-2023/ (accessed August 2023). 14 Gutierrez, David. MPD. November 1, 2022. Personal communication (email). 15 City of Menifee. (2023). City of Menifee Memorandum. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/18413/DevelopmentFee-Memo---July-1-2023-to-June-30-2024 (accessed October 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 488
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1334 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-10 4.12 | Public Services
increase property tax revenues to provide a source of funding to offset any increases in the anticipated demands for public services generated by the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

III) SCHOOLS?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The Project site is within the boundaries of the Romoland School District and the Perris Union High School District. Schools closest to the Project site include Hans Middle School, Romoland Elementary School, and Ridgemoor Elementary School.

The Project, however, would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate any school-aged children requiring public education. The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the districts and therefore, would not indirectly generate school-aged students requiring public education. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a direct demand for additional public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute DIF to the Romoland School District and the Perris Union High School District in compliance with California SB 50 (Greene), which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs.

Payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits and the payment of school fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA.

Developer fees for industrial development located within the Romoland School District is $0.56 per square foot.16
Developer fees for industrial development located in the Perris Union High School District (within the City) is $0.2184 per square foot.17
Overall, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Because no school facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with existing school structures or require modification of school facilities. Compliance with applicable local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to school services.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
16 Romoland School District. (2022). Developer Fees General Information. Available at: https://www.romoland.net/Page/2593 (accessed March 2024). 17 Perris Union Highschool District. (2023). Developer School Fees. Available at: https://www.puhsd.org/developer-school-fees (March 2024).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 489
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1335 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-11 4.12 | Public Services
IV) PARKS?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
The closest parks to the Project site are Monument Ranch Park and Goetz Park. The Project, however, would not create a direct demand for park facilities, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate population growth requiring park facilities. The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the area and therefore, would not indirectly generate population growth requiring park facilities. Since the Project would not directly generate population growth and is not expected to indirectly introduce parkgoers to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter park facilities.

Overall, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Because no park facilities exist on the Project site, the Project would not conflict with existing park structures or require modification of park facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to park facilities.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

V) OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Other public facilities located in the greater Project area include the Lazy Creek Recreation Center, Kay Ceniceros Senior Center, and Sun City Library.

The Project, however, would not create a direct demand for other public facilities, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate population growth requiring other public facilities. The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the area and therefore, would not indirectly generate population growth requiring other public facilities. Because the Project would not directly generate population growth and is not expected to indirectly introduce new population to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter other public facilities.

Overall, Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered other public facilities, need for new or physically altered other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Because no public facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with existing public structures or require modification of public facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to other public facilities.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 490
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1336 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-12 4.12 | Public Services
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.12.6 Cumulative Impacts
The Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the need for public services in the City. The Project would not result in an overall net increase in City population. Anticipated increase demands for public services within the City was accounted for in the GP and analyzed in the GP Final EIR, which accounts for cumulative growth in the City. In addition, related to all public services, the Project would pay the required development fees that would be appropriately allocated for police, fire, schools, and other public facilities.

Similar to the Project, other cumulative projects would be required to demonstrate their level of impact on public services including paying the appropriate development fees; therefore, the past, present, and future projects would not result in a cumulative impact related to the provision of public services.

4.12.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.

4.12.8 References
City of Menifee. (2023). City of Menifee Memorandum. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/18413/Development-Fee-Memo---July-1- 2023-to-June-30-2024 (accessed October 2023).

City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Safety Element. Available at: (accessed August 2023).

City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Community Design Element. Available at https://www.cityofmenifee.us/882/Community-Design-Element (accessed August 2023).

City of Menifee. (2022). Fire Department. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/103/FireDepartment.

City of Menifee. (2022). Fire Stations. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/567/Fire-Stations.

City of Menifee. (2022). Menifee Police Department. Available at https://menifeepolice.org/.

City of Menifee. (2023). Parks. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/285/Parks.

City of Menifee. (2022). Public Facilities Map. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/12095/Menifee-Public-Facilities-Map.

State of California – Department of Finance. (2023). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023. Available at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimatesfor-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.

Gerfen, Arrow. PUHSD. March 8, 2021. Personal communication (email).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 491
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1337 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.12-13 4.12 | Public Services
Gutierrez, David. MPD. March 24, 2022. Personal communication (email).

Menifee Fire Department. (2023). Fire Fee Schedule. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16893/2023-FIRE-FEE-SCHEDULE?bidId=.

Menifee Police Department. (2022). Available at https://menifeepolice.org/.

Owen, Karen. Romoland School District. March 8, 2021. Personal communication (email).

Perris Union High School District. (2023). School Boundaries Map. Available at:
https://www.puhsd.org/Content2/school-boundaries-and-transfers (accessed August 2023).

Reinertson, Adrian. Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE. April 14, 2022. Personal communication (email).

Rivera-Bu, Sonya. (2023). Riverside County Fire Department/CAL FIRE. May 31, 2023. Public Services and Utilities Questionnaire (Fire Service).

Romoland School District. 2017. 2016-2017 Elementary School Boundaries. Available at:
https://www.romoland.net/cms/lib/CA01902709/Centricity/domain/19/documents/Boundary Map_4-11-2017.pdf (accessed August 2023).

City of Menifee. (2022). Menifee Police Department. Available at https://menifeepolice.org/ (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 492
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1338 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-1 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic

4.13 TRANSPORTATION

4.13.1 Introduction
This section addresses transportation impacts related to the construction and operation of the CADO Warehouse Project (Project), within the City of Menifee (City), including the existing transportation system, significance criteria for transportation impacts, and potential Project impacts resulting from Project implementation. Information presented in this section was obtained from the City of Menifee’s General Plan (Menifee GP) and the following technical reports:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Traffic Study. Appendix K1 • Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). SB 743 VMT Analysis. Appendix K2

4.13.2 Environmental Setting
Existing Transportation System
Existing Roadway Network
Regional vehicular access to the Project site is provided via Interstate 215 (I-215), located approximately one half-mile east of the Project site and State Route 74 (SR-74), located approximately one mile north of the Project site. I-215 is a north-south trending freeway, providing three travel lanes in each direction separated by a wide median with median barrier. SR-74 is a four-lane regional roadway providing access to I-215.

Local access to the Project site is provided primarily via Ethanac Road. Direct vehicular access provisions for both passenger vehicles and trucks for the Project site would consist of two full-movement driveways on Byers Road and two full-movement driveways on Wheat Street. The following provides a description of the roadways surrounding the Project site.

Case Road is an east-west undivided roadway with one lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph), and on-street parking is prohibited on both sides.

Goetz Road is a north-south divided roadway with two lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit is 50 mph, and on-street parking is prohibited on both sides. In the Menifee GP, Goetz Road is designated as an Arterial.

Murrieta Road is a north-south undivided roadway with one lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. In the Menifee GP, Murrieta Road is designated as a Secondary roadway.

Ethanac Road is an east-west divided roadway with two lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit is 50 mph, and on-street parking is prohibited on both sides. In the Menifee GP, Ethanac Road is designated as an Expressway.

McLaughlin Road is an east-west undivided roadway with one lane in each direction. On-street parking is permitted on south side of the road. In the Menifee GP, McLaughlin Road is designated as a Secondary Arterial and the speed limit is 45 mph.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 493
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1339 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-2 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
McCall Boulevard is an east-west divided roadway that provides two lanes in each direction within the Project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and on-street parking is permitted on both sides. McCall Boulevard is designated as a Major roadway west of the I-215 freeway and an Urban Arterial east of the I-215 freeway in the Menifee GP.

Byers Road is a north-south unpaved roadway with one lane in each direction. In the Menifee GP, Byers Road is designated as a Collector. Byers Road would provide direct access to the Project site.

Wheat Street is a north-south unpaved roadway with one lane in each direction. Wheat Street would provide direct access to the Project site.

Existing Transit Service
Transit service to the City is provided by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), which serves the City of Riverside and surrounding cities. Currently there is no bus stop located near the Project site. The closest RTA bus stop to the Project site is located on the north side of the Case Road and Ethanac Road intersection.

Descriptions of the bus route serving the Project are provided below. • RTA Route 61 operates in the City, traveling along Murrieta Road and McCall Boulevard in the project vicinity. Route 61 operates on weekdays from approximately 4:40 AM to 8:15 PM with approximately 1-hour headways and weekends from approximately 6:50 AM to 7:30 PM with 1- hour headways.
• RTA Route 74 operates in the City, traveling along Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road in the project vicinity. Route 74 operates on weekdays from approximately 5:30 AM to 8:00 PM with approximately 1-hour headways and weekends from approximately 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM with 1- hour headways.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
There are no existing pedestrian or bike facilities along Project area roadways. Similarly, the Menifee Active Transportation Plan (ATP) adopted in 2020 does not designate any of the surrounding roadways as Class I or Class II Bike Routes.
1 According to Menifee GP Exhibit C-4: Proposed Bikeway and Community Pedestrian Network, the following designations are proposed for Project area roadways:2 • Byers Road - Class III Bike Route
• McLaughlin Road - Community On-Street Bike Lanes (Class II)

4.13.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal rules and regulations govern many facets of the City’s transportation system, including transportation planning and programming; funding; and design, construction, and operation of facilities.

The City complies with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Highway Administration, the 1 City of Menifee. (2020). Active Transportation Plan. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/687/Menifee-Active-Transportation-Plan (accessed July 2023).
2 City of Menifee. (2013). Exhibit C-4: Proposed Bikeway and Community Pedestrian Network. Retrieved from:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1021/C-4-Bikeways_HD0913?bidId= (accessed July 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 494
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1340 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-3 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Urban Mass Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other Federal agencies. In addition, the City coordinates with Federal resource agencies where appropriate in the environmental clearance process for transportation facilities.

Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the rest of society to become employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services. The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.

Surface Transportation Assistance Act Routes
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 allows large trucks, referred to as STAA trucks that comply with maximum length and width requirements, to operate on routes that are part of the National Network. The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways that were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991; states are encouraged, however, to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways.

State
Assembly Bill 1358 – Complete Streets
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. Beginning January 1, 2011, Assembly Bill (AB) 1358 required General Plan circulation elements to address the transportation system from a multi-modal perspective. The Complete Streets Act also requires circulation elements to consider the multiple users of the transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) was signed into law in September 2006 after considerable study and expert testimony before the legislature. The law instructs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verifying of statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Act directed CARB to set a GHG emission limit based on 1990 levels to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner (AB 32). In December 2008, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. AB 32 was followed by Senate Bill (SB) 32 in 2016, which expanded this goal for statewide GHG emissions to be 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32).

The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms (e.g., cap-and-trade system), and an AB 32 program implementation regulation to fund the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 495
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1341 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-4 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
program. CARB recognizes cities as “essential partners” in reducing GHG emissions. As such, CARB has developed a Local Government Toolkit with guidance for GHG reduction strategies, such as improving transit, developing bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, and increasing city fleet vehicle efficiency, among other strategies.

Adopted December 15, 2022, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen.

The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world.

Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.

The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place.

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects. CARB specifically states that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). However, CARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.

Senate Bill 375 – Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or SB 375, provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs closer together and to improve public transit. The goal is to reduce the number and length of automobile commuting trips, which will help to meet the statewide targets for reducing GHG emissions set by AB 32.

SB 375 requires each Metropolitan Planning Organization to add a broader vision for growth, called a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), to its transportation plan. The SCS must lay out a plan to meet Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 496
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1342 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-5 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
the region’s transportation, housing, economic, and environmental needs in a way that enables the area to lower GHG emissions. The SCS should integrate transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan for achieving the emissions target for their region. The latest Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also referred to as the Connect SoCal, was adopted in 2020.

Senate Bill 743 – Amending CEQA with Respect to Evaluating Transportation Impacts On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law. A key element of this law is, for CEQA purposes, the potential elimination or deemphasizing of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts.

According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions.

As noted, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network performance to be viewed through a filter that promotes the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and the diversification of land uses. Some alternative metrics were identified in the law, including VMT or automobile trip generation rates. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing network monitoring, but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for determining CEQA impacts once SB 743 is ratified into CEQA Guidelines.

In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA Guidelines, which included SB 743. Section 15064.3 of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines provides that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's VMT.

Automobile delay will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA. Automobile delay can, however, still be used by agencies to determine local operational impacts. The provisions of this section became mandatory July 1, 2020.

Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) in December 2018. The Technical Advisory aids in the transition from LOS to VMT methodology for transportation impact analysis under CEQA. The advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures.

California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) owns and operates the State Highway System (SHS), which includes the freeways and State routes within California. In the City, Caltrans maintains I-215 and SR-74. The Caltrans Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TSIG; May 20, 2020) provides guidance on the evaluation of transportation impacts on the SHS. The TSIG states the following: “Caltrans seeks to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, provide a safe transportation system, reduce the capita VMT, increase accessibility to destinations via cycling, walking, Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 497
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1343 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-6 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
carpooling, and transit, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Those goals along with standard CEQA practice create the foundation of Caltrans review of proposed new land use projects.” Regional
County of Riverside Congestion Management Program
The passage of Proposition 111 in June 1990 established a process for each metropolitan county in California that has an urbanized area with a population over 50,000 (which would include the County of Riverside) to prepare a Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP that was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 in consultation with the county and cities in Riverside County is an effort to more directly align land use, transportation, and air quality management efforts, and to promote reasonable growth management programs that effectively use statewide transportation funds while ensuring that new development pays its fair share of needed transportation improvements.

Additionally, the passage of Proposition 111 provided additional transportation funding through a $0.09 per gallon increase in the state gas tax.

The focus of the CMP is the development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by the RCTC to evaluate the condition of the Congestion Management System, as well as meeting other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. Per the CMP-adopted LOS standard of E, when a Congestion Management System segment falls to LOS F, a deficiency plan is required. Preparation of a deficiency plan would be the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency would also be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule of mitigating the deficiency. To ensure that the Congestion Management System is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the Congestion Management System.

Local
City of Menifee General Plan
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element provides overall guidance for the City's responsibility to satisfy the local and subregional circulation needs of its residents, visitors, and businesses while maintaining the City's quality of life. In addition, it coordinates the circulation system with future land use patterns and levels of buildout and addresses access and connectivity among the various neighborhoods and economic development districts.3
3 City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/863/Circulation-Element (accessed August 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 498
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1344 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-7 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Goals and policies from the Circulation Element applicable to the Project include:

Goal C-1 A roadway network that meets the circulation needs of all residents, employees, and visitors to the City of Menifee.

Policy C-1.1: Require roadways to:
▪ Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. ▪ Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. ▪ Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. ▪ Be maintained in accordance with best practices.

Policy C-1.2 Require development to mitigate its traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour LOS D or better at intersections, except at constrained intersections at close proximity to the I-215 where LOS E may be permitted.

Policy C-1.5 Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Goal C-2 A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized travel throughout the City of Menifee.

Policy C-2.1 Require on- and off-street pathways to:
▪ Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. ▪ Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. ▪ Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. ▪ Be maintained in accordance with best practices.

Policy C-2.2 Provide off-street multipurpose trails and on-street bike lanes as our primary paths of citywide travel, and explore the shared use of low-speed roadways for connectivity wherever it is safe to do so.

Policy C-2.3 Require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, transit facilities, and other key destination points.

Active Transportation Plan
The City has adopted an ATP to meet the City’s goals and vision for providing a transportation system that supports walking, cycling, public transit and automobiles. The ATP was developed through a robust public engagement process that included a series of workshops, outreach “pop-up” events and online engagement that provided multiple opportunities for residents to participate and provide input into the ATP.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 499
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1345 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-8 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic

4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for transportation impacts 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:
• Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); • Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment?); or • Result in inadequate emergency access.

Methodology and Standards
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning transportation resources. 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 Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b), Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, provides the following guidance on how VMT from various types of projects can be evaluated:
b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.

1. Land Use Projects. VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.

2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in § 15152.

3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze a Project’s VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 500
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1346 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-9 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic

4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate VMT and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in § 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The analysis for VMT for the Project was completed in February 2023 by Kimley-Horn and Associates and is included as Appendix K2 of this EIR. The analysis below utilizes the VMT significance criteria to determine the Project’s potential impacts related to VMT and if mitigation is needed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

VMT Analysis Methodology
The analysis methodology for the Project-generated VMT and Project effect of VMT were developed consistent with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT (January 2022).

VMT Screening
A VMT screening was conducted for the proposed project. Based on the City’s VMT screening criteria, the proposed project would not screen out of a VMT analysis.

VMT Thresholds
The analysis methodology for the Project generated VMT and Project effect of VMT were developed consistent with the City VMT guidelines.

A project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population, or

2. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population.

VMT Analysis Scenarios
The Project’s VMT analysis was completed using the current version of Riverside County’s Transportation Model, RIVCOM (referred to as the “RIVCOM Model”). The model is trip-based and considered interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, households, and employment. Adjustments in socio-economic data (employment) were made to the appropriate Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in the RIVCOM Model to reflect the project’s proposed land uses.

In order to evaluate the Project’s VMT, the land use was first turned into a RIVCOM compatible dataset.

This dataset relied on land use assumptions developed as part of the Project and the trip generation estimates for the Project.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 501
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1347 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-10 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
The resultant land use data was coded into the RIVCOM Model for analysis. For VMT analysis purposes, this represented the following broad land use category:
• Employee-Based VMT (land uses where the principal source of VMT relates to worker commutes) Since the Project is employment based, the applicable “Employee-Based VMT” threshold of significance was utilized to determine the Project’s VMT impacts.

The current version of the RIVCOM Model maintains a base year condition of 2018 which, for the purposes of analysis, is considered to be representative of existing conditions since the closest baseline year of the RIVCOM model for existing conditions is 2018. Since the Project VMT per employee for Cumulative model run (2045) is lower than the baseline, interpolating to 2022 will result in lower VMT/employee value. As such, VMT per employee based on RIVCOM model baseline year of 2018 is more conservative. The planning horizon for the RIVCOM Model is 2045. VMT analysis was conducted for existing and cumulative scenarios and results were compared to the existing conditions.

The analysis included the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions – based on 2018 RIVCOM Model conditions. • Existing Plus Project Conditions – Based on 2018 RIVCOM Model with the proposed Project land use.
• Cumulative No Project Conditions – Based on 2045 RIVCOM Model conditions without the proposed Project land use.
• Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Based on 2045 RIVCOM Model conditions with the proposed Project land use.

Level of Service Analysis Methodology
In compliance with the City of Menifee Traffic Study Guidelines, a TIA was conducted for the Project which includes an LOS analysis. However, this additional information is provided for informational purposes only, as additional delay – to an intersection or roadway segment – is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA. Details of the TIA LOS analysis are summarized below.

Per the City of Menifee Traffic Study Guidelines, the Traffic Analysis used methodology from the most-recent Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6 th Edition) to analyze
peak hour intersection operations for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing Plus Project
• Opening Year 2024 Cumulative
• Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
Per the HCM Methodology, LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average vehicle delay.

Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle during the peak hours.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 502
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1348 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-11 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
The average control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, and final acceleration time in addition to the stop delay.

The procedure for unsignalized intersection analysis determines the average total delay, expressed in seconds of delay per vehicle, for left turns from the major street and from the stop controlled minor street traffic stream. Delay values are calculated based on the relationship between traffic on the major street and the availability of acceptable “gaps” in this stream through which conflicting traffic movements can be made.

Per the HCM, LOS rankings at intersections use a letter-grade scale ranging from LOS A (optimal conditions) to LOS F (congested or overcrowded conditions) based on average control delay in seconds per vehicle, or how long a vehicle typically waits before proceeding through the intersection. This delay is compared with free-flow conditions, and includes slowing before an intersection, waiting in queues, and stopping at the intersection. The Traffic Analysis used Vistro traffic modeling software to evaluate LOS at both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Level of Service Standards and Measure of Significance
The City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020) establishes minimum LOS standards, which has identified LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions for intersections, except at constrained locations in close proximity to I-215, where LOS E is accepted during peak hours.

Study intersections and roadway segments are considered to have a project-related effect when any of the following occurs between the “without project” and the “plus project” conditions:
• If the pre-project condition at an intersection or roadway segment is at or better than the minimum acceptable LOS (LOS D, or LOS E, at constrained locations near I-215) and the addition of project trips results in an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or LOS F). • If the pre-project condition is LOS E or F and the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips to the intersection or roadway segment. This type of effect would be considered a cumulative effect in which the project would be required to contribute a fair share payment toward reducing the effect.

Per the City’s LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, Project-related effects are identified as direct or cumulative in the Project’s traffic study report. Only feasible improvements were recommended in the traffic study report. Analysis of the recommended improvements are be provided to demonstrate the proposed improvement would reduce the Project effect to meet LOS standards.

4.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.13-1: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Level of Significance: Less than Significant
The Project would be consistent with SB 375 by complying with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The Project’s consistency analysis with SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals is further discussed in Table 4.10-3, Project Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 503
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1349 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-12 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Compatibility with SCAG Connect SoCal Strategies within Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning of this EIR. The Project would also be consistent with Riverside County’s CMP goals which include, but are not limited to, adhering to the CMP by maintaining and enhancing the performance of the multimodal transportation system near the Project site and minimizing travel delay (refer to the LOS analysis in the Project’s Traffic Study [Appendix K1] evaluating the effectiveness of recommendation measures.

The Project would also comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by being consistent with the Menifee GP Circulation Element. Per the Complete Streets Act of 2008, General Plans are required to accommodate a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways in manners that are suitable to applicable rural, suburban, or urban contexts. More specifically, the Project’s circulation system would be designed and constructed in conformance with relevant goals and policies in the Menifee GP Circulation Element that pertain to the Project’s circulation system. For example, the Project would be consistent with Menifee GP Policy C-1.5, which would require the Project to minimize idling times and vehicles miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions. For further details, see Table 4.10-3, Consistency with the City’s General Plan in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning of this EIR.

The Project would include improvements to the existing Byers Road, Wheat Street, and Kuffel Road.

Internal circulation improvements would include on-site perimeter circulation in compliance with all applicable City of Menifee Municipal Code (Menifee MC) development standards. Furthermore, the Project would include off-site improvements for Opening Year 2024 and Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions through a combination of fee payments to help establish programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of fair-share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches. The Project’s fair share proportion at deficient study intersections are furthered addressed in the LOS analysis provided in the Project’s Traffic Study.

Furthermore, the Project’s development could result in an increased demand of public transportation as employment opportunities increase. RTA, as the public transit agency for the area, would be responsible for routinely reviewing and adjusting their ridership schedules and service destinations to accommodate public demand. Thus, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local public transit services.

Overall, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the Project’s circulation system. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.13-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
As discussed in Section 4.13.4 above, per the City’s VMT Guidelines a project would result in a significant Project-generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are met:

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 504
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1350 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-13 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic

1. The baseline project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population; or

2. The cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population.

Project VMT Analysis4
As described in the City’s VMT Guidelines, VMT significance thresholds are based on land use type, broadly categorized as efficiency metrics. Efficiency metrics include VMT/Capita (Residential) and Work VMT/employee (Employee-Based VMT). Since the Project is employment based, the applicable “Employment-Based VMT” threshold of significance was utilized to determine the Project’s VMT impacts.

The calculation of VMT efficiency metrics has two components – the total number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle. As the proposed Project has only non-residential trips, trip attractions were used from all home-based-work trip purpose matrices. Using the peak and off-peak person trip matrices, skim (distances) matrices and appropriate occupancy rates, VMT was calculated for the Project’s TAZs. Table 4.13-1, Project VMT Impact Evaluation – Efficiency Metrics,shows the efficiency metric results for the analysis scenarios.

Table 4.13-1: Project VMT Impact Evaluation – Efficiency Metrics Analysis Scenario Employment-Based

VMT/EMP
VMT Impact
Riverside County Average(1) 28.94
Existing Plus Project
Project Home Based Work (HBW) VMT/Employee 22.3 No
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Project HBW VMT/Employee 19.4 No
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). SB 743 VMT Analysis. Pg. 4 – Exhibit 1 (1) Value consistent with the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT per service population threshold noted in the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicles Miles Traveled (January 2022).

Based on the results in Table 4.13-1 and the City’s VMT guidelines, the following initial unmitigated results are determined:
• The proposed Project’s Employment-Based VMT land use does not exceed the county threshold under any Project scenario.

The City’s traffic impact study guidelines also state that the cumulative no project shall reflect SCAG’s adopted Connect SoCal. As such, if a project is consistent with the RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts would generally be considered less than significant. The proposed land use is consistent with the Menifee GP and the Project’s Employment-Based VMT does not exceed the threshold under any Project scenario and as a result are determined to not have a significant transportation impact based on the City’s adopted threshold. A less than significant impact would occur.
4 Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). SB 743 VMT Analysis.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 505
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1351 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-14 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
The City provides Industrial Good Neighbor Policies for new industrial project sites. Although the Project’s VMT impact would be less than significant, the Project would comply with the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require TDM measures for industrial uses with over 100 employees to reduce work-related vehicle trips. Overall, impacts concerning the Project’s VMT effects are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.13-3: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
The Project would not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on-site, such as farm equipment. The Project site would consist of two full-movement, 40-foot driveways on Byers Road and two full-movement, 40-foot driveways on Wheat Street. On-site drive aisles would provide two-way circulation on site. Additionally, the Project would construct the following off-site improvements to Byer Road, Wheat Street, and Kuffel Road. The project would construct the following site adjacent roadway improvements:
• Byers Road: Construction along the Project frontage to its ultimate half width as a 2-Lane Industrial Collector (78-foot right-of-way). Based on conversation with City of Menifee Staff, the intersection of Ethanac Road and Byers Road would be signalized. • Wheat Street: Construction along the Project frontage to its ultimate half width as a 2-Lane Modified Industrial Collector (74-foot right-of-way)."
The anticipated on-site and off-site roadway improvements would be compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses. All on‐site and site‐adjacent improvements would be constructed as approved by the City of Menifee Public Works Department. In accordance with the City’s Development Code § 9.160.050, “Every structure shall be constructed upon or moved to a legally recorded parcel with a permanent means of access to a public street or road, or a private street or road, conforming to city standards. All structures shall be located to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection and required off-street parking.” Additionally, sight distance at Project access points would comply with applicable City of Menifee sight distance standards and no sharp curves are proposed as part of the Project design (Development Code § 9.160.060). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.13-4: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 506
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1352 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-15 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Menifee GP Exhibit S-9: Evacuation Routes identifies the City’s evacuation route network relating to hazard impacts, bridges, and water crossings. Approximately eight miles (12 percent of the City’s network) are evacuation routes and are located within a Fire Hazard Zone. As shown in Exhibit S-9 of the City’s GP, Ethanac Road, Goetz Road, and Murrieta Road are part of the City’s evacuation system.5 Project access is proposed via two full-movement, 40-foot driveways on Byers Road and two fullmovement, 40-foot driveways on Wheat Street. On-site drive aisles would provide two-way circulation on site, connecting to the City’s evacuation system. Emergency access lanes would be provided around the perimeter of both buildings. In accordance with the City’s Development Code § 9.160.050, “Every structure shall be constructed upon or moved to a legally recorded parcel with a permanent means of access to a public street or road, or a private street or road, conforming to city standards. All structures shall be located to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection and required off-street parking.” Metal, manual operated gates with Knox-Padlock would be provided at each driveway per Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. Curbs would be painted, and signage provided to inform of the fire lanes, as required by the RCFD. The RCFD would review the Project for access requirements concerning minimum roadway width, fire apparatus access roads, fire lanes, signage, access devices and gates, and access walkways, among other requirements, which would enhance emergency access to the Project site. Following compliance with RCFD access requirements, adequate emergency access to the Project site would be provided. Project impacts concerning emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

4.13.6 Cumulative Impacts
Transportation-related impacts associated with the Project and nearby cumulative projects may overlap and result in temporary traffic impacts to local roadways. However as concluded above, the Project would not result in significant traffic-related impacts resulting from conflicts with regional and local transportation plans or policies.

Based on the City’s traffic impact study guidelines, if a project is consistent with the regional RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant. The proposed land use is consistent with the Menifee GP; therefore, the proposed Project’s cumulative VMT impact is considered less-thansignificant. The Project effect on VMT was discussed under Impact 4.13-2 for a Cumulative scenario and found that the cumulative plus project VMT per Employee is lower than the Riverside County Average, in all analysis scenarios including Cumulative (year 2045). Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. Just as the Project will have to do, other development projects would also be required to reduce transportation-related impacts on the local circulation system and implement any required measures that may be prescribed as conditions of approval by the City. Therefore, the Project contribution to cumulative transportation-related impacts would be less than significant. 5 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit S-9: Evacuation Routes. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14711/Evacaution-Routes (accessed May 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 507
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1353 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-16 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic

4.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.

Supplemental Non-CEQA Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only A Traffic Study (Appendix K1) was conducted for the Project in accordance with the traffic study requirements of the City LOS Traffic Study Guidelines and the City Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled. Even though General Plan Policy C-1.2 provides a minimum LOS, the state has determined that automobile delay – to an intersection or roadway segment – is no longer required by or considered a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, the LOS analysis set forth in the following paragraphs and in Appendix K1 is provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.

Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates, passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors, and the resulting trip generation estimates for the Project are summarized in Table 4.13-2, Summary of Project Trip Generation. Based on Table 4.13-2, the total Project is estimated to generate 4,716 daily PCE trips, with 639 PCE trips (517 inbound and 122 outbound) in the morning peak hour and 879 PCE trips (343 inbound and 536 outbound) in the evening peak hour.

Table 4.13-2: Summary of Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
ITE Land Use ITE Code Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
High-Cube Fulfillment Center - Sort 155b KSF 6.44 0.71 0.17 0.87 0.47 0.73 1.20 Project Trip Generation
Project Land Use Quantity Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
High-Cube Fulfillment Center - Sort
700.037 KSF 4,508 494 116 610 328 512 840
- - 4,373 479 113 592 318 497 815
Passenger Vehicles 97.00%
Trucks 3.00% - - 135 15 3 18 10 15 25
Project Trips – Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE)
Vehicle Type Vehicle
Mix1,2
Daily
Vehicles
PCE
Factor
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Passenger Vehicle 97.00% 4,373 1.0 4,373 479 113 592 318 497 815 2-Axle Trucks 0.51% 23 1.5 35 4 1 5 3 4 7
3-Axle Trucks 0.68% 31 2.0 62 7 2 9 4 7 11
4+ Axle Trucks 1.81% 82 3.0 246 27 6 33 18 28 46
Total Truck PCE Trips 343 38 9 47 25 39 64
Total Project PCE Trips 4,716 517 122 639 343 536 879
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 1 Passenger Vehicle and Truck splits taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Supplement.
2 Truck mix percentages were calculated based on a ratio between the ITE truck splits and the Truck Trip Generation Study - City of Fontana, August 2003
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 508
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1354 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-17 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Intersection and Roadway Analysis
Pursuant to Menifee GP Policy C‐1.2, the City of Menifee has identified LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions for intersections except at constrained intersections and roadway segments in close proximity to I-215, where LOS E is accepted during peak hours. Based on a review of the existing roadway network and anticipated Project traffic, the following study intersections were selected for analysis in conjunction with the City6:

Study Intersections

1. Goetz Road at Case Road 15. I-215 NB Ramps at Ethanac Road

2. Murrieta Road at Case Road 16. Trumble Road at Ethanac Road

3. Goetz Road at Mapes Road 17. Sherman Road at Ethanac Road

4. I-215 SB Ramps/SR-74 at Bonnie Drive 18. Byers Road at McLaughlin Road

5. I-215 NB Ramps at SR-74 19. Murrieta Road at McLaughlin Road

6. Sherman Road at SR-74 20. Murrieta Road at Rouse Road

7. Goetz Road at Fieldstone Drive 21. Murrieta Road at Chambers Avenue

8. Goetz Road at Ethanac Road 22. Murrieta Road at McCall Boulevard

9. Wheat Street at Ethanac Road 23. Sun City Boulevard at McCall Boulevard

10. Byers Road at Ethanac Road 24. Bradley Road at McCall Boulevard

11. Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road 25. I-215 SB Ramps at McCall Boulevard

12. Evans Road at Ethanac Road 26. I-215 NB Ramps at McCall Boulevard

13. Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road 27. Encanto Drive at McCall Boulevard

14. I-215 SB Ramps at Ethanac Road 28. Sherman Road at McCall Boulevard Additionally, the following study roadway segments were selected for analysis in conjunction with the City:

1. Case Road: Goetz Road to Murrieta Road 11. Ethanac Road: Case Road to I-215 SB Ramps

2. Case Road: Murrieta Road to Mapes Road 12. Ethanac Road: I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps

3. Goetz Road: Case Road to Mapes Road 13. Ethanac Road: I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road

4. Goetz Road: Mapes Road to Ethanac Road 14. McLaughlin Road: Byers Road to Murrieta Road

5. Murrieta Road: Case Road to Ethanac Road 15. Byers Road: Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road
6 The study locations were established in consultation with City staff through the Scoping Agreement process based on the City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020). A copy of the approved Scope of Study Form is provided in Appendix A of the Traffic Study (Appendix K1).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 509
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1355 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-18 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic

6. Murrieta Road: Ethanac Road to Rouse Road 16. Wheat Street: Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road

7. Murrieta Road: Chambers Avenue to McCall
Boulevard

17. McCall Boulevard: Murrieta Road to Sun City
Boulevard

8. Ethanac Road: Goetz Road to Wheat Street 18. McCall Boulevard: Bradley Road to I-215 SB Ramps

9. Ethanac Road: Wheat Street to Murrieta
Road

19. McCall Boulevard: I-215 SB Ramps to I-215
NB Ramps

10. Ethanac Road: Murrieta Road to Evans Road 20. McCall Boulevard: I-215 NB Ramps to Encanto Drive
Existing Conditions
To establish a baseline analysis for existing traffic volumes, turning movement and daily roadway traffic counts were collected for all study intersections and study roadway segments in October 2021, and January 2022, for the existing morning peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening peak period (4:00 to 6:00 PM). PCE factors, were then applied to the truck types, based on number of axles (1.5 PCE for 2-axle trucks, 2.0 PCE for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 PCE for 4+-axle trucks) to determine the total existing PCE volumes.

Based on the existing intersection geometrics and peak-hour traffic volumes, intersection LOS and roadway segment LOS were analyzed for the AM and PM peak hours (see Traffic Study Table 1 and 2).

Under existing conditions, the following study intersections currently operate below the minimum acceptable LOS standard:
• #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS E
Additionally, under existing conditions, the following study roadway segment operates at an unacceptable LOS:
• Ethanac Road: I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road - LOS F
Existing Plus Project
The Project-related traffic was added to the existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes. Review of Traffic Study Table 4 indicated that, with the addition of project traffic, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS:
• #9 – Wheat Street at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #10 - Byers Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #15 - I-215 NB Ramps at Ethanac Road: PM – LOS F
• #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road: AM – LOS F & PM – LOS E The LOS for an unsignalized intersection is reported based on the single approach movement with the highest delay, which in this case, would be the northbound approach for intersections 9, 10 and 17. The side street traffic at these intersections experience delay during the peak hours while waiting for an acceptable gap in traffic on Ethanac Road. While the side street approaches operate at a deficient LOS Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 510
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1356 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-19 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
based on the highest delay approach, the overall intersection delay would be acceptable. Any queuing that occurs on the side streets are contained on the minor intersection approaches and do not impact the progression of traffic on the main arterials.

Review of Traffic Study indicates that, with the addition of Project traffic, the following study roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS:
• Goetz Road: Mapes Road to Ethanac Road - LOS E
• Ethanac Road: I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road - LOS F
Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Conditions
The Project Opening Year is anticipated to be Year 2024. Based on consultation with City staff, an ambient annual growth rate of 2 percent per year was applied to existing traffic volumes to develop Opening Year 2024 Base forecasts.

Review of Traffic Study Table 7 indicates that, with the addition of ambient growth and cumulative projects traffic, the following study intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS under Opening Year 2024 conditions:
• #9 – Wheat Street at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #10 - Byers Road at Ethanac Road: PM - LOS F
• #11 - Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #12 - Evans Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #14 - I-215 SB Ramps at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F • #15 - I-215 NB Ramps at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F • #16 - Trumble Road at Ethanac Road: PM - LOS E
• #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #19 - Murrieta Rd at McLaughlin Road: PM - LOS F
• #20 - Murrieta Road at Rouse Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #25 - I-215 SB Ramps at McCall Boulevard: PM - LOS E
Additionally review of Traffic Study Table 8 indicates that the following study roadway segments, with the addition of ambient growth and cumulative projects traffic, would operate at an unacceptable LOS:
• Goetz Road: Mapes Road to Ethanac Road - LOS F
• Murrieta Road: Ethanac Road to Rouse Road - LOS F
• Ethanac Road: Case Road to I-215 SB Ramps - LOS F
• Ethanac Road: I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps - LOS F • Ethanac Road: I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road - LOS F
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 511
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1357 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-20 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
Project-related traffic for the Project was added to the Opening Year 2024 Cumulative traffic volumes.

Intersection LOS analysis was conducted for the Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project condition.

Review of Traffic Study Table 9 indicates, that with the addition of Project traffic, and cumulative conditions, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS under Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions:
• #9 – Wheat Street at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #10 - Byers Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #11 - Murrieta Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #12 - Evans Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #14 - I-215 SB Ramps at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F • #15 - I-215 NB Ramps at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F • #16 - Trumble Road at Ethanac Road: PM - LOS E
• #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #19 - Murrieta Rd at McLaughlin Road: PM - LOS F
• #20 - Murrieta Road at Rouse Road: AM & PM - LOS F
• #21 - Murrieta Road at Chamber Avenue: PM - LOS E
• #25 - I-215 SB Ramps at McCall Boulevard: PM - LOS E
Additionally, review of Traffic Study Table 10 indicates that the following study roadway segments, with the addition of Project traffic and cumulative conditions, would operate at an unacceptable LOS:
• Goetz Road: Mapes Road to Ethanac Road - LOS F
• Murrieta Road: Ethanac Road to Rouse Road - LOS F
• Ethanac Road: Murrieta Road to Evans Road - LOS E
• Ethanac Road: Case Road to I-215 SB Ramps - LOS F
• Ethanac Road: I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps - LOS F • Ethanac Road: I-215 NB Ramps to Trumble Road - LOS F
• McCall Boulevard: I-215 SB Ramps to I-215 NB Ramps- LOS F Recommended Improvements
Recommended improvements for the deficient intersections and roadways were proposed in the Traffic Study to address the Project-related effects at the following intersections. "Implementation of the following improvements under Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions are recommended to address the project-related effect at the study intersections, as shown in Table 4.13-3, Intersection LOS - Opening Year with Improvements below.
7 7 See page 55 (Table 14) of the Traffic Study for a summary of the project fair share for the deficient study intersections and roadway segments.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 512
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1358 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-21 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Table 4.13-3: Intersection LOS – Opening Year with Improvements Intersection Improvements
Peak
Hour
Propose
d Traffic
Control
Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
With
Improvements
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

9. Wheat St at Ethanac Rd • Modify the existing
northbound shared
lane to a right-turn only
(northbound left-out
restricted)
AM U - A 99.1 F 13.9 B
PM U - A 156.0 F 21.3 C

10. Byers Rd at Ethanac Rd • Install traffic signal
• Modify the existing
northbound shared
lane to a right-turn lane
• Add a dedicated
northbound left-turn
lane
• Add protected
westbound left-turn
phasing
• Increase the left turn
pocket length to 350
feet
AM S 14.6 B 139.5 F 13.7 B
PM S 50.6 F >180 F 14.7 B

11. Murrieta Rd at Ethanac Rd • Add a dedicated
northbound right-turn
lane
• Add northbound rightturn overlap phasing
• Add eastbound rightturn lane
• Add a dedicated
northbound left-turn
lane
• Modify
northbound/southboun
d phasing from split to
protected
AM S 86.6 F 100.9 F 29.9 C
PM S 150.
8 F 379.7 F 37.8 D

12. Evans Rd at Ethanac Rd • Install traffic signal
• Modify the existing
northbound shared
lane to a right-turn lane
• Add a northbound leftturn lane
• Add northbound rightturn overlap phasing
AM S >180 F >180 F 14.4 B
PM S >180 F >180 F 13.2 B

14. I-215 SB Ramps at Ethanac
Rd
• Add 2nd eastbound
through lane
• Add 2nd westbound
left-turn lane
• Modify southbound
approach to provide
one left-turn, one rightturn, and one shared
Left/Thru/Right
movements
AM S 135.
5 F 191.1 F 37.6 D
PM S 188.
0 F 283.2 F 43.6 D
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 513
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1359 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-22 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Intersection Improvements
Peak
Hour
Propose
d Traffic
Control
Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
With
Improvements
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
• Add free eastbound
right-turn lane

15. I-215 NB Ramps at
Ethanac Rd
• Add 2nd eastbound
through lane
• Add 2nd westbound
through lane
• Add a dedicated
westbound right-turn
lane
• Add 2nd eastbound
left-turn lane
• Add 2nd northbound
left-turn lane
AM S 220.
4 F 285.3 F 34.2 C
PM S 259.
2 F 352.2 F 45.3 D

16. Trumble Rd at Ethanac Rd • Add 2nd eastbound
through lane
• Add 2nd westbound
through lane
AM S 44.0 D 46.8 D 31.2 C
PM S 65.6 E 73.2 E 32.3 C

17. Sherman Rd at Ethanac Rd • Install traffic signal
• Add a dedicated
westbound left-turn
lane
• Add a dedicated
eastbound left-turn
lane
• Add protected EB and
WB left-turn phasing
• Add a dedicated
southbound right-turn
lane
• Add a dedicated
northbound left-turn
lane
• Set the
northbound/southboun
d signal phasing to split
AM S >180 F >180 F 53.3 D
PM S >180 F >180 F 49.6 D

20. Murrieta Rd at Rouse Rd • Install Traffic Signal AM S 67.6 F 103.4 F 19.5 B PM S >180 F >180 F 12.9 B

25. I-215 SB Ramps at McCall
Boulevard
• Add 2nd southbound
right-turn lane
• Add southbound leftturn lane
AM S 50.8 D 51.0 D 32.7 C
PM S 61.6 E 64.2 E 33.8 C
Notes:
- Bold and Shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service - Delay values for signalized intersections represent the sum of average vehicle delay on all intersection approaches.

S = Signalized
U = Unsignalized
Roadway improvements were also recommended to address deficient roadway segments. A summary of the roadway analysis after implementation of the recommended roadway improvements is provided in Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 514
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1360 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-23 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Table 4.13-4, Summary of Roadway Segment Analysis with Improvements Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project.

Table 4.13-4: Summary of Roadway Segment Analysis with Improvements Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
Roadwa
y
Segment Existing
Configuration
Recommended
Configuration
Opening Year
2024
Cumulative
ADT
Project
ADT
Opening Year
2024 Plus
Project ADT
Recommen
ded LOS E
Capacity1

V/C LOS
Goetz
Road
Mapes Road to
Ethanac Road
2-Lane
Arterial
4-Lane
Arterial
13,124 396 13,520 37,000 0.365 A
Murrieta
Road
Ethanac Road to
Rouse Road
2-Lane
Secondary
4-Lane
Secondary
13,529 357 13,886 25,900 0.536 A
Ethanac
Road
Murrieta Road to
Evans Road
4-Lane
Arterial
6-Lane Urban
Arterial
30,680 3,533 34,213 56,300 0.608 B
Case Road to I-215
SB Ramps
4-Lane
Arterial
6-Lane Urban
Arterial
42,664 3,551 46,215 56,300 0.821 D
I-215 SB Ramps to
I-215 NB Ramps
3-Lane
Arterial
6-Lane Urban
Arterial
33,257 2,000 35,257 56,300 0.626 B
I-215 NB Ramps to
Trumble Road
2-Lane
Arterial
4-Lane
Arterial
25,449 352 25,801 37,000 0.697 B
McCall
Boulevard
I-215 SB Ramps to
I-215 NB Ramps
4-Lane
Major
4-Lane
Arterial2
33,948 334 34,282 37,000 0.927 E
Source: 1City of Menifee Engineering Department, LOS Traffic Study Guidelines, October 2020 2Roadway segment is currently built to ultimate configuration.

ADT = Average Daily Traffic
V / C = Volume to Capacity
LOS = Level of Service
For the roadway and intersection deficiencies and recommended improvements identified in Table 4.13-3 and Table 4.13-4, the City may consider Project conditions of approval requiring fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair-share contribution toward recommended improvements, or a combination of these approaches. To the extent that the Project will not be directly constructing recommended improvements or paying into an established fee program, the Project fair share proportion for non-programmed improvements at deficient study intersections and roadway segments under Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project conditions is shown in Table 4.13-5, Roadway Segment Fair Share Contributions. The project would pay a fair share towards the recommended improvements for deficient study intersections and roadway segments. For programmed improvements, the developer will pay into the regional transportation fee program and development impact fee.

Table 4.13-5: Roadway Segment and Intersection Fair Share Contributions Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Volume Total
Growth
Project
Trips %-age
Total Volume Total
Growth
Project
Trips %-age 2022 2024 2022 2024
Opening Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions
9 Wheat St at
Ethanac Rd
1,199 2,018 819 384 19.0% 1,132 2,257 1,125 591 26.2%
10 Byers Rd at
Ethanac Rd
1,218 2,384 1,166 545 22.9% 1,148 2,695 1,547 772 28.6% 11 Murrieta Rd
at Ethanac Rd
1,664 3,191 1,527 536 35.1% 1,712 3,699 1,987 747 37.6% Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 515
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1361 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-24 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Int. # Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Volume Total
Growth
Project
Trips %-age
Total Volume Total
Growth
Project
Trips %-age 2022 2024 2022 2024
12 Evans Rd at
Ethanac Rd
1,406 3,213 1,807 481 26.6% 1,365 3,697 2,332 664 28.5% 14 I-215 SB Ramps
at Ethanac Rd
2,398 4,605 2,207 481 21.8% 2,381 5,222 2,841 664 23.4% 15 I-215 NB
Ramps at
Ethanac Rd
1,935 3,691 1,756 257 14.6% 2,050 4,361 2,311 381 16.5% 16 Trumble Rd at
Ethanac Rd
1,360 2,308 948 47 5.0% 1,415 2,615 1,200 65 5.4%
17 Sherman Rd
at Ethanac Rd
936 1,857 921 47 5.1% 782 1,941 1,159 65 5.6%
20 Murrieta Rd
at Rouse Rd
487 1,132 645 67 10.4% 725 1,576 851 98 11.5%
25 I-215 SB Ramps
at McCall
Boulevard
3,105 3,938 833 39 4.7% 3,062 4,096 1,034 79 7.6%
Roadway Segment
Daily Traffic
Total Volume Total
Growth
Project
Trips
Fair
Share
%-age
2022 2024
Goetz
Road
Mapes Road
to Ethanac
Road
11,487 13,124 1,637 396 24.2%
Murrieta
Road
Ethanac Road
to Rouse Road
7,947 13,886 5,939 357 6.0%
Ethanac
Road
Murrieta
Road to Evans
Road
17,715 34,213 16,498 3,533 21.4%
Case Road to I215 SB Ramps25,161 46,215 21,054 3,551 16.9% I-215 SB Ramps
to I-215 NB
Ramps
18,907 35,257 16,350 2,000 12.2%
I-215 NB
Ramps to
Trumble Road
14,139 25,801 11,662 352 3.0%
McCall I-215 SB Ramps
to I-215 NB
Ramps
27,453 34,282 6,829 334 4.9%
Notes:

Fair Share percentage is to be applied to non-programmed improvements Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Signal warrants were based on the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The CA MUTCD provides a set of nine warrant guidelines for the installation of a traffic signal.

These traffic signal warrants include volume thresholds as well as other considerations such as proximity to railroad grade crossings or existing traffic signals. The warrants were conducted using Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Warrant)8for the following conditions:
8 The CA MUTCD Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Warrant) uses peak hour volumes and certain volume thresholds to determine if a traffic signal is warranted under peak hour conditions based on volumes.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 516
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1362 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-25 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
Traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted for the following unsignalized intersections:
• #9 – Wheat Street at Ethanac Road
• #10 – Byers Road at Ethanac Road
• #12 - Evans Road at Ethanac Road
• #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road
• #19 - Murrieta Rd at McLaughlin Road
• #20 - Murrieta Road at Rouse Road
• #21 - Murrieta Road at Chambers Avenue
Based on the signal warrant analysis, Signal Warrant 3 was met under the following conditions:
• Existing Plus Project
▪ #9 – Wheat Street at Ethanac Road: PM
▪ #10 - Byers Road at Ethanac Road: PM
• Opening Year 2024 Cumulative
▪ #10 - Byers Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM
▪ #12 - Evans Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM
▪ #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM
• Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project
▪ #9 – Wheat Street at Ethanac Road: PM
▪ #10 - Byers Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM
▪ #12 - Evans Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM
▪ #17 - Sherman Road at Ethanac Road: AM & PM
▪ #20 - Murrieta Road at Rouse Road: PM
The CA MUTCD specifically states that, “The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” The reference document goes on to state a number of other factors to take into account when considering a signal for a specific location, including whether or not a signal would improve the overall safety of the intersection, whether it would benefit or disrupt progressive traffic flow, and consideration of site-specific characteristics such as queuing, signal spacing, and overall delay to the main street through movements. The decision to install a traffic signal should be based on engineering judgement, and not solely upon satisfying a single peak hour warrant. For the intersections where a traffic signal is recommended based on the traffic signal warrant analysis and engineering judgment, a traffic signal is noted in Table 4.13-3. Based on discussion with City staff, the intersection of Wheat Street at Ethanac Road is anticipated to be right-in-right-out (RIRO) with a raised median along Ethanac Road at the intersection. Therefore, a signal is not recommended.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 517
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1363 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.13-26 4.13 | Transportation and Traffic
LOS Conclusion
With implementation of recommendations listed above, the Project would be consistent with all applicable traffic thresholds. Note that, because automobile delay is no longer considered a CEQA impact, the intersection and roadway recommendations provided above and in Appendix K1, Traffic Study, are not mitigation measures, are conceptual in nature, and are not required to be enforced. However, the City may consider including the recommendations as part of the Project’s conditions of approval.

4.13.8 References
City of Menifee. (2020). Active Transportation Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/687/Menifee-Active-Transportation-Plan City of Menifee. (2013). Exhibit C-4: Proposed Bikeway and Community Pedestrian Network. Retrieved from: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1021/C-4- Bikeways_HD0913?bidId=
Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). Traffic Study. Appendix K1 Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2022). SB 743 VMT Analysis. Appendix K2 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 518
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1364 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-1 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources

4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.14.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) impacts associated with the development of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project(Project), within the City of Menifee (City). Historically, the term “cultural resources” encompassed archaeological, historical, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources, including both physical and intangible remains, or traces left by historic or prehistoric peoples. TCRs refer to either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California native American tribe.

Information in this section is based primarily on the following source:
• BCR Consulting LLC (BCR) (2022). Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) (Appendix D).

4.14.2 Environmental Setting
Ethnographic Setting1
The Project site is situated within the traditional boundaries of the Luiseño, and is peripheral to the Cahuilla area. Each of these groups belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily of languages. Like other Native American groups in southern California, they practiced semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies and commonly exploited seasonably available plant and animal resources. Spanish missionaries were the first outsiders to encounter these groups during the late 18th century.

Luiseño. Typically, the native culture groups in southern California are named after nearby Spanish missions, and such is the case for this population. For instance, the term “Luiseño” is applied to the natives inhabiting the region within the “ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Mission San Luis Rey …[and who shared] an ancestral relationship which is evident in their cosmogony, and oral tradition, common language, and reciprocal relationship in ceremonies”. The first written accounts of the Luiseño are attributed to the mission fathers; later documentation was produced by Sparkman, Oxendine and others. Prior to Spanish occupation of California, the territory of the Luiseño extended along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek to the south, Aliso Creek to the northwest, and the Elsinore Valley and Palomar Mountain to the east.

These territorial boundaries were somewhat fluid and changed through time. They encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys and foothills, and mountain groves of oaks and evergreens.

Cahuilla. The Cahuilla are generally divided into three groups: Desert Cahuilla, Mountain Cahuilla, and Western (or Pass) Cahuilla. The term Western Cahuilla is preferred over Pass Cahuilla because this group is not confined to the San Gorgonio Pass area. The distinctions are believed to be primarily geographic, although linguistic and cultural differences may have existed to varying degrees. Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of southern California and the Cocopa Maricopa Trail, a major prehistoric 1 BCR Consulting LLC. 2022. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 519
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1365 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-2 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
trade route, ran through it. The first written accounts of the Cahuilla are attributed to mission fathers; later documentation was by Strong (1929), Bright (1998), and others.

Native American Coordination
As part of the cultural resource assessment, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the Project area of potential effect (APE). The NAHC responded on May 27, 2022, stating that the SLF was completed with negative results. However, NAHC noted that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources within the Project site.

The NAHC suggested that 14 Native American tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the Project. Informal outreach messages were sent to the groups on June 6, 2022. Responses received are as follows:
• Pala Band of Mission Indians: On July 20, 2022, Ms. Shasta Gaughen, PhD stated that the Project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation, and the Project is beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area.

She deferred to the tribes in closer proximity to the Project area. • Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians: On June 17, 2022, Mr. Paul Macarro stated that the Project is not within reservation land’s but is located in the heart of their ancestral territory.

Mr. Macarro advised that the tribe is interested in participating in the Project based upon their knowledge of the area; its location surrounded by three Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP); the Project’s proximity to the San Jacinto River; and the Project’s proximity to Pechanga Reservation Trust Lands. He then requested various information so they may continue the coordination and provide adequate and appropriate recommendations for the Project. In response the Tribe was invited to participate in the field survey. Representatives from the Tribe joined the Project archaeologist during the pedestrian field survey on July 11, 2022. • The Quechan Historic Preservation Officer responded with no comments on the Project and deferred to more local Tribes.
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians: On July 18, 2022, Ms. Cheryl Madrigal stated that the Project is within the Traditional Use Area of the Luiseño people. As such, the Rincon Band is traditionally and culturally affiliated to the Project area. She further added that the Tribe has no information on specific TCRs or TCPs within or surrounding the Project area. Lastly, she recommended working with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians as they may have pertinent information to provide.

AB 52 letters were sent on December 9, 2021, to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Rincon Cultural Resources Department. To date, request to provide the Project cultural report was received from all tribes except for the Rincon Cultural Resources Department. Consistent with the tribes’ request, the cultural report was provided on August 15, 2022.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 520
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1366 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-3 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
The City received a request for AB 52 consultation from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on February 15. 2022. The cultural resources assessment was provided to Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on August 15, 2022. On August 23, 2022, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians closed consultation.

In response to the AB 52 letter, Ms. Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Cultural Resource Analyst for the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, stated that the Pechanga Tribe was concerned about inadvertent finds, because this Project appears to be near an 1887 plat map road (Road to Temecula). They requested to see the Cultural Resources Assessment, which was provided on August 15, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the Pechanga Tribe stated there were satisfied with the standard Conditions of Approval for cultural/ tribal cultural resources and consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians concluded. On April 18, 2023, the City informed the Pechanga Tribe that the CEQA document would be forwarded to them for their review once available. Draft copies of this CEQA document were provided to Ms. Ozdil on October 2023.

The City met with Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, on January 6, 2022. Soboba stated that there is a possibility of inadvertent finds at this location.

The cultural resources assessment was sent to Mr. Ontiveros on August 15, 2022. On March 18, 2023, the City informed the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians that the CEQA document would be forwarded to them for their review once available. Draft copies of this CEQA document were provided to Mr. Ontiveros on October 2023.

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians did not send a response for consultation from the Project notification letter requesting consultation on December 9, 2021.

Existing Conditions
The Project site is located in the northwesterly portion of the City of Menifee. The Project site is bound by Wheat Street to the west; Kuffel Road to the north; Byers Road to the east; and Corsica Lane to the south.

The Project site is located in Section 17 of Township 5 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The Project site is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey Romoland, California (1979)

7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The Project site has been subject to mechanical clearing and discing for weed abatement. It contains a rural residential complex consisting of two modern residences and three modern ancillary buildings in the northeast corner. This complex is not historic in age.

A records search by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) was conducted on the Project site and the surrounding area on June 28, 2022. The records search included a review of all prerecorded historic-period and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources surveys and excavation reports generated from projects located within one half-mile of the Project site. EIC records indicate that 24 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a one half-mile radius of the Project area. One of these studies involved the Project site. This study was updated twice resulting in no cultural resources previously identified within the Project boundaries. The records search identified two cultural resources (one historic and one prehistoric) located approximately 0.25-mile from the Project site.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 521
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1367 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-4 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources

4.14.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (54 U.S. Code [USC] 300101 et seq.) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO). Among other things, the act requires federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties (buildings, archaeological sites, etc.) through a process known as “Section 106 Review.” National Register of Historic Places
Developed in 1981 pursuant to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 60, the NRHP provides an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. It should be noted that the listing of a private property on the NRHP does not prohibit any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property. The listing of sites in California to the NRHP is initiated through an application submitted to the State Office of Historical Preservation (OHP). Applications deemed suitable for potential consideration are handled by the SHPO. All NRHP listings for sites in California are also automatically added to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) by the State of California. The listing of a site on the NRHP does not generally result in any specific physical protection. Among other things, however, it does create an additional level of CEQA (and the National Environmental Protection Act [NEPA]) review to be satisfied prior to the approval of any discretionary action occurring that might adversely affect the resource.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes.

National Park Service – National Register Bulletin 38
National Park Service has prepared guidelines to assist in the documentation of TCPs by public entities.

The Bulletin is intended to be an aid in determining whether properties have traditional cultural significance and if they are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. It is also intended to assist federal agencies, SHPOs, Certified Local Governments, tribes, and other historic preservation practitioners who need to evaluate such properties when considering their eligibility for the NRHP as part of the review process prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 522
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1368 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-5 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
TCPs are a broad group of places that can include:
• location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world;
• rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents;
• an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices;
• location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and
• location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.

State
California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource Code § 5024.1 et seq.) State law protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of historical resources in CEQA documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in § 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are similar to those used in federal law.

The CRHR is maintained by the state OHP. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are state historical landmarks and points of interest.

The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

CRHR Criteria
For purposes of CEQA, a historical resource is any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR (California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.1).

A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) further provides that cultural resources of local significance are CRHReligible (Title 14 CCR, § 4852).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 523
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1369 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-6 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
California Government Codes (Related to Native American Heritage) Section 6254(r) of the California Government Code (CGC) exempts from disclosure public records of Native American graves, cemeteries and sacred places maintained by the NAHC. Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18, CGC § 65351 specifies how local planning agencies should provide opportunities for involvement of California Native American tribes to consult on the preparation or amendment of general plans. In particular, CGC § 65352 requires local planning agencies to refer proposed actions of general plan adoption or amendment to California Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the NAHC and others, with a 45-day opportunity for comments. In regard to historical properties, CGC §§ 25373 and 37361 allows city and county legislative bodies to acquire property for the preservation or development of a historical landmark. It also allows local legislative bodies to enact ordinances to provide special conditions or regulations for the protection or enhancement of places or objects of special historical or aesthetic interest or values. Lastly, CGC §§ 50280-50290 implement the Mills Act which allows the negotiation of historical property contracts between a private property owner of a “qualified historical property” and provides additional guidelines for such contracts.

California Health and Safety Code (§§ 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the PRC), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.

Human Remains
According to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource. This section also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are discussed within PRC § 5097.

Native American Heritage Commission
The NAHC, created in statute in 1976, is a nine-member body, appointed by the Governor, to identify and catalog cultural resources (i.e., places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands) in California. The NAHC is charged with the duty of preserving and ensuring accessibility of sacred sites and burials, the disposition of Native American human remains and burial items, maintain an inventory of Native American sacred sites located on public lands (i.e., Sacred Lands File), and review current administrative and statutory protections related to these sacred sites.

State Historic Preservation Office
SHPO is a state governmental function created by the federal government in 1966 under NHPA § 101.

SHPO administers the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest programs. The purposes of a SHPO include surveying and recognizing historic Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 524
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1370 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-7 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
properties, reviewing nominations for properties to be included in the NRHP, reviewing undertakings for the impact on the properties as well as supporting federal organizations, state and local governments, and private sector. SHPO maintains the CHRIS, which includes the statewide Historical Resources Inventory database.

California State Historical Landmarks
California Historical Landmarks are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance and meet specific criteria. The resource must also be approved for designation by the county or local jurisdiction, be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by California State Parks. California Historical Landmarks are automatically listed in the CRHR.

California Points of Historical Interest
California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific, technical, religious, experimental, or other value.

Native American Heritage Commission
PRC § 5097.91 established the NAHC, the duties of which include inventorying places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and identifying known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. PRC § 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

California Public Records Act
Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act (CGC § 6250 et seq.) were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects…maintained by, …, the Native American Heritage Commission….”. Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the [NAHC], another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
Assembly Bill 52
Signed into law in September 2014, California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 created a new class of resources – tribal cultural resources – for consideration under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources may include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource determined by the lead CEQA agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant and eligible for listing on the CRHR. AB 52 requires Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 525
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1371 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-8 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
that the lead CEQA agency consult with California Native American tribes that have requested consultation for projects that may affect tribal cultural resources. The lead CEQA agency shall begin consultation with participating Native American tribes prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report. Under AB 52, a project that has potential to cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource constitutes a significant effect on the environment unless mitigation reduces such effects to a less than significant level.

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. 2 Goals and policies from the Open Space & Conservation Element applicable to the Project include:

Goal OSC-5 Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources are protected and integrated into the city's built environment
Policy OCS-5.1 Preserve and protect archaeological and historic resources and cultural sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects and native burial sites, traditional cultural landscapes and other features, consistent with state law and any laws, regulations or policies which may be adopted by the city to implement this goal and associated policies.

Policy OCS-5.4 Establish clear and responsible policies and best practices to identify, evaluate, and protect previously unknown archaeological, historic, and cultural resources, following applicable CEQA and NEPA procedures and in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes who have ancestral lands within the city.

4.14.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G has been used as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project may have a significant environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs:
• Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
2 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. Available at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/250/OpenSpace-Conservation-Element (accessed July 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 526
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1372 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-9 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or ▪ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning tribal cultural resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on tribal cultural resources examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/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 based on field reconnaissance; review of Project 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 any components of the Project may result in “substantial” adverse effects on tribal cultural resources considers the existing site’s resource value and the severity of the Project implementation on resources that may be considered significant tribal cultural resources.

4.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.14-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 527
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1373 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-10 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.14-2 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant
AB 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a defined TCR may result in a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires tribes interested in development projects within a traditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area to notify a lead agency of such interest and to request notification of future projects subject to CEQA prior to determining if a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project. The lead agency is then required to notify the tribe within 14 days of deeming a development application subject to CEQA complete to notify the requesting tribe as an invitation to consult on the project. AB 52 identifies examples of mitigation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to a TCR. The bill makes the above provisions applicable to projects that have a notice of preparation or a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report circulated on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 amends § 5097.94 and adds §§ 21073, 21074, 2108.3.1., 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3 to the California PRC, relating to Native Americans.

Based on the City’s prior experience with and written request from potentially interested Tribes, AB 52 Notices were sent to the following four Tribes on December 9, 2021:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians;
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; and
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.

To date, no response from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Cultural Resources Department has been received. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians closed consultation on August 23, 2022, following review of the cultural resources assessment. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested that the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Section be sent to them upon completion. On October 3, 2022, during a quarterly meeting with the City, the Pechanga Tribe stated they’re satisfied with the City’s standard conditions of approval for cultural/tribal cultural resources and consultation is concluded.

Based on consultation with local tribes, Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8 (see Section 4.4, Cultural Resources) would ensure that any impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 528
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1374 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-11 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measures
Overall, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard with implementation of COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8 as identified in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources.

4.14.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to cultural and tribal resources, the geographic context for cumulative analysis is regional and considers both direct and indirect impacts over a wide area. However, the discussion is focused on the Projects potential for resulting in site-specific impact that could contribute to a cumulative loss. Accordingly, impacts are site-specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an affected resource extends off-site, such as a historic townsite or district. With this consideration, the cumulative analyses for historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources considers whether the Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively affect any common cultural or paleontological resources.

As discussed above, the NAHC determined that there are no known Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project site. However, the potential exists for undiscovered tribal cultural resources to be adversely impacted during groundbreaking activities. In the event that a potential tribal cultural resource is found, the Project would implement the previously discussed Standard Conditions of Approval that would minimize/avoid further damage to the found tribal resource. Therefore, Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

In addition, future cumulative development projects have the potential to encounter/adversely affect tribal cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with other project development would be site-specific and would undergo individual environmental and design review pursuant to CEQA in order to evaluate potential impacts. The combination of the Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City would be required to comply with all applicable state, federal, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural and paleontological resources, including compliance with Standard Conditions of Approval. This also includes project-by-project consultation with the appropriate tribal representatives to discuss mitigation measures/Standard Conditions of Approval that would be included to minimize/avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. In addition, implementation of the proposed Standard Conditions of Approvals would reduce Project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

4.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 529
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1375 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.14-12 4.14 | Tribal Cultural Resources

4.14.8 References
BCR Consulting LLC. (2022). Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. Appendix D City of Menifee. (2013). Menifee General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/250/Open-Space-Conservation-Element.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 530
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1376 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-1 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems

4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.15.1 Introduction
This section evaluates potential impacts of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse project (Project) on utilities and service systems by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating its relationship to existing and planned utilities services facilities and availability. For abbreviation purposes, the general term “utilities and service systems” in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) includes the following:
water, sewer, stormwater, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste. This section identifies potential impacts that could result from the Project, which includes construction and operation of the warehouse facilities. This section evaluates the existing public utilities and service systems that would be used by the Project and the associated environmental impacts from Project implementation. Information herein is derived from the City of Menifee (City) General Plan (Menifee GP), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the following technical report:
• EMWD. (2022). Water Supply Assessment (WSA) Report. (Appendix L)

4.15.2 Environmental Setting
Water
Water Supply Assessment
EMWD prepared a WSA Report for the Project to evaluate whether EMWD’s total projected water supplies will meet the project water demand associated with the Project. Approximately half of EMWD’s existing and future retail demand will be supplied through local sources such as groundwater, brackish groundwater desalination, and recycled water, with the balance coming from imported water delivered by Metropolitan Water District (MWD). This WSA analyzes and evaluates EMWD’s past and projected water supplies, water rights, the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) developed by EMWD, the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Plan, the West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin Management Plan, and supply and demand.

Eastern Municipal Water District
EMWD provides both retail and wholesale water supply to its service area encompassing approximately 555 square miles with an estimated population of over 859,000 people. EMWD owns and operates two desalination plants that convert brackish groundwater from the West San Jacinto Basin into potable water. EMWD also owns, operates, and maintains its own recycled water system that consists of four Regional Water Reclamation Facilities and several storage ponds spread throughout EMWD’s service area that are all connected through the recycled water system.1EMWD currently treats approximately 43 million gallons per day of wastewater at its four active regional water reclamation facilities through 1,813 miles of sewer pipelines.2
1 EMWD. 2021. EMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721 (accessed July 2022). 2 EMWD. ND. Wastewater Service. https://www.emwd.org/wastewater-service (accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 531
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1377 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-2 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
In accordance with requirements of Water Code §§ 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, EMWD prepared the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2020 UWMP provided past and existing water supplies well as projected supplies for consecutive five-year periods between 2025 and 2045. Table 4.15-1, Past and Projected Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY), below shows these volumes from each of the respective sources. Additionally, EMWD also provides anticipated water supplies for a normal year, single dry year, multiple dry years which are shown in Table 4.15-2, Retail and Wholesale - Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison, Table 4.15-3, Retail and Wholesale – Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison, and Table 4.15-4, Retail and Wholesale - Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison.

Table 4.15-1: Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY) Supply 2021 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
Purchased/Imported Water 63,441 66,447 72,147 70,247 74,747 78,847 Groundwater 14,883 18,753 18,753 18,753 18,753 18,753
Desalination 7,653 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400 13,400
Recycled Water 46,042 39,230 44,920 42,200 47,500 51,800 Other 0 4,000 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Total Retail Supply 132,018 141,830 153,220 156,600 166,400 174,800 Wholesale
Purchased/Imported Water 28,718 58,200 52,400 54,400 56,700 58,800 Recycled Water 1,605 4,770 5,180 5,600 5,600 5,600
Total Wholesale Supply 30,323 62,970 57,580 60,000 62,300 64,400 Total Water Supply 161,983
Source: EMWD. 2022. WSA Report (Appendix L); Tables 2 through 5.

Table 4.15-2: Retail and Wholesale - Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
Supply Totals 145,930 157,320 168,900 178,700 187,100
Demand Totals 145,930 157,320 168,900 178,700 187,100
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale
Supply Totals 62,970 57,580 60,000 62,300 64,400
Demand Totals 62,970 57,580 60,000 62,300 64,400
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: EMWD. 2022. WSA Report (Appendix L); Tables 12 and 13.

Table 4.15-3: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
Supply Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Demand Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale
Supply Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Demand Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: EMWD. 2022. WSA Report (Appendix L); Tables 14 and 15.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 532
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1378 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-3 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.15-4: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparisons 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail
First Year
Supply Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Demand Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 132,700 143,300 153,700 162,500 170,300
Demand Totals 132,700 143,300 153,700 162,500 170,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Totals 134,900 145,500 155,500 164,100 171,900
Demand Totals 134,900 145,500 155,500 164,100 171,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 137,100 147,600 157,400 165,700 173,500
Demand Totals 137,100 147,600 157,400 165,700 173,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 140,200 150,800 160,000 168,000 175,800
Demand Totals 140,200 150,800 160,000 168,000 175,800
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale
First Year
Supply Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Demand Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 63,200 59,100 61,400 63,400 65,600
Demand Totals 63,200 59,100 61,400 63,400 65,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Totals 62,100 59,600 61,800 63,900 66,000
Demand Totals 62,100 59,600 61,800 63,900 66,000
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 61,000 60,100 62,200 64,300 66,400
Demand Totals 61,000 60,100 62,200 64,300 66,400
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 59,800 60,600 62,600 64,700 66,900
Demand Totals 59,800 60,600 62,600 64,700 66,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Source: EMWD. 2022. WSA Report (Appendix L); Tables 16 and 17.

EMWD will continue to rely on imported water from the MWD as the main source of supply for its retail and wholesale customers yet recognizes the need to increase local supplies and water conservation to manage supply and demand. MWD has developed dry-year storage through groundwater and surface water reservoirs that help meet dry-year demands. Based on the information provided in MWD’s UWMP, MWD has sufficient supply capabilities to meet the expected demands of its member agencies from 2020 through 2045 under normal, historic single-dry, and historic multiple-dry year conditions.3 If another multiple-dry year period were to occur over the next five years, MWD could declare an allocation. EMWD is able to respond to a potential allocation through implementation of its Water 3 EMWD. 2021. 2020 UWMP. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721 (accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 533
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1379 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-4 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) and its balance of carry-over credits in the Hemet/San Jacinto Management Plan Area. EMWD has the ability to meet current and projected water demands through 2045 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions using a combination of imported water from MWD and existing local supply resources.4 Stormwater Drainage
The City is in the San Jacinto Subbasin of the larger Santa Ana River Watershed. The Santa Ana River Watershed includes much of Orange County, the northwestern corner of Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The watershed is bounded by the Santa Margarita watershed to the south, on the east by the Salton Sea and Southern Mojave watersheds, and on the north and west by the Mojave and San Gabriel watersheds, respectively.

The watershed covers approximately 2,800 square miles, with about 700 miles of rivers and major tributaries. The San Jacinto River originates in the San Jacinto Mountains and flows 42 miles west to Lake Elsinore; however, during flooding and heavy storms, Lake Elsinore overflows into Temescal Creek, which flows northwest and discharges into the Santa Ana River. 5 In the City, open drainage channels and underground storm drains larger than 36 inches diameter are operated and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD); smaller underground storm drains are operated and maintained by the City of Menifee Public Works Department.6The Project is located within RCFCWCD Zone 4 which encompasses approximately 733 square miles and includes the cities of Beaumont, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Wildomar.7 The RCFCWCD is responsible for:
• Identification of flood hazards and problems
• Regulation of floodplains and development
• Regulation of drainage and development
• County watercourse and drainage planning
• Education for flood prevention & safety
• Construction of flood control structures and facilities • Flood warning and early detection
• Maintenance and operation of completed structures8
4 Ibid.
5 City of Menifee. 2013. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Utilities and Service Systems. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1117/Ch-05-17-USS?bidId= (accessed July 2022). 6 City of Menifee. 2013. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Utilities and Service Systems. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1117/Ch-05-17-USS?bidId= (accessed July 2022). 7 RCFCWCD. 2021. District Zone 4. https://rcflood.org/About-the-District/District-Zones-2021 (accessed July 2022). 8 RCFCWCD. 2021. District Overview. https://rcflood.org/About-the-District/District-Overview (accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 534
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1380 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-5 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge depends on numerous factors but occurs largely through snowmelt and rainwaters that are able to enter the aquifer after entering the ground and seeping to lower depths within the ground.

Impervious surfaces introduced from development such as roofs, streets, and parking lots, induce runoff and impede infiltration and can keep water from reaching the aquifer. Artificial groundwater recharge is increasingly used where natural sources are insufficient and many projects include designs that incorporate detention basis and timed release of runoff to facilitate infiltration. The Project would incorporate such facilities into the Project design.

Approximately 20 percent of EMWD’s potable (drinking) water demand is supplied by EMWD groundwater wells. The majority of the groundwater produced by EMWD comes from its wells in the Hemet and San Jacinto area. Some of these wells have limited production as a result of the Fruitvale Judgment and Decree. EMWD also has wells in the Moreno Valley, Perris Valley and Murrieta areas.9The Project site is located within the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin.10 According to EMWD, this basin is deemed a high priority basin, but is not critically over drafted. As the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for this basin, EMWD is required to develop by 2022 and implement by 2042 a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The GSP will document basin conditions and basin management will be based on measurable objectives and minimum thresholds defined to prevent significant and unreasonable impacts to the sustainability indicators defined in the GSP.11 Recycled Water
EMWD’s recycled water system currently receives and treats more than 45 million gallons of wastewater each day at its four operating regional treatment plants. The treated water is then distributed throughout the service area, through more than 200 miles of pipeline. According to the Recycled Water System fact sheet from EMWD, 64 percent of recycled water was used for agriculture; 15 percent for recreational and environmental use; 15 percent for landscaping; and seven percent for construction, industrial, and wholesale.12 According to the EMWD’s Public Map Portal, there is currently an Eastern Municipal Water District water and sewer systems located approximately 300 feet north of the subject property at the intersection of Ethanac Road and Byers Road. Furthermore, there are no recycled water mains located within or near the Project site.13
Conservation
MWD, one of the larger agencies from which the local water providers receive some of their water, imports about half of the region’s overall supply from the Colorado River and northern California and holds water in storage in case of drought. During an extraordinary drought cycle, MWD will limit water supplied and mandatory conservation is required. The district created a Water Supply Allocation Plan to 9 EMWD. ND. Groundwater. https://www.emwd.org/post/groundwater (accessed July 2022). 10 DWR. 2019. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ (accessed July 2022). 11 EMWD. ND. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. https://www.emwd.org/post/sustainable-groundwater-management-act (accessed July 2022).
12 EMWD. 2018. Recycled Water System. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/recycledwatersystem_englis.pdf?1537295072 (accessed July 2022). 13 EMWD. ND. Public Map Portal. https://mapportal.emwd.org/ (accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 535
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1381 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-6 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
approach drought in a regional and fair manner designed to minimize impacts. The governor called for a 25 percent reduction in urban water use starting in June 2015, which California communities have been meeting and exceeding. Some of the measures used to reduce potable water consumption includes limiting water use for landscaping, use of drought-tolerant vegetations, use of recycled water by municipalities, and encouraging extension of recycled water lines.

Solid Waste
Solid waste from the City is collected by Waste Management, Inc. (WMI). WMI provides residential customers with three bins: burgundy for trash, green for green waste, and gray for recyclable materials.

According to the City’s GP EIR, for waste generated within the City, WMI transports the waste to the El Sobrante Landfill and Badlands Sanitary Landfill for disposal.14 See Table 4.15-5, Landfill Information for further details regarding the landfills.

Natural Gas and Electricity
The Project would be served by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and Southern California Edison (SCE). SoCalGas serves 21.8 million consumers through 5.9 million meters in more than 500 communities with its 24,000-square mile service territory through central and southern California.15 There is a high-pressure distribution line along Ethanac Road, north of the Project site. There are no gas transmission lines with or adjacent to the Project site.16 SCE delivers power to 15 million people within its 50,000-square mile service across central, coastal, and southern California. SCE’s electricity system is comprised of 12,635 miles of transmission lines; 91,375 miles of distribution lines (less Streetlight miles); 1,433,336 electric poles; 720,800 distribution transformers; and 2,959 substation transformers.17 There are no transmission lines or sub-transmission lines within the Project site. 18 4.15.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) administers the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the primary federal law that regulates the quality of drinking water and establishes standards to protect public health and safety. The Department of Health Services (DHS) implements the SDWA and oversees public water system quality statewide. DHS establishes legal drinking water standards for contaminants that could threaten public health.
14 City of Menifee. 2013. GP EIR, Utilities and Service Systems. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1117/Ch-05-17- USS?bidId= (accessed July 2022).
15 SoCalGas. 2021. Company Profile. https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile (accessed July 2022). 16 SoCalGas. ND. Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map-Riverside. https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=aaebac8286ea4e4b8e425e47771b8138 (accessed July 2022). 17 SCE. 2021. Who We Are. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are (accessed July 2022). 18 SCE. 2019. SCE Power Site Search Tool. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 (accessed April 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 536
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1382 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-7 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
Clean Water Act
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments were enacted to address water pollution problems. After an additional amendment in 1977, this law was renamed the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Thereafter, it established the regulation of discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States by the U.S. EPA. Under the CWA, the U.S. EPA can implement pollution control programs and set water quality standards. Additionally, the CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained pursuant to its provisions.

State
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which was passed in California in 1969 and amended in 2013, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. This Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions.

RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. Menifee is overseen by the Santa Ana Area RWQCB.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB is the California (State) agency focused on providing and ensuring clean sustainable water for all state residents. This state agency works alongside other federal programs like the CWA to regulate water sources and uses. The SWRCB regulates water consumption for irrigation and drinking, as well as water discharges from construction, municipal uses, storm water, and other sources.

Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code, §§ 10610–10656), which requires specified urban water suppliers within the state to prepare a UWMP and update it every five years. Specifically, § 10610.04 et seq. as amended, of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies that “Urban Water Suppliers shall be required to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies.” As such, UWMPs serve as an important element in documenting water supply availability and reliability for purposes of compliance with Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221, which link water supply sufficiency to large land-use development Project approvals. Urban water suppliers also must prepare UWMPs, pursuant to the Urban Water Management Planning Act, in order to be eligible for state funding and drought assistance.

On June of 2020, the EMWD Board of Directors adopted the District’s 2020 UWMP. This plan details EMWD's demand projections and provides information regarding EMWD's supply. The majority of EMWD's existing and future planned demand is met through imported water delivered by MWD. EMWD's 2020 UWMP relies heavily on information and assurances included in the 2015 MWD UWMP when determining supply reliability. Demand for EMWD included in the 2020 UWMP is calculated across the District and is not project-specific.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 537
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1383 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-8 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) consists of three legislative bills, SB 1168 (Pavley), Assembly Bill (AB) 1739 (Dickinson), and SB 1319 (Pavley). The legislation provides a framework for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California. Under the roadmap laid out by the legislation, local and regional authorities in medium and high priority groundwater basins will form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies that oversee the preparation and implementation of a local Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Groundwater Sustainability Plans will have to be in place and implementation will begin between 2020 and 2022. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies will have until 2040 to achieve groundwater sustainability.

California Senate Bills 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 amended State law to (1) ensure better coordination between local water supply and land use decisions and (2) confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. Both statutes require city and county decision-makers to receive detailed information regarding water availability prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for certain types of projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Projects that would be required to prepare a WSA include, but are not limited to, residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units and shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) required the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) by 2009. The State’s model ordinance was issued on October 8, 2009. Under AB 1881, cities and counties were required to adopt a state updated model landscape water conservation ordinance by January 31, 2010, or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance (MO).

City of Menifee “Landscape Water Use Efficiency Requirements” are under Ordinance No. 2009–61 (MMC Chapter 15.04) and City Landscape Standard can be found here (Regulating documents for these standards include AB 1881:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/2247/DRAFT-Landscape-Standards. 2015 Update of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (per Governor’s Executive Order B-29-15)
To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, the DWR, updated the MO in 2015 (in accordance with Executive Order [EO] B-29-15). The MO promotes efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The EO calls for revising the MO to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 538
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1384 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-9 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems
Ordinance. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review.

Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606 – May 31, 2018
AB 1668 and SB 606 build on Governor Brown’s ongoing efforts to make water conservation a way of life in California and create a new foundation for long-term improvements in water conservation and drought planning. SB 606 and AB 1668 establish guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the implementation and oversight of the new standards, which must be in place by 2022.

The two bills strengthen the state’s water resiliency in the face of future droughts with provisions that include:
• Establishing water use objectives and long-term standards for efficient water use that apply to urban retail water suppliers; comprised of indoor residential water use, outdoor residential water use, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) irrigation with dedicated meters, water loss, and other unique local uses.
• Providing incentives for water suppliers to recycle water. • Identifying small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability and provide recommendations for drought planning. • Requiring both urban and agricultural water suppliers to set annual water budgets and prepare for drought.

Solid Waste
Assembly Bill 75
AB 75, approved by the Governor in 1999, took effect on January 1, 2000. This Bill added new provisions to the Public Resources Code (PRC), requiring each state agency to develop and adopt an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP). AB 75 also mandated that community service districts providing solid waste services report disposal and diversion information to the City, county, or regional agency in which the community service district is located.

Integrated Waste Management Act – Assembly Bill 939
The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their solid waste.

AB 939 required local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also established an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance.

Mandatory Commercial Recycling – Assembly Bill 341
In 2011, AB 341 was passed that sets a state policy goal of not less than 75 percent of solid waste that is generated to be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. CalRecycle was required to submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2014 outlining the strategy that will be used to achieve this policy goal.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 539
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1385 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-10 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act require areas in development projects to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act required CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, providing for adequate areas in development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.

Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling – Assembly Bill 1826 In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from the decomposition of organic wastes in landfills. Mandatory recycling of organic waste is aimed at helping achieve California’s aggressive recycling and GHG emission goals. The implementation schedule began in January 2016 and as of January 1, 2019, businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services. In addition, future regulations include the following:
• Fall 2020: After receipt of the 2019 annual reports submitted on August 1, 2020, CalRecycle shall conduct its formal review of all jurisdictions.
• Summer/Fall 2021: If CalRecycle determines that the statewide disposal of organic waste in 2020 has not been reduced by 50 percent of the level of disposal during 2014, the organic recycling requirements on businesses will expand to cover businesses that generate two cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week. Additionally, certain exemptions, previously discussed, may no longer be available if this target is not met.

Local
City of Menifee General Plan
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element generally establishes the density, intensity, and location of land uses throughout the city and is complemented by the additional policy guidance provided in other elements that relate to a specific topic.
19 Goals and policies from the Land Use Element applicable to the Project include:

Goal LU-3 A full range of public utilities and related services that provide for the immediate and long-term needs of the community.
19 City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Land Use Element. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/231/Land-Use-Element (Accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 540
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1386 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-11 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems Policy LU-3.4 Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the project's ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services.

Policy LU-3.5 Facilitate the shared use of right-of-way, transmission corridors, and other appropriate measures to minimize the visual impact of utilities infrastructure throughout Menifee.

City of Menifee Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 6.30: Collection of Solid Waste and Recycling explains in detail the City’s regulations regarding waste management. This includes the guidelines for service and requirements for both the collectors of waste and the owners of the waste-generating properties. This section also details the unlawful acts associated with trash collection, such as prohibited containers and refuse burning. The purpose of Chapter 6.40: Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan Requirements for Construction and Demolition Projects to increase the amount of construction and demolition debris that is recycled or reused so as to reduce the amount that is disposed of in landfills in compliance with the California Waste Management Act.

Chapter 15.01: Storm Water/Urban Runoff includes Best Management Practices (BMPs), lists non-storm water discharge requirements, and details prohibited discharges. Per § 15.01.015(B)(2): Any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. The city may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.

4.15.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning utilities and service systems. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section. Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (issues related to storm water drainage facilities are addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality);
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 541
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1387 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-12 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems • Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Methodology and Assumptions
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact level of significance concerning utilities and service systems. 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 Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on utilities examines the Project’s temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on application of the significance criteria/thresholds outlined above. Each criterion is discussed in the context of the Project site and the surrounding characteristics/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 based on field observations conducted by Kimley-Horn in May 2022; review of Project 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 utilities and service systems considers the available policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies and the amount of deviation from these policies in the Project’s components.

4.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.15-1 Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site is composed of 8 parcels and is located approximately north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road. The Project site is currently composed of vacant land with mixed single residential structures and associated out buildings. Adjacent and nearby uses include vacant, undeveloped land, and residential land which is served by existing utilities, including electricity, natural gas, wet and dry facilities.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 542
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1388 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-13 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems Utilities necessary for the Project site to operate and the associated service providers are as follows:
• Electricity – SCE
• Water – EMWD
• Sewer – EMWD
• Cable/Internet/Telephone – Frontier Communications
• Natural Gas – SoCalGas Company
Existing utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of the Project to serve the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the Project. All required improvements and extensions to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing roadway rights-of-way adjacent to the Project site. All areas adjacent to the existing roadways also are disturbed and are within the overall footprint of Project and any impacts are therefore, discussed and disclosed as part of this Draft EIR within the various sections of this document. As such, upgrades to existing utilities are already evaluated as part of the overall Project. Therefore, impacts associated with extension of services in these areas and within the site, are less than significant. Services provided by each utility is discussed in additional detail below.

Construction and Operations
Water
Potable water to the Project site would be provided by EMWD. According to the WSA, an existing water line currently runs approximately 300 feet north of the subject property at the intersection of Ethanac Road and Byers Road. Currently, the EMWD has no plans to construct water and sewer system improvements in the vicinity of the Project.

Impacts of required water facilities are addressed throughout this EIR in the respective EIR section(s). The majority of Project water facilities would be installed below ground and installed within existing or future road rights-of-way, and as such the only physical impacts would be associated with temporary impacts during construction (refer to Section 4.11, Noise for a discussion of significant short-term noise impacts during pipeline construction). Above-ground facilities are addressed in respective EIR section(s), (addressed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics). All Project water facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations in the EMWD and City, and would also follow applicable EIR mitigation measures in each topical area addressed in the EIR. In consideration of existing requirements and EIR mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to Project water facilities.

The WSA analyzed and evaluated the existing and future demands on the water supply needed to be supplied from EMWD. The WSA shows that EMWD’s available water supplies would be sufficient to meet all of the water demands of the entire Project through 2045, including during single and multiple dry years.

Table 4.15-1, Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY), above, shows these values. In all cases through year 2045, even during single and multiple dry year conditions, water supplies available to EMWD would be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements of the Project site.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 543
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1389 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-14 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems More specifically, based on land use information provided by the developer and the lead agency, the actual average water demand for the Project is estimated to be 23.75 AFY, which is well within the overall limits of demand considered in the 2020 UWMP. Based on the Project water usage rate, the Project would represent a nominal percentage of EMWD’s present and future water supplies for both single- and multiple-dry-year scenarios. Therefore, based on the EMWD’s ability to meet the Project’s projected water demands and the since the Project proposes to construct portable water lines, the development of the Project would not require additional portable water infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Storm Water and Drainage
Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding existing conditions and Project impacts with respect to storm water and drainage facilities. No other off-site improvements are proposed apart from those proposed in Section 4.9. All other storms drain connections would be connected to existing storm drain lines. Furthermore, Project storm water and drainage facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the EMWD and City. In consideration of existing requirements, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to Project storm water and drainage facilities.

Wastewater
The Project consists of one warehouse building located on a site with a combined area of approximately

36.8 net acres in size. Construction on the Project site would result in approximately 700,037 square feet of warehousing development, north of Corsica Lane, south of Kuffel Road, east of Wheat Street, and west of Byers Road. Prior to construction or operations of the Project, the Project applicant would comply with EMWD’s New Development Process (https://www.emwd.org/new-development-process).

A Sewer Capacity Study would be completed to ensure adequate capacity to treat the anticipated wastewater to be generated by the Project.

The EMWD has previously used wastewater generation rates for industrial uses of approximately 1,700 gallons per day (GPD) per acre.20 Based on this value, wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 62,560 GPD. This represents approximately 0.08% of the total daily capacity of the EMWD’s 78 Million Gallon per Day (MGD) current treatment capacity.21 The EMWD’s facilities currently treat an average of 43 MGD. The Project would therefore represent approximately 0.15 % of the typical daily flows.

Therefore, the increase in the daily wastewater generated by the Project site would be minimal and result in a less than significant impact. Improvements to facilitate service to the Project site would consist of tieins to the existing wastewater lines. All areas needed for improvement would occur in previously disturbed or areas already proposed to be disturbed. Impacts would be less than significant. 20 EMWD. Rev. 2006. Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/emwdsewer_system_design.pdf?1542760914 (accessed July 2022). 21 EMWD. Wastewater Service, EMWD’s Regional Water Reclamation Facilities Fact Sheets. https://www.emwd.org/wastewater-service (accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 544
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1390 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-15 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems Electric Power
SCE currently operates electric power in the City through electricity distribution lines both aboveground and buried. SCE also operates at least three substations (one of which is approximately four miles west of the Project site) within the City and no power plants.22 The existing residential dwelling units located within the Project site are provided electricity by SCE.23 The Project would connect to the existing SCE lines which would enable services to the site. Electricity facilities such as powerlines and other similar system components would be required for the Project. However, this new infrastructure would be completely undergrounded, pursuant to the City’s Development Code, and would be installed within the proposed development areas. At most, it is anticipated that SCE would provide more electricity to the Project compared to what is currently consumed by the residential structures. Therefore, no additional significant impacts would occur due to electrical facility construction. No off-site electrical facilities are anticipated at this time.

Natural Gas
The SoCalGas Company provides gas services to most of southern California. It is anticipated that the Project site would require some amount of natural gas to support future operations. Similar to electrical services, natural gas lines already exist in the area to enable service to surrounding uses. Existing natural gas distribution lines (High Pressure Distribution Lines) exist within current roadway rights-of-way within the vicinity of the Project (along Ethanac Road).24 This area is anticipated to be heavily disturbed and would not contain any pristine resources. Natural gas services for the Project would be provided through the use of underground pipes to distribute gas within the Project area. Therefore, construction of the Project’s natural gas facilities would not create an increased impact on the environment beyond what is addressed for the overall Project, in respective Draft EIR sections. No off-site natural gas facilities are anticipated at this time.

Telecommunication
The Project site would require telecommunication services to be provided by Frontier Communications.

As discussed above, existing telecommunication lines would be located within existing adjacent rights-ofway needed to serve the existing surrounding development. Service to the Project site would require tying into these lines but these improvements would occur within existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing roadways. The new facilities required for the Project would be constructed within the development area, and would be placed underground as per the City’s Development Code, Title 9. The construction of substantial new telecommunication infrastructures would not be required. These impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
22 SCE. SCE Power Site Search Tool. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 (accessed July 2022).
23 SCE. Southern California Edison DRPEP. https://ltmdrpep.sce.com/drpep/ (accessed July 2022). 24 SoCalGas. ND. Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map – Riverside. https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=aaebac8286ea4e4b8e425e47771b8138 (accessed July 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 545
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1391 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-16 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.15-2 Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction and Operations
Refer to Impact 4.15-1. The Project’s water service provider is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the projected demands. The Project would result in less than significant impacts on services provided by the water service provider.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.15-3 Would the Project result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction and Operations
Refer to Impact 4.15-1. The Project’s wastewater service provider is anticipated to have adequate capacity to treat the projected demand. The Project is anticipated to cause a less than significant impact on services provided by the wastewater service provider.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.15-4 Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction and Operations
Solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would be collected and handled in compliance with any applicable regulation including those in Title 6 of the City’s MC, through service provided by WMI. The Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the operational phase, but it is not anticipated to result in inadequate landfill capacity. According to the City’s GP EIR, in 2011, the majority of solid waste in the City went to two landfills: El Sobrante Landfill (10910 Dawson Canyon Road, Corona, CA 91719) and Badlands Sanitary Landfill (31125 Ironwood Avenue, Moreno Valley, CA 92555). According to CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, a warehouse facility is estimated to produce 13.82 pounds of waste per Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 546
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1392 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-17 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems employee per day.25 The estimated number of employees for the Project site is 860 to operate the warehouse.26 This equates to approximately 11,885 pounds (5.9 tons) of waste per day from the Project site. That is approximately 0.04 percent of the El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum daily throughput and

0.12 percent of Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput. Further details regarding the two landfills are presented below in Table 4.15-5, Landfill Information.

Table 4.15-5: Landfill Information
Landfill Location
Max. Permitted
Throughput
(tons per day)
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Max. Permit
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Ceased
Operation
Date
El Sobrante Landfill Corona 16,054 143,977,170 209,910,000 1/1/2051 Badlands Sanitary Landfill Moreno Valley 4,800 7,800,000 34,400,000 1/1/2026 Source: CalRecycle. 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search (accessed July 2022).

Project implementation would increase solid waste disposal demands over existing conditions. Badlands Sanitary Landfill, located in Moreno Valley, has a maximum permitted throughput is 4,800 tons per day.

The facility’s remaining capacity is approximately 7.8 million cubic yards and maximum capacity is approximately 34 million cubic yards. El Sobrante Landfill, located in Corona, has a maximum permitted throughput is 16,054 tons per day. The facility’s remaining capacity is approximately 144 million cubic yards and maximum capacity is approximately 210 million cubic yards. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed above. Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and AB 939. The Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is necessary.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.15-5 Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Section 6.40.010(A) of the Menifee MC states:

Under California law embodied in the California Waste Management Act (Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 40000 et seq.), the city is required to prepare, adopt and implement source reduction and recycling elements to reach reduction goals set forth therein, and is required to make substantial reductions in the amount of waste materials going to the state’s landfills by diverting 50% of materials from landfills annually or will face 25 CalRecycle. 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates (accessed July 2022).
26 The Project socio-economic data was based on median factors for Riverside County from the SCAG Employment Density Survey (October 31, 2001). The SCAG Study recommends a factor of 819 square feet per employee for warehousing uses and 598 square feet per employee for office uses.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 547
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1393 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-18 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems substantial penalties. Debris from construction and demolition projects represents a significant portion of the volume of solid waste that is being disposed of in landfills, much of which is suitable for recycling. Consequently, the purpose of this chapter is to increase the amount of construction and demolition debris that is recycled or reused so as to reduce the amount that is disposed of in landfills. (Ord. 2020-294, passed 3-18-2020) Furthermore § 6.40.050: Diversion Requirements states:

Every applicant shall make a good fair effort to divert 50% of construction and demolition debris generated from every applicable construction, remodeling, or demolition project from landfills by using recycling, reuse, and diversion programs. Separate calculations and reports will be required for the construction and demolition portions of projects that involve both activities. (Ord. 2020-294, passed 3-18-2020) Lastly, § 5.408.1: Construction Waste Management of the California Green Building Standards Code states:

Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or

5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.

As required by CalGreen, the Project would be constructed in compliance with § 5.408.1, the more stringent of the code sections at 65 percent diversion, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

4.15.6 Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of public utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts are considered for projects located within the City. As discussed above, all impacts from the Project to utilities and service systems would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. In addition, the Project site would recycle and implement measures on-site to reduce the waste stream to landfill(s). The Project applicant would pay the applicable development impact and service fees. Impacts related to storm water drainage facilities are addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Although temporary significant impacts during construction could occur, these impacts would only occur during development of the sites, would be typical of construction, would be localized, would occur at different times, and would be required to implement site-specific erosion control plans. Therefore, impacts are not anticipated to be cumulatively considerable. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be anticipated to implement similar measures or implement mitigation to fully mitigates their contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts anticipated relative to public utility and service systems, and the Project’s contribution toward potential future utility and service system impacts in the City is not cumulatively considerable.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 548
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1394 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 4.15-19 4.15 | Utilities and Service Systems

4.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts were identified.

4.15.8 References
City of Menifee. 2013. Menifee General Plan Land Use Element. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/231/Land-Use-Element.

City of Menifee. 2013. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR. Utilities and Service Systems. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1117/Ch-05-17-USS?bidId=.DWR. 2019.

Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.

EMWD. 2021. 2020 UWMP. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721.

EMWD. ND. Groundwater. https://www.emwd.org/post/groundwater.

EMWD. ND. Public Map Portal. https://mapportal.emwd.org/.

EMWD. 2018. Recycled Water System. https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/recycledwatersystem_englis.pdf?1537295072.

EMWD. ND. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. https://www.emwd.org/post/sustainablegroundwater-management-act.

EMWD. (2022). Water Supply Assessment (WSA) Report.

EMWD. ND. Wastewater Service. https://www.emwd.org/wastewater-service.

RCFCWCD. 2021. District Zone 4. https://rcflood.org/About-the-District/District-Zones-2021.

RCFCWCD. 2021. District Overview. https://rcflood.org/About-the-District/District-Overview.

SCE. 2019. SCE Power Site Search Tool.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330 888.

SCE. 2021. Who We Are. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are (Accessed July 2022).

SoCalGas. 2021. Company Profile. https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile.

SoCalGas. ND. Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map-Riverside. https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=aaebac8286ea4e4b8e425 e47771b8138.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 549
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1395 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-1 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations

5.0 ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a discussion of additional CEQA impact considerations, including Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, Growth-inducing Impacts, and any Mandatory Findings of Significance.

5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(c) requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less than significant levels. The Project’s environmental effects are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this EIR. Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts for greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of mitigation measures (MMs) and Plans Programs, and Policies (PPPs) outlined in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions would reduce these impacts to levels considered less than significant, with the exception of Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts discussed below.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 were found to contain potentially significant and unavoidable impacts.

Specifically, significant unavoidable impacts would occur in the following areas despite the implementation of the mitigation measures:
• The Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment (Impact 4.7-1).
• The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions (Impact 4.7-2).

To further reduce emissions, mitigation measures (MM) in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment (Appendix B1) would also reduce emissions. MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 would reduce operational emissions with the implementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program and by requiring all forklifts to be zero emissions. The Project also includes MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5 to further reduce emissions. MM GHG-1 requires the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to offset the Project’s energy consumption or to acquire energy from renewable sources and MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency. Additionally, MM GHG-3 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills and MM GHG-4 requires landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric. MM GHG-5 also requires the use of cool pavements to reduce heat island effects.

In addition, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (warehouse indirect source rule) which would directly reduce emissions or to otherwise facilitate emissions reductions. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose 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.

Although Rule 2305 focuses on air quality pollutant emissions, the rule would facilitate cleaner vehicles and supporting infrastructure that would also result in GHG benefits.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 550
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1396 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-2 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Implementation of MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5 would reduce Project emissions. However, despite implementation of mitigation, total mitigated emissions would continue to exceed the threshold. Additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City of Menifee to address emissions resulting from trucks, cars, and/or emissions generated by these trucks outside of the City’s limits. The City of Menifee has no regulatory control over emissions control technology and therefore limited ability to control or mitigate emissions associated with truck emissions associated with this Project. The TDM program required by MM AQ-2 could reduce GHG emissions from employees commuting to work; however, the number of delivery trips and retail customer trips would not be reduced by a TDM program.

The City has no enforcement authority over offset credits that fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City. Many offset credits “sell” reductions in emissions generated outside California, which may not be genuine or verifiable. International offsets are even more difficult to enforce. CARB does not have enforcement authority over these carbon reductions either, and therefore, the purchase of offset credits is not a feasible mitigation measure to reduce Project generated emissions.

Since mitigated future mobile source emissions would continue to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold and no additional feasible mitigation beyond MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5 are available to further reduce emissions, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

5.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed Project. Generally, the section states that a Project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely;
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; and • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources in a way that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely.

The Project would not involve the utilization of nonrenewable resources in a manner that would make their nonuse or removal unlikely. Nonrenewable resources associated with the development of the proposed Project would include fossil fuels. Fossil fuels would serve as energy sources during both proposed Project construction and operations. Fossil fuels would act as transportation energy sources for construction vehicles and heavy equipment during the construction period and by vehicles and equipment used during proposed Project operations. The Project would be in compliance with Title 24 building Energy Efficiency Standards (refer to Section 4.5 Energy) which would ensure that Project buildout includes Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 551
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1397 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-3 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
energy efficient buildings that require less electricity and reduce fossil fuel consumption corresponding to GHG emissions. Furthermore, the Project and new development projects located within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with all the same applicable federal, state, and local measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. Though the proposed Project would endeavor to utilize fossil fuels efficiently, their use would be vital for construction and operations activities, making their nonuse unlikely. However, the proposed Project would not require the continued use of fossil fuels at the end of its operational life. Standard vehicles and equipment used by the Project in both construction and operational phases would likely utilize fossil fuels. Some construction and operational equipment may be electrified and therefore not rely on fossil fuels. Energy-efficient equipment would be utilized according to their availability and in order to comply with energy regulations and policies for the Project as a whole as it pertains to industrial usage.

In addition, the Project does not propose any fueling stations that would necessitate the storage of fossil fuels on the site. No infrastructure is proposed to store fossil fuels in large amounts or without the ability of removal.

The proposed Project would also require the commitment of land on which the proposed Project would be developed for industrial use. Land is another finite resource in that once developed and in active use it removes the ability for that land to be used for other uses and developments. However, land developments associated with the Project would not remove the possibility of redevelopment in the future. The land development would not, therefore, make the nonuse of the land unlikely.

The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses.

The Project’s development is anticipated to produce some significant and unavoidable impacts based on analyses conducted in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. These impacts would also affect the surrounding environment and would commit future generations to similar uses throughout the operations of the Project. However, the uses associated with the Project would not modify the land in a way that would prevent the possibly of redevelopment. As previously stated, the proposed warehousing structures would be able to be removed or redeveloped.

The Project would be developed in a portion of the City of Menifee with an existing land use designation of Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC-NG). The Project site’s existing zoning is EDCNG as well and the Project’s proposed industrial component is allowed under the EDC-NG zoning designation. Therefore, the Project would not influence future development in that land area as the existing land use and zoning designations would be changed. Furthermore, industrial land uses are unlikely to lead to impacts that would relegate future generations and developments to similar uses, and the usage and storage of any hazardous materials and waste would be completed in the safest and most efficient manner. Additionally, the Project would comply with any federal, state, and local air quality and water quality regulations to further ensure the least amount of environmental impact.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 552
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1398 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-4 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.

The Project is intended to develop approximately 700,037 square feet (SF) of industrial warehouse space (including office space) and is not anticipated to release a significant amount of hazardous materials into the environment. Construction and operation of the Project would utilize chemical substances common with typical construction and warehousing activities and do not generally pose a significant hazard to the public or environment. However, in the event that hazardous materials are either used or stored on the Project site, the Project would storage hazardous materials in compliance with any applicable federal, state, and local policy. Furthermore, the Project would implement conditions of approval prior any demolition activities to further minimize the release of hazards during construction activity.

The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

The Project would comply with any applicable federal, state, and local regulation and law regarding the use of resources during both construction and operations. As established in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, development of the Project would not significantly impact water, electricity, solid waste, and telecommunications resources. It was found that the Eastern Municipal Water District, the water supplier for the City and Project site, has adequate supplies to serve the Project’s expanded demand.

Further, development of the Project would include the use of energy-efficient vehicles and equipment in accordance with the most recent federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, resources used for the Project, including energy, would be done in an efficient, justifiable manner.

5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include a discussion of ways in which a project could induce growth. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as “growth-inducing” if it fosters economic or population growth or if it encourages the construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. New employees from commercial or industrial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. The proposed Project would therefore have a growth-inducing impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
• Require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, the potential for growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental nor necessarily beneficial, Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 553
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1399 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-5 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
and neither is it automatically considered to be of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the proposed Project examined in the preceding sections of this Draft EIR.

Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment Potential growth-inducing impacts are examined through analysis of the following questions:

Would the project directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing? No
As discussed in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, the Project would have a beneficial effect on the City’s employment base by developing a site that is largely vacant with a new industrial/warehouse facility with ancillary office space. Given that the current unemployment rate for Riverside County is approximately 4.0 percent (as of October 2022),
1 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. Furthermore, the Project site is served by existing public roadways, and utility infrastructure would be installed beneath the public rights-of-way that abut the Project site. As a result, the Project would not be anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the Project area. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial, unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

Would the project remove obstacles to population growth? No The Project site is currently composed of vacant land with single residential structures and associated out buildings on a single parcel. The existing structures are proposed to be demolished (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description for more information). The demolition of these structures would induce population growth since they would be replaced with the proposed warehouse facilities consistent with the existing and proposed land use and zoning designations. The Project would be an allowed and expected use within these land use zones and would therefore not create or remove an obstacle for growth.

Additionally, the proposed Project’s development is localized to the Project site. The construction of the new infrastructure would not amend the land uses or increase density on the parcels adjacent of the Project site. Adjacent and nearby uses include vacant, undeveloped land, and residential land which is served by existing utilities, including electricity, natural gas, wet and dry facilities. Existing utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of the Project to serve the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the Project. All required improvements and extensions to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing roadway rights-ofway adjacent to the Project site. All areas adjacent to the existing roadways also are disturbed and are within the overall footprint of the Project. Roadway improvements included in the Project are discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, and analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (see Appendix K). 1 State of California Employment Development Department. 2022. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) - Riverside County. https://data.edd.ca.gov/Labor-Force-and-Unemployment-Rates/Local-Area-Unemployment-Statistics-LAUS-Riverside-/f6zd-dtm5. (accessed November 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 554
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1400 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-6 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Substantial upgrades to the roadway system outside of the general Project area, which would promote further development are not included as components of the Project.

Would the project require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects? No
The Project site is predominately vacant with legal nonconforming residential uses, which are subject to demolition. These uses required utility and infrastructure improvements in order to function. The Project would include infrastructure improvements and connections to allow for the efficient use of resources such as natural gas, electricity, and water. Improvements to the Project adjacent streets would also include underground dry utility facilities (e.g., cable, electric, telephone, natural gas, television and fiber optics) along the Project’s frontage streets. The environmental impacts associated with the facility improvements associated with the proposed Project have been analyzed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems of this EIR. In cases where Project design feature did not minimize significant impacts, mitigation measures have been implemented that would reduce potential impacts related to Project development to less than significant levels, with the exception of impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, which would remain significant and unavoidable.

Furthermore, the Project would not require the expansion of utility facilities such as water treatment plants or landfills. Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems determined that there is adequate capacity of those facilities to serve the Project site.

Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

Refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics through Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems of this EIR. No cumulative impacts were discovered during the analysis of the Project, except regarding GHG emissions.

The Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance despite implementation of MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 from Section 4.2, MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5, and standard conditions and requirements, and could impede statewide 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact.

5.4 Mandatory Significance of Findings
CEQA requires preparation of an EIR when certain specified impacts may result from construction or implementation of a project. Accordingly, this Draft EIR was prepared for the Project which fully addresses all of the Mandatory Findings of Significance, as described below.

Degradation of the Environment
Section 15065(a)(1)-(4) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a project “has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.” In practice, this is the same standard as a significant effect on the environment, which is defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as “a substantial or potentially adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 555
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1401 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-7 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
This Draft EIR addresses and discloses all known potential environmental effects associated with the development of the Project both on- and off-site including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the following resource areas:
• Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Air Quality • Land Use and Planning
• Biological Resources • Noise
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Transportation
• Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Utilities and Service Systems • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Wildfire
A summary of all potential environmental impacts, level of significance and mitigation measures is provided in Section 1.0, Executive Summary.

Impacts on Habitat or Species
Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:
(1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment; (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; (4) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; (5) or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.” The Project would have significant impacts to biological resources.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR fully addresses any impacts concerning the reduction of fish or wildlife habitat or populations and the reduction of special status species as a result of Project implementation. With implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, the Project’s significant impacts on special status species would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Short-term vs. Long Term Goals
Section 15065(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:
the project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.” Section 5.2, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, above addresses the short-term and irretrievable commitment of natural resources to ensure that the consumption is justified on a long-term basis. In addition, Section 5.3, Growth-Inducing Impacts above, identifies any long-term environmental impacts associated with economic and population growth that are associated with the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 556
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1402 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-8 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Project. Lastly, Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, identifies all significant and unavoidable impacts that could occur that would result in a long-term impact on the environment.

Cumulatively Considerable Impacts
Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:
the project has potential environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This Draft EIR provides a cumulative impact analysis for those thresholds that result in a less than significant impact, a potentially significant impact unless mitigated, or a significant and unavoidable impact. Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics listed above and are provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this EIR.

Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
As required by Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, “A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur: the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This standard relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could directly or indirectly affect human beings would be possible in all of the CEQA issue areas previously listed, those that could directly affect human beings include aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, land use and planning, public services and utilities, transportation/traffic, water resources, wildfire hazards, and climate change, all of which are addressed in the appropriate sections of this EIR; refer to Table of Contents for specific section numbers. The following topic areas were determined to be significant and unavoidable with respect to adverse effects on human beings:

Project-Related GHG Emissions
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e industrial threshold for projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. However, the City has determined that the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year is more conservative and appropriate for industrial and warehouse land use development projects. The 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD Interim Thresholds.

The Project would result in generation of 7,305 MTCO2e per year GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources. The Project implemented MMs AQ-2, AQ-3, and MM GHG-1 through GHG-5 to reduce emissions to 6,220 MTCO2e per year. However, the Project’s emissions would still exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 557
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1403 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 5-9 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
year threshold. Additional mitigation to further reduce these emissions is not feasible. Since mitigated future mobile source emissions would continue to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold and no additional feasible mitigation beyond MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5 are available to further reduce emissions, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

GHG Plan Consistency
Despite plan consistency, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold despite the implementation of MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 in the Air Quality Assessment and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5, thus the Project could impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. A potentially significant impact would therefore occur as a result of the Project.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of Project-related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. As discussed above, the Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance despite implementation of MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 from Section 4.2, MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5, and standard conditions and requirements, and could impede statewide 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 558
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1404 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-1 6.0 | Alternatives

6.0 ALTERNATIVES

6.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) “describe 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.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but these effects may be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15126.6[d]). The EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project but is guided by a rule of reason. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. Section 15126.6[d]) states that the EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6(a) through (f)) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternative’s analysis in the Draft EIR. • “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly” (Section 15126.6(b)).
• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (Section 15126.6(e)(1)). “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation was published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (Section 15126.6(e)(2)).
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that require an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project” (Section 15126.6(f)).
• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (Section 15126.6(f)(1)).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 559
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1405 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-2 6.0 | Alternatives
• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)).
• “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (Section 15126.6(f)(3)).

Range of Alternatives
The Lead Agency is responsible for selecting this range of Project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. This section describes two alternatives to the Project. These alternatives include the following:

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
This alternative assumes none of the proposed warehouse buildings or off-site infrastructure would be constructed and the Project site would continue to function in its existing condition.

Alternative 2: Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative Instead of the proposed single warehouse building of approximately 700,037 square feet (SF), with associated 499 automobile parking space and 245 truck trailer spaces, Alternative 2 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, under Alternative 2, total warehouse building space would be overall approximately 105,000 SF smaller or (15 % smaller) than the proposed Project.

Alternatives were developed based on the following: information provided by the Project applicant, the City of Menifee (City), and input received from comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP). At first a larger group of alternatives was developed and after an initial review, the alternative was either retained for further analysis or discarded. Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives, as described in Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site.

As discussed above, one of the main purposes of the range of alternatives is to discuss different projects that can avoid or substantially lessen significant effects, especially effects that are found to be significant and unavoidable. In the case of the Project, significant and unavoidable impacts were identified with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 3,000 MTCO2e GHG emissions thresholds were exceeded in the operational phase of the Project, and it was determined that the Project would generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment. Implementation of MMs GHG-1 through GHG-7 would reduce Project emissions. However, despite implementation of mitigations, total mitigated emissions would continue to exceed the threshold and even with implementation of the MMs, the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulations and would generate cumulative Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 560
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1406 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-3 6.0 | Alternatives
GHG emissions. For this reason, the alternatives analyzed were selected to evaluate the potential to further reduce impacts from GHG emissions.

Lastly, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic Project objectives. The alternatives that were selected for additional consideration were chosen in accordance with the above listed CEQA Guidelines, represent a reasonable range of alternatives, are feasible, and will encourage discussion in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.

6.2 Project Objectives
As discussed above, one of the evaluation criteria for the alternative discussion is the ability of a specific alternative to attain most of the basic Project objectives. The basic Project objectives are listed in Section 3.0, Project Description and are as follows:

1. Develop the site in accordance with the City General Plan and Zoning in the Economic Development Corridor Northern Gateway(EDC-NG) 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 a center 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 while being respectful of the environmental issues.

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. Implement the EDC-NG through the development of a land use consistent with the development standards, Environmental Justice 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.

6.3 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives
Per Section 15126.6 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to a project, or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant impacts of a project, even if the alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. This alternatives analysis therefore focuses on Project alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts of the Project related to the environmental Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 561
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1407 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-4 6.0 | Alternatives
categories listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines while potentially meeting the Project’s objectives.

6.4 Alternatives Removed from Further Consideration
State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected because the Alternative would be infeasible, fail to meet most of the basic Project objectives, or unable to avoid significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, an EIR may consider an alternative location for the proposed Project but is only required to do so if significant Project effects would be avoided or substantially lessened by moving the Project to another site and if the Project proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.

In developing the Project and alternatives, consideration was given to the density of development that could meet Project objectives and reduce significant impacts. The anticipated significant impacts would result from the intensity of the development proposed. In developing a reasonable range of alternatives, an alternative site alternative was considered but removed from consideration for a variety of reasons.

These alternatives and the reasons are discussed briefly below:

Alternative Site Alternative
The analysis of alternatives to the proposed Project must also address “whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)). Only those locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered. If no feasible alternative locations exist, the agency must disclose the reasons for this conclusion (CEQA Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B)). In this case, while it is feasible that an alternative site could be selected for the Project, an alternative site would entail either the same or new significant environmental effects as the Project site. For example, development of the proposed Project on any suitable alternative site in or around the City may not avoid or substantially lessen the proposed Project’s impacts. This generally applies to impacts such as air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, or transportation impacts that occur over a wider area than generally site-specific impacts such as those to aesthetic or biological resources. Additionally, impacts like these could be greater if the alternative site is located further away from a major transportation corridor or in areas with existing unacceptable traffic levels. Moreover, an alternative site that is adjacent to undeveloped lands could result in increased impacts on aesthetics and utilities due to increased service capacity and incongruous development, than a site, such as the Project site, that is surrounded by existing development.

Furthermore, viable alternative locations for the Project are limited to those that would feasibly attain most of the Project objectives. There are no other lots appropriately located and sufficient sized and owned by the Project applicant in the City and near a major transportation corridor that would satisfy the Project objectives and eliminate or reduce impacts from the Project. The Project is proposed to be located near a major transportation route with Interstate 215 (I-215) to the east of the Project site.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 562
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1408 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-5 6.0 | Alternatives

6.5 Alternatives to the Project
The alternatives listed below present a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. The analysis in this section focuses on significant and unavoidable impacts attributable to each alternative and the ability of each alternative to meet basic Project objectives.

Alternative No. 1: No Project Alternative – The “No Project” Alternative allows decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the Project with impacts to not approving the Project by leaving the Project site in its existing condition.

Alternative No. 2: Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative – The Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative allows the decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the Project with impacts to not approving the Project but instead proposing 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.

6.6 Comparison of Project Alternatives
Per the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), additional significant effects of the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the Project as proposed. For each alternative, the analysis below describes each alternative, analyzes the impacts of the alternative as compared to the Project, identifies significant impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative, assesses the alternative’s ability to meet most of the Project objectives, and evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the Project. The following sections provide a comparison of the environmental impacts associated with each of the Project alternatives, as well as an evaluation of each Project alternative to meet the Project objectives.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Warehouse Development or Off-Site Improvements) State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving it.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that the Project site would not be developed, which means there would be no warehousing facilities, landscape improvements, on-site surface lot improvements, or off-site improvements developed on the Project site or off-site as part of the proposed Project.

Although this alternative assumes “No Development” (as required by CEQA), this is considered a speculative assumption as the land is assumed to remain in private ownership (as there are no offers to purchase the land for public open space use). It is more likely that, eventually, the land would be developed with some form of industrial development in keeping with the City’s General Plan land use and zoning designations for this area of the City.

Alternative 1 Impact Comparison to the Project
Alternative 1 would avoid all potential significant impacts that could occur from Project construction and operation as, by definition, it assumes that no development would occur and therefore no grading, Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 563
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1409 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
construction or operational traffic and related impacts such as GHG emissions would occur. The lack of significant impacts associated with Alternative 1 would also remove the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with proposed Project implementation. Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with development of the proposed Project were identified in the GHG emissions environmental analyses.

Aesthetics
Under the No Project Alternative, the warehouse site would remain in its current state. However, as previously discussed, the land use designation for the Project site is Economic Development CorridorNorthern Gateway (EDC-NG) and the zoning district is also EDC-NG. As such, similar uses could be developed on the site in the future. Until such time though, this alternative assumes that the Project site would remain in its current state with scattered rural single-family residential units and the majority in its undeveloped state. Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding aesthetics, light, and glare would be less than significant; similar compared to the proposed Project.

The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding aesthetic impacts, as no increase in construction activities or the erection of buildings that could block views of the mountains to the north would occur and as such no impacts in aesthetics would occur from Alternative 1.

Air Quality
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact regarding construction and operational air pollutant emissions for PM10 and NOX thresholds with the implementation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5 and HRA-1.

Alternative 1 would result in no construction or operational emissions from the Project as it would not be developed and would presumably continue to host the existing uses in the Project site. The continued use of the Project site in its current state would lead to no change in anticipated emissions and would therefore remain at the current level of emissions generated.

As such, it is anticipated that Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding air quality impacts, as no increase in construction and traffic would occur and as such no increase in air quality emissions would occur from Alternative 1.

Biological Resources
The Project would result in a less than significant environmental impacts towards special-status species, riparian habitats, wetlands, important trees and would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with implementation of MM BIO-1 through BIO-3.

Alternative 1 would be the environmentally superior alternative to the Project regarding biological resources, as no habitat, plant or wildlife species would be modified.

Cultural Resources
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 564
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1410 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
The Project would result in less than significant impact to a historical, archaeological, and disturbance to human remains are assumed to be less than significant with implementation of Conditions of Approval (COA) COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8.

Under Alternative 1, potential changes to any of these resources would be eliminated as no ground disturbance would occur. Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding cultural resource impacts.

Energy
The Project would result in less than significant impact to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with a state or local plan and no mitigations would be required.

Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding energy impacts, as no increase in energy consumption would occur from the site continuing in its existing condition.

Geology and Soils
The Project would result in a less than significant impact from being located on expansive soil and would not impact paleontological resources or unique geologic features with implementation of MM GEO-1 and GEO-2.

Alternative 1 is anticipated to be environmentally superior to the Project regarding impacts to and from existing geological conditions, including expansive soils, and paleontological resources, because the site underlying conditions would not change under Alternative 1 and ground disturbing activities would not occur. Alternative 1 would omit any changes to potentially unearthed paleontological resources.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions as the Project would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold and would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation despite the implementation of MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 in the Air Quality Assessment and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-7.

Alternative 1 would result in no construction or operational GHG emissions. The existing, minimal emissions produced by the existing residential units would continue. As such, Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding GHG emissions since no increase in GHG emissions would occur.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project would have a less than significant impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials, as the Project would not conflict or exacerbate the increased safety risk to workers due to the transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. Additionally, the Project would not generate emissions of hazardous emissions to nearby schools and the Projectsite is not located on a Cortese List of Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 565
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1411 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
known hazardous material sites. Finally, the Project is not located near a nearby airport and no foreseeable or accidental release of hazardous materials is anticipated to occur.

Although no impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would occur with the proposed Project, Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous materials. Since no ground disturbing activities would occur, and no buildings or structures would be constructed or operated, any potential impact from hazards and hazardous materials would be eliminated.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality regarding water quality or waste discharge, alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or stream or river, run-off, polluted run-off, or from flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche with implementation of MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3.

Alternative 1 would eliminate both short-term and long-term changes to hydrology and water quality, since grading, excavation, construction, or other activities associated with the development of the site would not occur. Alternative 1 would not alter current hydrologic conditions, including changes in surface water runoff and water quality. As such, Alternative 1 would be the environmentally superior alternative.

Land Use and Planning
The Project’s existing land use designations and zoning are EDC-NG. The Project’s proposed land uses would be consistent with the EDC-NG land use designation. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with the City’s Zoning Code. Furthermore, the Project would also be designed consistently with all applicable planning policies and design standards set within the Menifee MC. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Alternative 1 would eliminate all development on the site and no change to the existing conditions would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would be the superior alternative.

Noise
The proposed Project would not exceed noise thresholds and thus would not create noise related impacts.

However, noise would still be greater than under Alternative 1 (existing conditions). As such, it is determined that Alternative 1 would be the superior alternative as noise levels would remain unchanged under the existing conditions.

Public Services
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on public services with the payment of the applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the various public services needed. Under Alternative 1, no warehouses or associated on-site or off-site improvements would be developed, and as such, no DIFs would be collected by the City of Menifee. Under existing conditions, six existing residential dwelling units require public services on-site although at a much less intensity than that anticipated under the proposed Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 566
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1412 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
Project. As such, it is anticipated that Alternative 1 would be the superior alternative, as fewer public services would be required at the sites.

Transportation
The Project was determined to have a less than significant impact on transportation, specifically as it relates to a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities with implementation of recommendations listed in Appendix K1 of the Traffic Study. With implementation of recommendations, the Project would be consistent with all applicable traffic thresholds and therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Note that the intersection and roadway recommendations provided in Appendix K1, Traffic Study, are not mitigation measures, they are conceptual in nature, and are not required to be enforced as additional delay to an intersection or roadway segment is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, the City may consider including the recommendations as part of the Project’s conditions of approval. Additionally, the Project would not have an impact or conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, would not increase hazards in geometry and not result in inadequate emergency access.

Though the Project will cause less than significant transportation impacts, Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding transportation impacts because no increase in construction and operational trips would occur at all under this Alternative.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The Project would cause a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources without mitigation measures. Implementation of COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8 would further reduce the potential of impacts to tribal cultural resources. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding tribal cultural resources as there would be no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources since no ground disturbing activities would occur.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Project’s operation would create a demand for water, and increase wastewater and solid waste generation. However, the Project would not create a significant impact on utilities and service systems.

Alternative 1 would not demand any more utilities or services than those currently being expended to service the site for the residential dwelling units. Alternative 1 would greatly reduce the demand for water and wastewater, solid waste services, and gas and electricity services. Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding impacts to utilities and service systems since no additional utilities would be required to continue to operate the existing on-site uses.

Alternative 1 Summary
While Alternative 1 would reduce nearly all of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, it would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified above, as the Project site would remain in its existing condition. For instance, the Project site would not provide employment opportunities or increase the Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 567
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1413 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
City’s tax base, would not facilitate the movement of goods, and would not develop an industrial project/warehouse facility that is Class A and that would attract high-end tenants to increase the City’s tax base.

Alternative 2: Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative Alternative 2 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.

Alternative 2 Impact Comparison to the Project
Alternative 2 would minimize impacts related to the scale of the Project. Therefore, environmental impact areas such as aesthetics, energy, utilities and service systems, and wildfire hazards may see a nominal improvement regarding potential impact significance. However, these resource areas are anticipated to have a less than significant impact under the Project. Overall, the Project was able to achieve a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated in all environmental impact areas except greenhouse gas emissions. This resource was anticipated to generate significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of the appropriate mitigations. An evaluation of the impacts associated with the development of Alternative 2 (Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative) are described below.

Aesthetics
The same general aesthetics impacts would occur under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed Project. Although the total building footprint would be reduced with this Alternative by approximately 105,000 SF, the general construction mass and scale of the buildings on-site would be the same because the Project site would have two buildings instead of one. Additionally, the building materials would remain the same as those anticipated to be use under the Project. Moreover, the two buildings would maintain the proposed building height of 45 feet, 6 inches. When compared to the proposed Project, aesthetics impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be like those from the proposed Project and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding aesthetic impacts, as no increase in construction or traffic would occur and, as such, no additional impacts in aesthetics are anticipated to occur compared to the proposed Project.

Air Quality
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact regarding construction and operational air pollutant emissions for PM10 and NOX thresholds with the implementation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 and HRA-1.

Alternative 2 proposes two warehouse buildings that would total approximately 595,031 SF, which is a total warehousing footprint reduction of approximately 105,000 SF or approximately 15 percent under Alternative 2. It is anticipated that this would reduce potential operational emissions through the reduced Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 568
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1414 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
building area. However, most operational emissions stemmed from mobile sources such as vehicles and construction equipment. The vehicular traffic generated from the Project is not anticipated to be significantly reduced under Alternative 2. Operations of Alternative 2 are expected to be similar to the Project. Under Alternative 2, the proposed buildings footprint would be reduced, but the operational intensity of the site could slightly increase as two separate businesses would operate out of the same site; each warehouse building could potentially have very distinct operational business hours and duplicative overhead.

Alternative 2 is anticipated to be environmentally superior to the Project regarding air quality impacts because a slight decrease in construction and operational traffic is anticipated from the total reduction in building SF and available vehicle and truck parking. As such, a less intense air quality impact is anticipated to occur from Alternative 2. Additionally, in order to maintain a less than significant impact on air quality, Alternative 2 would also be subject to the implementation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 and HRA-1.

Biological Resources
The Project would result in less than significant environmental impacts towards special-status species, riparian habitats, wetlands, important trees and would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with implementation of MM BIO-1 through BIO-3.

Alternative 2 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding biological resources because, though the Alternative 2 building footprint would be slightly reduced, the overall disturbance to the Project site would be the same as with the Project. Additionally, to maintain a less than significant impact on biological resources, Alternative 2 would also be subject to the implementation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 and HRA-1.

Cultural Resources
The Project would result in less than significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources, and disturbance to human remains, with implementation of Conditions of Approval (COA) COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8. No Project specific MMs were necessary.

Under Alternative 2, though the total building square footage would be reduced, development of the site of the two warehouse buildings would not omit or preserve any of the 40.3 acres in their current state.

Even with the reduction in overall building square footage, the Project site would include parking, landscaping, and other features that would require the complete site to be developed. No islands or undisturbed areas would remain. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be an environmentally equivalent alternative compared to the Project regarding cultural resources, as the same 40.3-acres Project site would be modified or impacted.

Energy
The Project would result in less than significant impact to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with a state or local plan and no mitigations would be required.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 569
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1415 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
Development under Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would continue to require energy (fuel, electric, gas) during both the construction and operational phases of the Project. Alternative 2 would require less energy to build and operate due to the reduction in building square footage of two warehouse buildings. Alternative 2 would thus consume less energy for construction/operational related activities compared to the proposed Project. As such, the Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the Project regarding energy impacts, as a decrease in energy consumption would occur compared to the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
The Project would result in a less than significant impact from being located on expansive soil and would not impact paleontological resources or unique geologic features with implementation of MM GEO-1 and GEO-2.

Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding geological, soils, and paleontological resources. The exposure of people to seismic, geologic, and soil hazards under this Alternative would be equivalent to the Project with implementation of MM GEO-1 and GEO-2. With regard to paleontological resources, under Alternative 2, though the total building square footage would be reduced, development of the two warehouse buildings would not omit or preserve any of the 40.3 acres in their current state. Therefore, Alternative 2 and the Project equally disturb the site.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions as the Project would continue to exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold and would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation despite the implementation of MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 in the Air Quality Assessment and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5.

Alternative 2 would likely reduce emission impacts through a reduction in energy use and less vehicle trips from two smaller warehouse buildings compared to the proposed larger single warehouse building.

However, the usage rate of the Project site as a whole would remain similar and the reduction in energy use and vehicle trips would not be substantial. Even with a reduction in energy use emissions, the mobile source emissions associated with vehicular travel would not be greatly reduced. The difference in vehicle traffic would be approximately 75 vehicle and 37 truck parking spaces less than assumed under the proposed Project. The proposed Project’s GHG emissions were more than double the significance threshold. Since Alternative 2 is only 15% smaller than the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would likely remain in excess of the City’s GHG emissions thresholds. The impact would be expected to remain a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of MMs AQ-2 and AQ-3 in the Air Quality Assessment and MMs GHG-1 through GHG-5 because the proposed Project, even with implementation of these measures, was more than double the emissions threshold. Regardless of the Alternative 2 being anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable, it would be determined to be environmentally superior compared to the Project regarding GHG emissions only because it will reduce the energy needed, but this reduction does not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact generated by Alternative 2.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 570
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1416 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-13 6.0 | Alternatives
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project would have a less than significant impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials, as the Project would not conflict or exacerbate the increased safety risk to workers due to the transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. Additionally, the Project would not generate emissions of hazardous emissions to nearby schools and the Project site is not located on a Cortese List of known hazardous material sites. Finally, the Project is not located near a nearby airport and no foreseeable or accidental release of hazardous materials is anticipated to occur.

Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding hazards and hazardous materials, since the same ground disturbing activities would occur, and buildings/structures would be constructed and operated on the same footprint.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality, waste discharge, alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or stream or river, run-off, polluted run-off, or from flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche with implementation of MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3.

Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would disturb the same footprint for construction and operational activities, and as such, Alternative 2 would result in similar hydrology and water quality impacts as those identified under the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3 would be required to reduce impacts on hydrology and water quality and waste discharge, and minimize the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site. Because the same 40.3-acres site would be disturbed with the implementation of the two smaller warehouse buildings, with implementation of the applicable MMs, Alternative 2 would remain less than significant and equivalent to the proposed Project.

Land Use and Planning
The Project’s existing land use designations and zoning are EDC-NG. The Project’s proposed land uses would be consistent with the EDC-NG land use designation. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with the City’s Zoning Code. Furthermore, the Project would also be designed consistently with all applicable planning policies and design standards set within the Menifee MC. As such, the Project would have a less than significant planning and land use impact.

Alternative 2 would remain consistent with existing land use and designation and zoning for the site (EDC-NG). No need for land use and zoning changes would be necessary. As such, Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding land use and planning, since no new entitlements, not already considered under the proposed Project, would be necessary.

Noise
The proposed Project was determined to not generate construction, operation, and traffic related noise or vibration in excess of normally acceptable standards. As such, the proposed Project was anticipated to have less than significant impacts from noise and vibration and the implementation of MMs would not be necessary.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 571
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1417 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives
Although the proposed Project was determined to have a less than significant impact from Project-related noise and vibration generation, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 would generate less noise and vibration than the proposed Project due to the approximately 15% smaller building footprint and traffic reduction assumed under Alternative 2. As such, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative.

Public Services
The proposed Project was determined to have a less than significant impact on all public services with the payment of the applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) for the various public services necessary.

When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer public service-related impacts than the proposed Project and associated DIF would also be paid; however, it is anticipated these reductions would be nominal. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent when compared to the proposed Project.

Transportation
The Project was determined to have a less than significant impact on transportation, specifically as it relates to a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would be consistent with all applicable traffic thresholds and therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, the Project’s traffic impacts, in terms of being consistent with all applicable traffic thresholds, would be less than significant. Note that the intersection and roadway recommendations provided in Appendix K1, Traffic Study, are not mitigation measures, they are conceptual in nature, and are not required to be enforced as additional delay to an intersection or roadway segment is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, the City may consider including the recommendations as part of the Project’s conditions of approval. Additionally, the Project would not have an impact or conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, would not increase hazards in geometry and not result in inadequate emergency access.

Although the proposed Project was determined to have a less than significant impact on transportation facilities, because Alternative 2 would further reduce the overall building footprint and traffic to and from the Project site by approximately 15%, it is assumed that Alternative 2 would have a lesser impact than the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior compared to the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The Project is anticipated to cause a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources without mitigation measures. Implementation of COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8 would further reduce the potential of impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Alternative 2 would be environmentally equivalent to the Project regarding tribal cultural resources because both projects involve the same amount of ground disturbance. There would be no potential for impacting tribal cultural resources with implementation of COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 572
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1418 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-15 6.0 | Alternatives
Utilities and Service Systems
The Project’s operations would create a demand for water, and increase wastewater and solid waste generation. However, the Project would not create a significant impact on utilities and service systems.

Alternative 2 would result in fewer utility and service system related impacts compared to the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior compared to the proposed Project regarding impacts to utilities and service systems. Temporary increases in utility demand and construction of utilities would still occur during construction, and there would be an increase in services and utilities demand resulting from operation of the two warehouses under Alternative 2, but these increases would be lower than with the proposed Project due to the square footage reduction of approximately 105,000 SF under Alternative 2.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a slight reduction in impacts pertaining to air quality, energy, GHG, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems compared to the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not meet all the Project Objectives. The Project would not meet Objective No. 5, which seeks to “Expand the local and regional tax base,” Nor Objective No. 4, which seeks “the creation of new employment opportunities while being respectful of the environmental issues.” Reducing the overall Project footprint will not increase the tax base to the same extent or provide as many job opportunities as the proposed Project. Alternative 2 also does not meet Objective No. 6, which seeks to “Develop a project that is economically feasible.” The reduction in total building SF footprint (approximately 105,000 SF between the two smaller scale warehouse buildings) would offset the financial benefits the Project could bring because less building SF translates into a reduced price per SF that can be sold or leased. Alternative 2 also does not meet Objective No. 7 which seeks to “Develop and operate a project that will attract quality tenants and will be competitive with other approved or proposed similar regional facilities.” Alternative 2 would fail to achieve higher efficiency and reduced real estate costs, through the conversion of one building to two smaller buildings. This would ultimately raise rent, labor, and transportation costs, as well as the ability to significantly improve the number of items processed per hour with operations under one roof. This would ultimately deter new tenants from potentially leasing the buildings under Alternative 2, which is opposite of what Objective 2 seeks. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not meet Objective No. 10 which seeks to “facilitate the development of underutilized land currently planned for industrial uses that maximizes the use of the site and responds to regional market demand,” As tenants migrate from smaller to larger buildings, creating operational efficiencies and cost savings, buildings primarily in 100,000 sf – 300,000 sf segment are becoming vacant. As rents decrease and construction costs remain high compared to historical norms, coupled with high interest rates, financial feasibility for smaller buildings are more challenging. Additionally, the development of two smaller buildings under Alternative 2 would reduce the maximum efficiency of uses on site by reducing the overall sq. ft. by 15 percent. Since Alternative 2 would go against market trends and would not maximum the site’s usage, Objective 10 would not be met.

Additionally, while the reduced footprint proposed by Alternative 2 moderately reduces some of the Project impacts, Alternative 2 and the proposed Project are environmentally equivalent for many impacts, and Alternative 2 only would likely modestly reduce GHG emissions (the only significant and unavoidable Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 573
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1419 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-16 6.0 | Alternatives
impact caused by the proposed Project). It is anticipated that GHG emissions for Alternative 2 would still likely be significantly above the significance threshold. Overall, Alternative 2 can be rejected as it does not meet all Project Objectives and does not have significant environmental advantages.

6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior Alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states that if the environmentally superior Alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Based on the summary of information presented in Table 6.0-1, Project Objective Consistency Analysis, the environmentally superior Alternative is Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. Because Alternative 1 would leave the Project site essentially unchanged and would not have the operational impacts that would be associated with Alternative 2, Alternative 1 is determined to have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, or Alternative 2.

Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that if the “No Project” alternative is found to be environmentally superior, “the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 2 would include the same project features and MMs and would ultimately have a similar environmental impact as the proposed Project.

The context of an environmentally superior alternative is based on the consideration of several factors including the reduction of environmental impacts to a less than significant level, the Project objectives, and an alternative’s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the existing site and surrounding environment. As such, the No Project alternative (Alternative 1) would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project. However, while Alterative 1 is the environmentally superior alternative, it is not capable of meeting any of the basic objectives for the Project or the General Plan.

Aside from Alternative 1, the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project is the one that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. Based on the evaluation undertaken, it is assumed that Alternative 2: “Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings Alternative” is the environmentally superior Alternative. This is an environmentally superior project alternative because overall impacts would be reduced on average by approximately 15 percent, including traffic generated by the project which would translate to a potential 15 percent reduction in air quality and GHG emissions.

Although Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 2 would not significantly mitigate GHG emissions into a less than significant level as emissions would be well in excess of the significance threshold. Also Alternative 2 does not met Project Objectives 4,5,6,7 and 10.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 574
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1420 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 6-17 6.0 | Alternatives
Table 6.0-1: Comparison of Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts with the Project EIR Resource Section
Alternatives
Heading
Project - Level of Impact
After Mitigation
Alternative 1
No Project
Alternative 2
Reduced Square Feet on Two
Buildings Alternative (15%)
Aesthetics Less Than Significant - =
Air Quality Less Than Significant - -
Biological Resources Less Than Significant - =
Cultural Resources Less Than Significant - =
Energy Less Than Significant - -
Geology and Soils Less Than Significant - =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable - - Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less Than Significant - =
Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant - =
Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant - =
Noise Less Than Significant - -
Public Services Less Than Significant - -
Transportation Less Than Significant - -
Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant - =
Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant - - Wildfire Less Than Significant - =
Attainment of Project
Objectives
Meets all of the Project
Objectives
Meets none of
the Project
Objectives
Meets all but two the Project
Objectives
A plus (+) sign means the Project Alternative has more impacts compared to the proposed Project.

A minus (-) sign means the Project Alternative has less impact compared to the proposed Project.

An equal sign (=) means the Project Alternative has similar impact compared to the proposed Project.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 575
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1421 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-1 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

7.1 Introduction
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that “an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” This section briefly describes effects found to have no impact or a less than significant impact based on the analysis conducted during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation process.

7.2 Agriculture and Forestry Services
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Impact 7.2-1 Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical attributes that is conducive to sustained agricultural uses and production of the nation’s short and long term needs for food and fiber.

Prime farmland is limited and therefore requires conservation when able. Unique farmland is classified as any farmland other than prime farmland that is used to generate high-value food and fiber crops, such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, and other fruits and vegetables. Like prime farmland, unique farmland contains an adequate combination of physical and chemical attributes that is conducive to the growth of those high-value crops. Farmland of statewide importance is delineated by individual states and includes land that may not meet the standards of prime or unique farmland but is still able to be an area of significant production for a state.

According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder1and Exhibit OSC-5: Agricultural Resources2from the City of Menifee’s (City) General Plan (GP), the Project site 1 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed October 2022).
2 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-5: Agricultural Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1086/ExhibitOSC5_AgriculturalResources_HD0913?bidId= (accessed October 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 576
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1422 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-2 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance and Other Land by the Farmland Finder and Exhibit OSC-5. The Project would be in compliance with City GP Goal OSC-6 and Policy OSC-6.1, which aim to protect high value agricultural lands in the City.3Implementation of the Project would not involve the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use, and therefore no impact would occur.

Impact 7.2-2 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The City’s land Use Map shows that there are no areas which allow agricultural uses within or nearby the Project site. The Project would occupy a portion of the City which has been designated for EDC land use4 and zoning.5The EDC designation allows for the development of industrial and warehousing related uses which the Project is consistent with. Additionally, there are no lands within the City that are currently under a Williamson Act contract.6Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.

Impact 7.2-3 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project would occupy a portion of the City which has been designated and zoned as an Economic Development Corridor (EDC). The EDC designation allows for the development of industrial and warehousing related uses which the proposed Project is consistent with. According to the City’s GP EIR, forest land in the City includes Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest, and Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland. These vegetation types are limited and scattered throughout the City, and there is no forest zoning in the City.7The Project site has been heavily disturbed from on-site disturbances and existing development, and none of these vegetation types are present on-site. There is no forest or timberland present on the Project site; only fencerow trees 3 City of Menifee. 2013. Open Space & Conservation Element OSC-6: Agriculture. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/877/OSC-6-Agriculture (accessed October 2023).
4 City of Menifee. 2021. General Plan - Land Use Map. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General-Plan--Land-UseMap---December-2021 (accessed October 2022). 5 City of Menifee. 2022. Zoning Map. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning-Map---February-2022 (accessed October 2022).
6 City of Menifee. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Page 5.2-5. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch-05-02-AG?bidId= (accessed November 2022). 7 City of Menifee. 2013. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch-05-02-AG?bidId= (accessed October 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 577
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1423 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-3 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant surrounding the residential property located in the northeast portion of the Project site. No impact would occur.

Impact 7.2-4 Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Due to the lack of existing active farmland, forest lands, timberlands, or areas zoned for agriculture on the Project site or immediately surrounding areas, development of the Project site would not involve changes in the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. While a portion of the Project site was designated Farmland of Local Importance, agricultural use of the Project site ceased in the late 1970s.8 Further, operations for the Project would not involve logging, forestry, or agricultural uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Impact 7.2-5 Would the Project Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
See Impact 7.2-4 above. Due to the lack of existing active farmland or areas zoned for agricultural use on the Project site or immediately surrounding areas, development of the Project site would not involve changes in the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. While a portion of the Project site was designated Farmland of Local Importance, agricultural use of the Project site has ceased. Furthermore, operations for the Project would not involve agricultural uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.

7.3 Mineral Resources
Impact 7.3-1 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project area and approximately one-third of the City is categorized as Urban Area. A small portion of the City, along Murrieta Road between McCall Boulevard and McLaughlin Road, is symbolized as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 (area where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources), this area is not within the Project site and is 8 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. Page 7.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 578
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1424 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-4 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant approximately 0.3 miles to the south.9The remainder of the City symbolized as MRZ-3 (areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance).10 As previously stated, the Project site would be within an area of the City which is currently disturbed and partially developed. None of the past existing uses included uses that focused on mineral refinement or mining. No mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur.

Impact 7.3-2 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
See response to Impact 7.3-1 above. The Project would be located in a previously disturbed and partially developed portion of the City. The previous uses at the Project site did not include mining activities or mineral processing. Further, no active mining sites exist within the City, according to the California Department of Conservation’s Mines Online mapper.11 Therefore, the Project would not interfere with any existing or potential mining activities. No impact would occur.

7.4 Population and Housing
Impact 7.4-1 Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Construction and Operations
The Project would have a beneficial effect on the City’s employment base by developing a site that is largely vacant with a new industrial/warehouse facility with ancillary office space. Given that the current unemployment rate for Riverside County is approximately 4.0 percent (as of October 2022), 12 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. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) regional growth assumptions.13 As a result, the 9 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-3: Mineral Resource Zones. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1084/ExhibitOSC3_Mineral_Resource_Zones_HD0913?bidId= (accessed October 2022). 10 City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-3: Mineral Resource Zones. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1084/ExhibitOSC3_Mineral_Resource_Zones_HD0913?bidId= (accessed October 2022). 11 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html (accessed October 2022). 12 State of California Employment Development Department. 2022. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) - Riverside County. https://data.edd.ca.gov/Labor-Force-and-Unemployment-Rates/Local-Area-Unemployment-Statistics-LAUS-Riverside-/f6zd-dtm5. (accessed November 2022).
13 SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed October 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 579
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1425 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-5 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Project would not be anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the Project area. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial, unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

Impact 7.4-2 Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
There are two single-family residences with associated out structures located on the Project site. All residences appear to be manufactured homes, which can be relocated elsewhere. As such, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; therefore, no impact would occur.

7.5 Recreation
Impact 7.5-1 Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
Available for public use in the City of Menifee are 13 City-owned parks and 20 Valley-wide owned parks.

The closest parks to the Project site are Nova Park (located 25444 Nova Lane, approximately one mile southeast of the Project site) and Talavera Park located at 27931 Calle Talavera, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Project site.14 However, the Project is a warehouse building with office space and does not propose any residential development or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of these parks or any existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facility. Implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Impact 7.5-2 Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Construction and Operations
The Project applicant proposes the construction of a warehouse facility with office space and associated infrastructure improvements. The Project applicant does not propose, nor require, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Project does not include the subdivision of land for residential use and therefore is not required to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu thereof, or combination of both, for park 14 City of Menifee. ND. Parks. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/285/Parks (accessed October 2022).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 580
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1426 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-6 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant and recreational purposes. See Chapter 7.75: Parkland Dedication and Fees of the Menifee Municipal Code for detailed information. Implementation of the Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment as it pertains to construction/expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

7.6 Wildfire
Impact 7.6-1 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
According to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas (last updated in September 2023), the Project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area or within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.15 The closest SRA and VHFHSZ is approximately 1.9 miles west of the Project site. The Project is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Therefore, no impacts associated with the substantial impairment of an adopted emergency response plan would occur.

Impact 7.6-2 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Refer to Impact 7.6-1 above. The Project is not located in or near an SRA and the Project does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impact would occur.

Impact 7.6-3 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Level of Significance: No Impact
15 CAL FIRE. (2023). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 (accessed November 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 581
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1427 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-7 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Refer to Impact 7.6-1 above. The Project is not located in or near an SRA and the Project does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impact would occur.

Impact 7.6-4 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Refer to Impact 7.6-1 above. The Project is not located in or near an SRA and the Project does not contain lands classified as VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes associated with wildfires. No impact would occur.

7.7 References
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.

City of Menifee. ND. Parks. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/285/Parks.

City of Menifee. 2013. City of Menifee General Plan Draft EIR, Section 5.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch-05-02-AG?bidId=.

City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-3: Mineral Resource Zones. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1084/ExhibitOSC3_Mineral_Resource_Zones_HD0913?bidId=.

City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-5: Agricultural Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1086/ExhibitOSC5_AgriculturalResources_HD0913?bidId=.

City of Menifee. 2021. General Plan - Land Use Map.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11043/General-Plan--Land-Use-Map--- December-2021.

City of Menifee. 2013. Open Space & Conservation Element OSC-6: Agriculture. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/877/OSC-6-Agriculture (accessed October 2023).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 582
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1428 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 7-8 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant City of Menifee. 2022. Zoning Map.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/11042/Zoning-Map---February-2022.

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. Page 7.

SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-andgrowth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed October 2023).

State of California Employment Development Department. 2022. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) - Riverside County (Preliminary for March 2022). https://data.edd.ca.gov/Labor-Forceand-Unemployment-Rates/Local-Area-Unemployment-Statistics-LAUS-Riverside-/f6zd-dtm5.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 583
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1429 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 8-1 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation

8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION

8.1 Lead Agency
City of Menifee
• Ryan Fowler, Principal Planner, Planning Division
• Orlando Hernandez, Deputy Community Development Director, Planning Division • Cheryl Kitzerow, AICP, Community Development Director, Community Development Department • Haile Ford, PE, Senior Engineer, Engineering Department • Sonya Bu, Fire Marshal, Office of the Fire Marshal
• Gloria Alvarez, Plans Examiner, Building and Safety Division

8.2 Environmental Document Preparers
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
• Kari Cano, Project Manager
• Meghan Karadimos, Environmental Analyst,
• Aldo Perez, Environmental Analyst
• Sabrina Wallace, Environmental Analyst
• Hannah Thurlow, Environmental Analyst
• Amanda McCallum, Document Production
• Ace Malisos, AQ, HRA, Energy, GHG, and Noise Specialist • Alex Pohlman, AQ, HRA, Energy, GHG, and Noise Specialist • Trevor Briggs, Transportation Specialist

8.3 Technical Study Preparation
Biological Resources
• ELMT Consulting, Inc.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• BCR Consulting, LLC
Geology and Soils
• GeoTek, Inc.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 584
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1430 of 2294 City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report March 2024 8-2 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Hydrology and Water Quality
• Albert A. Webb Associates
Utilities and Service Systems
• Eastern Municipal Water District
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 585
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1431 of 2294 Technical appendices for the CADO Menifee
Industrial Warehouse Project Draft EIR can be
found at the following web address:
https://cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 586
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1432 of 2294 Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
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: 587
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1433 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Findings of Fact................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Document Format............................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Custodian and Location of Records ..................................................................................... 2

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................2

2.1 Project Location.................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Discretionary Actions.......................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Statement of Objectives...................................................................................................... 3

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................4

4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACTS OR BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT..............................................................................................................4

4.1 Aesthetics........................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................... 6

4.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................................... 7

4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................ 7

4.5 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................. 9

4.6 Energy............................................................................................................................... 11

4.7 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................. 12

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................ 14

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 15

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................ 19

4.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 21

4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 22

4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 22

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 24

4.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 25

4.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 27

4.17 Transportation.................................................................................................................. 28

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 31

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................. 31

4.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................. 34 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 588
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1434 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
ii

5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.................................................................34

5.1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................... 34

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................... 35

5.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................................... 35

5.4 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 43

5.5 Energy............................................................................................................................... 43

5.6 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................. 43

5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................ 45

5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 45

5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................ 45

5.10 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 50

5.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 50

5.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 50

5.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 50

5.14 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 50

5.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 51

5.16 Transportation.................................................................................................................. 51

5.17 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 51

5.18 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................. 51

5.19 Wildfire............................................................................................................................. 51

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN NOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ............................................51

6.1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................... 51

6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................... 51

6.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................................... 51

6.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 51

6.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 52

6.6 Energy............................................................................................................................... 52

6.7 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................. 52

6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................ 52

6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 55 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 589
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1435 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
iii

6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................ 55

6.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 55

6.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 55

6.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 55

6.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 55

6.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 55

6.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 55

6.17 Transportation.................................................................................................................. 55

6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 55

6.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................. 55

6.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................. 55

7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ..............................................................56

8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................57

8.1 No Project Alternative (Alternative 1)................................................................................ 57

8.2 Reduced Square Feet on Two Buildings (Alternative 2)...................................................... 58

9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.............58

10.0 OTHER FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................59

11.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................61

12.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR..............................................................................................69 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 590
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1436 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of a project be examined and disclosed prior to approval of a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 1”].
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 2”]. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 3”].

Having received, reviewed and considered the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2022040622 as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings Regarding the CEQA Documents for the Project are hereby adopted by the City of Menifee (City).

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
These Findings have been categorized into the following sections:
• Section 1.0 provides an introduction to these Findings. • Section 2.0 provides a summary of the Project, overview of other discretionary actions required for the Project, and a statement of Project objectives. • Section 3.0 provides a summary of those activities that have preceded the consideration of the Findings for the Project as part of the environmental review process, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. • Section 4.0 sets forth findings regarding those potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Project design features.
• Section 5.0 sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined can Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 591
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1437 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
2 feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures included in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. • Section 6.0 sets forth findings for significant and unavoidable project impacts. • Section 7.0 sets forth findings regarding growth-inducing impacts. • Section 8.0 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project. • Section 9.0 contains findings regarding the MMRP for the Project. • Section 10.0 contains other relevant findings adopted by the City with respect to the Project. • Section 11.0 contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. • Section 12.0 contains information pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR.

The Findings set forth in each section herein are supported by findings and facts identified in the administrative record of the Project.

1.3 CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions regarding the Project are located at the City of Menifee Community Development Department, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, California 92586. The City is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project.

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is generally located approximately 1.5 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215) in the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California. The Project is bounded by Kuffel Road and residential homes, outbuildings, and a stormwater detention basin to the north; Byers Road, vacant undeveloped land, and a single-family residence with associated out structures to the east; Corsica Lane, vacant undeveloped land, and a single-family residence with associated out structures to the south; and Wheat Street, vacant undeveloped land, single family residences, and nonconforming commercial development to the west.

The Project site is comprised of eight parcels total (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 330-190-002, 330-190-003, 330-190-004, 330-190-005, 330-190-010, 330-190-011, 330-190-012, and 330-190-013 totaling 40.03 gross acres. 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.

2.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
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, Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 592
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1438 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
3 discretionary permits and approvals must be obtained from local, state and federal agencies, as listed below.

Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 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 (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. 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.

2.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project by the City and Project applicant:
• Objective 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. • Objective 2. Develop a project that will contribute to the balanced growth in the City in a responsible and strategic manner.
• Objective 3. Develop an area that takes advantage of the existing infrastructure and support systems including the local workforce.
• Objective 4. Positively contribute to the economy of the region through new capital investment and the creation of new employment opportunities.
• Objective 5. Expand the local and regional tax base.
• Objective 6. Develop a project that is economically feasible. • Objective 7. Develop and operate a project that will attract quality tenants and will be competitive with other approved or proposed similar regional facilities. • Objective 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. • Objective 9. Develop the Economic Development Corridor Northern Gateway (EDC-NG), through the development of a land use consistent with the development standards, and criteria relevant to the site.
• Objective 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.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 593
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1439 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
4 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for the Project by the City on May 2, 2022. Additionally, the State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the Project, SCH# 2022040622. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a period of 30 days, during which comments were solicited and received, pertaining to environmental issues/topics that the Draft EIR should evaluate. These NOP responses were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR, which upon release, was made available to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies and interested groups and individuals, as required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087.

The State-mandated public review of the Draft EIR began on March 13, 2024, and concluded April 27, 2024.

The Final EIR includes a Response to Comments package, which presents all written comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and includes responses to these comments and associated changes made to the EIR.

The EIR includes any exhibits or appendices thereto, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the EIR, the comments which were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City of Menifee as the lead agency with respect to the Project and the EIR. The following findings for the Project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record.

4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACTS OR BE LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT
The City finds, based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, dated March 2024, as the following environmental effects of the Project either have no impact or the impacts are less than significant, and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The City hereby finds that existing regulatory requirements, policies, and/or Project conditions have been identified and incorporated into the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the potentially significant effect on the environment to a less than significant level.

4.1 AESTHETICS
Impact 4.1-1: Less than Significant Impact
The City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) does not designate any scenic vistas near the Project site.

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 Menifee GP Policies. Furthermore, the proposed building height of 45 feet 6 inches is well within the maximum allowed building height of 100’ for industrial buildings within the EDC-NG zone. The Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 594
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1440 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
5 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. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project’s impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation relating to this issue is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-9) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly affect scenic vistas. Potential aesthetic impacts to scenic views are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.1-9.

Impact 4.1-2: No Impact
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. 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. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no mitigation relating to this issue is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 and 4.1-10) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly affect scenic highways and corridors. Potential aesthetic impacts to scenic highways and corridors are considered “no impact.” Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this “no impact.”
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-9 and 4.1-10.

Impact 4.1-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project is in an urbanized area and is zoned as EDC-NG. Project construction and operation would comply with the EDC-NG District development standards and design standards and guidelines. Standards and guidelines specific to scenic quality include the general standards, and lighting standards. Through compliance with the EDC-NG development standards and design standards and guidelines, and GP goals and policies, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10 and 4.1-11) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 595
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1441 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
6 The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly affect the scenic quality of the City. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-10 and 4.1-11.

Impact 4.1-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project will require minimal construction-related lighting, as the majority of the construction of the Project would be during daytime hours of construction permitted by the Menifee MC Section 8.01.010 Hours of Construction. Once operational, all lighting at the Project site would be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties, and no structures or features would be permitted that create adverse glare effects pursuant to 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 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 non-reflective material to minimize glare from natural lighting. For these reasons and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft EIR. pp, 4.1-11 and 4.1-12) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-11 through 4.1-12.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impacts 7.2-1, 7.2-2, 7.2-3, 7.2-4, and 7.2-5: No Impact The Project actions were concluded to not having an impact as the site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there are no lands within the City that are currently under a Williamson Act contract or zoned for agricultural use, and there is no forest or timberland present on the Project site that could be lost from Project implementation. (Draft EIR. pp. 7-1 through 7-3) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No potential impacts are anticipated to occur. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 596
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1442 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
7 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR, pages 7-1 through 7-3.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-4: Less than Significant Impact
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 rapidly.

During operations, the Project does not involve any of the land uses that would result in emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. The Project would also be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-35 and 4.2-36) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the emissions of other emissions beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.2-35 and 4.2-36.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-2: No Impact
Review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)’s National Wetland Inventory mapper did not identify any riparian habitat on the Project site. No jurisdictional drainage features, riparian/riverine areas, or vernal pools were observed within the Project site during the field survey. Therefore, regulatory approvals from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would not be required for implementation of the Project. Further, site development would not result in impacts to riparian/riverine habitats and a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation would not be required under the MSHCP for the loss of riparian/riverine habitat. Further, no sensitive habitats were identified within the Project site. Thus, no sensitive natural communities will be impacted from Project implementation. Overall, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 597
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1443 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
8 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.3-14.

Impact 4.3-3: No Impact
Review of the USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory mapper did not identify any wetlands on the Project site. No inundated areas, wetland features, or wetland plant species that would be considered wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur within the Project footprint. As a result, the Project would not result in any impacts or have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-14)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impact on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.3-14.

Impact 4.3-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage. The nearest linkage to the Project site, as identified by the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), occurs approximately 0.7 mile to the northwest of the Project in association with the San Jacinto River. The Project would be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors. Therefore, the Project site does not function as a major wildlife movement corridor or linkage.

As such, implementation of the Project is not expected to have a significant impact to wildlife movement opportunities or prevent local wildlife movement through the area. Due to the lack of any identified impacts to wildlife movement, migratory corridors or linkages or native wildlife nurseries, no mitigation is required. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages are not expected to occur and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 and 4.3-15) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-14 and 4.3-15.

Impact 4.3-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be developed in compliance with the Menifee GP Open Space and Conservation Element’s goals and policies pertaining to the conservation of biological resources. Goal OSC-8 protects Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 598
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1444 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
9 biological resources and Policy OCS-8-5 calls for the recognition of the impacts new development would have on the City's natural resources and to identify ways to reduce these impacts. The Menifee MC Chapter 9.205: Tree Preservation, requires all development to, “protect trees, considered to be a valuable community resource, from indiscriminate cutting or removal, to ensure and enhance public health, safety and welfare through proper care, maintenance and preservation of trees. Such landscaping, irrigation systems and tree preservation represent a substantial investment in and potential benefit to the community. Heritage trees such as those with certain characteristics (age, size, species, location, historical influence, aesthetic quality or ecological value) are subject to special attention and preservation efforts.” However, the Project does not contain any trees that would be subject to the Menifee MC’s tree preservation ordinance. Therefore, adherence with the Menifee GP goals and policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources would ensure that impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-15 and 4.3-16)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with established conservation plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-15 through 4.3-16.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.4-1: No Impact
A field survey of the Project site was conducted on July 11, 2022. During the field survey, a rural residential complex consisting of two modern residences and three modern ancillary buildings was identified in the northeast corner of the Project site. This complex is not historic in age (i.e., 45 or more years old) and as such does not warrant further consideration. No other historic-age resources were observed within the Project boundaries. Overall, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-12) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-12 Impact 4.4-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Cultural Resources Assessment (Draft EIR Appendix D) did not encounter any prehistoric or archaeological resources within the Project site. Given the negative results of the assessment, no additional Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 599
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1445 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
10 work in conjunction with cultural resources was recommended for the Project. However, to avoid any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, monitoring of future earth-disturbing activities will be conducted according to Conditions of Approval (COA)-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8. Additionally, a record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the area of potential effect “the Project site” and the search returned negative results. Therefore, the Project’s potential impacts concerning the significance of an archaeological resource would be less than significant with adherence to Standards Conditions of Approval COA-CUL-3 through COA-CUL-7. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with compliance with applicable COAs. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-13 Impact 4.4-3: Less than Significant Impact
No formal cemeteries are on or near the Project site. Most Native American human remains are found in association with prehistoric archaeological sites. Given the very low potential for the Project’s grounddisturbing activities to encounter archaeological remains, human remains to be potentially encountered are considered low. Notwithstanding, if previously unknown human remains are discovered during the Project’s ground-disturbing activities, a substantial adverse change in the significance of such a resource could occur. In such event, COA-CUL-1 and COA-CUL-2 would be implemented. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-13) Further, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC § 5097.98. Human remains from other ethnic/cultural groups with recognized historical associations to the Project area shall also be subject to consultation between appropriate representatives from that group and the Community Development Director. Thus, compliance with the above-referenced state laws and adherence with COA-CUL-1 and COA-CUL-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-13 and 4.4-14) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not disturb human remains beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with compliance with applicable COAs.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-13 and 4.4-14.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 600
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1446 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
11 4.6 ENERGY
Impact 4.5-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would comply with applicable laws and regulations including, but not limited to, Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to energy usage and efficiency would ensure that the Project energy demands during construction and operations phases would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project’s impacts on energy resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation relating to this issue is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-8 through 4.5-15)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to the wasteful or inefficient energy use beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.5-8 through 4.5-15.

Impact 4.5-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be required to comply with relevant energy conservation policies and plans (i.e., California Title 24 energy standards and the CALGreen Building Code). Compliance with state and local energy efficiency standards would ensure that the Project meets all applicable energy conservation policies and regulations. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Southern California Association of Government (SCAG)’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets set by California Air Resources Board (CARB). The document establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks, as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 375. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the Connect SoCal.

Conformance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies would ensure that the Project does not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR. p. 4.5-15) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts stemming from conflicts with established renewable energy or energy efficiency plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.5-15.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 601
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1447 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
12 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.6-1 (i) and 4.6-2 (ii): Less than Significant Impact There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project site and the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Since there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project site, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Additionally, there was no evidence of faulting identified during the geotechnical investigation of the Project site. The Project site is not subject to surface rupture of a known active fault; therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the Project site is considered to be low. However, the Project would be subject to regional seismicity.

Part of the geotechnical report (Draft EIR Appendix F), 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Design Parameters were generated for the Project. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2022 CBC standards for earthquake resistance. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.6-9 and 4.6-10) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-9 through 4.6-10.

Impact 4.6-3(iii) and 4.6-4 (iv): Less than Significant Impact The Project site is located within a zone of low liquefaction susceptibility. Soil conditions encountered at the boring locations were not considered to be conducive to liquefaction. In addition, the static groundwater table does not exist within 50 feet of the ground surface. Therefore, Project development would not subject people or structures to liquefaction hazards, and impacts including risk of loss, injury, or death would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10) Additionally, the Project site slopes gently downward to the north at an approximate two percent gradient.

No extreme elevation differences exist in or around the Project site that would potentially lead to landslide effects. According to the City’s Liquefaction and Landslides map, the Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility. The Project site is also outside of the hazard zone for rockfall/debris-flow. The relatively flat topography of the Project site along with its location outside of identified landslide susceptibility and rockfall/debris-flow hazard areas would lead to a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-10 and 4.6-11)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects due to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 602
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1448 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
13 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-10 and 4.6-11.

Impact 4.6-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site was found to contain near-surface older alluvium soils. It was then concluded that the older alluvium soils would not be suitable to support the proposed structures due to the non-uniform nature and thickness, and the soils would be removed (where present) and replaced with engineered fill soils. In addition to the excavation and removal of the fill material, the development of the Project would require grading preparation, excavation, trenching and paving activities that could result in soil erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm-related events.

Accordingly, during construction, the Project site would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures. This would include measures such as sandbagging, placement of silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw wattles, mulching, etc., to reduce runoff from the site and to hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. As mass grading proceeds, finish grading commences, and construction begins the erosion measures would be removed or relocated as necessary. Additionally, the construction on the Project site would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (CGP). The NPDES permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management practices (BMPs). The BMPs would be required to meet or exceed measures required by the CGP to control potential construction-related pollutants and would comply with the Menifee MC Title 8, Chapter 8.26 –Grading Regulations. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. All required permits and the erosion control plan would be verified by the City prior to initiation of any construction and prior to the issuance of any grading permit. Furthermore, the Project would implement dust control measures such as watering to control the potential for erosion to occur. Construction contractors would also be required to implement a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to reduce wind erosion. Conformance to these regulations would ensure that potential impacts concerning the generation of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 and 4.6-12)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not result in impacts due to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-11 and 4.6-12.

Impact 4.6-5: Less than Significant Impact
As stated previously, liquefaction and landslides would not be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 603
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1449 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
14 The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. According to the geotechnical report, groundwater was not encountered. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the geotechnical report, groundwater was not encountered. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 50 feet below existing site grades.

Accordingly, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations for the foundations and utilities.

Additionally, due to the presence of shallow granitic bedrock, a negligible subsidence factor is also anticipated. Therefore, compliance with state and local standards and recommendations of the geotechnical report would ensure that impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not result in impacts due to being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-13.

Impact 4.6-8: Less than Significant Impact
No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project proposed a sewer infrastructure plan that includes a network of new public sewer mains that would connect to the existing Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)sewer system surrounding the Project boundaries. A less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts due to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-14.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts. Refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 604
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1450 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
15 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.8-1: Less than Significant Impact
Construction and operational activities would include the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction, industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. The use, storage, transportation, and disposal of these hazardous materials would be in compliance with existing laws and regulations including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Riverside County Fire Protection District to 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. Mandatory compliance with laws and regulations, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.8-19 and 4.8-20) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts concerning hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-19 and 4.8-20.

Impact 4.8-2: Less than Significant Impact
Project construction and operational activities could result in hazards to the public or the environment through the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials caused by accidental spillage of hazardous materials. As previously stated above, the Project would comply with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials that would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable regulations, such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility under SCAQMD Rule 1166. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by Riverside County Fire Department would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Project construction workers would also be required to conduct safe handling of hazardous material, as stated previously. Furthermore, prior to Project approval, a Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP) also would be required for approval Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 605
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1451 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
16 to show conformance with all applicable materials handling protocols. Adherence to these regulations is overseen and enforced by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch. Therefore, compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory framework would ensure that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.8-21 and 4.8-22)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-21 and 4.8-22.

Impact 4.8-3: Less than Significant Impact
No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest school to the Project site is Hans Christensen Middle School located approximately 1.4 miles to the southeast at 27625 Sherman Road, Menifee, California 92585. Ethanac Road provides a direct route between the Project site and I-215. Transport associated with the Project would not pass within one-quarter mile of this school.

Additionally, the Project does not propose any industrial uses which could generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. Furthermore, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce public safety hazards. Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-22 Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to being on a site containing hazardous materials beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.8-22.

Impact 4.8-4: Less than Significant Impact
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.9. In addition, the Phase I ESA (Draft EIR Appendix H) did not identify any environmental concerns for the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-25)
Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 606
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1452 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
17 Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-25.

Impact 4.8-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is located in Zone E of the Perris Valley ALUCP. With regard to noise impacts, the Project site is beyond the 55-CNEL contour. The Project would be in accordance with the Perris Valley Compatibility Zone within each respective airport and all state, county, and local goals, policies, and regulations.

Furthermore, the Project has been reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) which would ensure that future development would be compatible with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and therefore, would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. p. 4.8-23)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with public or private airports beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.8-23.

Impact 4.8-6 Less than Significant Impact
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. The City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan to identify evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan would be required as a result of the Project. Additionally, the Project site is not located along a City evacuation route, and would not obstruct evacuation. The Project proposes improvements to nearby roadways that would further improve the City’s accessibility through the widening of roads, development of dedicated turn lanes, and other necessary improvements. Roadway improvements are further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.13, Transportation.

Furthermore, response times from the Riverside County Fire Department Station 5 and 7 would not be impaired by Project implementation because primary access to all major roads would be provided through the improvement of Kuffel and Byers Roads and Wheat Street. Additionally, the improvement of Kuffel and Byers Roads and Wheat Street would improve future response times in this area, as these two roads are Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 607
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1453 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
18 currently unimproved. The Project would also require that the Project to pay development impact fees which constitutes as adequate mitigation because through implementation of the Development Impact Fees (DIF) program, the City of Menifee 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, and the Project applicant’s compliance with all required design regulations, would further minimize the demand for fire protection and emergency public services impacts. Refer to Draft EIR Section 4.12, Public Services.

Since both Project construction and operations would not disrupt or interfere with emergency access to nearby roadways, would not interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, and would comply with design standards for emergency services, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, page 4.8-24) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR.

Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.8-24.

Impact 4.8-7 Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is not located within a Local Responsibility Area, State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. According to the City’s High Fire Hazard Areas Map, neither the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) nor the City identify the Project site within an area susceptible to wildland fires.

While the Project site is located in an area with vegetation that can be prone to fire, due to the presence of surrounding development, scattered nature of the existing undeveloped areas, presence of area roadways (to be improved as part of Project), lack of steep slopes, vegetation maintenance, graded nature of the development site to the north, and concrete construction of development, it is not likely to be affected by a wildfire during construction or operations. In addition, the undeveloped areas around the Project site would be separated from the Project area by roads, parking, drive aisles, and fire-resistant landscaping. This buffer would ensure an appropriate width to reduce the risk of potential fire hazards.

Prior to final plan check approval, the City in coordination with the Riverside County Fire Department and CAL FIRE would review the Project-specific site plan to ensure adequate design features are implemented to reduce the potential impacts from wildfires. Overall, with design compliance with fire codes and Menifee GP goal and policies, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, page 4.8-25)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 608
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1454 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
19 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to the risk of wildland fires beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-25.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.9-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would construct on-site and off-site potable water systems in accordance with EMWD design standards to receive water services from EMWD. Thus, the Project would utilize potable water and would not use any on-site or off-site groundwater wells, nor any other groundwater extractive methods to service the Project. Furthermore, the Water Supply Assessment (WSA; Draft EIR Appendix L) prepared by the EMWD also determined that EMWD does not plan to develop new groundwater supplies for this Project.

Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater basin.

Although construction activities would introduce new impermeable surfaces to the Project site, the Project would include elements to reduce the effects of the new impervious areas pursuant to design measures in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These measures include, but are not limited to, low-impact development (LID) BMPs and other stormwater drainage controls. LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas (DMAs). No alternative compliance measures are required. The LIDs would be engineered to capture and control run-off prior to being released downstream. This would increase the duration that water is held on-site prior to being released to downstream receiving waters. This timed-release allows water to slowly infiltrate the ground and helps facilitate recharge. In addition, LIDs that include permeable materials, enable run-off to immediately infiltrate and begin the recharge process. Lastly, the Project site also includes areas that will be landscaped with permeable surfaces in accordance with EMWD’s Water Efficient Guidelines for New Development, which also would facilitate groundwater recharge. Therefore, since the Project would include BMPs to assist with the recharge of groundwater with the required measures in place, the loss of the permeable area would not be substantial. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.9-18 and 4.9-19)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the reduction of groundwater resources beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-18 and 4.9-19.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 609
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1455 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
20 Impact 4.9-6: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is within a Flood Boundary, identified as Zone X which indicates that the Project is located in a minimal flood hazard zone. Development of the Project would change absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff that could impede or redirect flood flows.

However, per the Project’s Drainage Study (Draft EIR Appendix I1), subsurface storm drains and associated inlets would be used to convey on-site flows to the water quality bioretention basin located along the north end of the property. Off-site runoff would be conveyed to the open bioretention basin as well. The Drainage Study conducted for the Project site concluded the proposed drainage improvements would adequately convey flows to the basin and provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event. The Drainage study also concluded the Project would not impact flooding conditions to upstream or downstream properties.

The Project is located within the Perris Valley Master Drainage Plan (MDP) and the Santa Ana watershed area. On-site flows would discharge to proposed MDP Line A-14a along Ethanac Road, and discharge to existing MDP Line A before reaching the San Jacinto River. Additionally, off-site runoff would be collected on-site within the water quality basin before discharging to MDP Line A-14a. On-site flows generated by the Project would sheet flow through the Project site utilizing ribbon gutters and a storm drain network system. On-site runoff would drain from the south of the property to the northeast corner to the open bioretention basin along the north side of the property. The basin is purely a water quality basin and does not provide any flow mitigation. Off-site flows from the south side of the property would be collected by v-gutters along the retaining wall at the south end of the property and redirect the runoff to the proposed curb and gutter along Wheat Street and Byers Road. Stormwater runoff from the street improvements along Wheat Street from the center line to the easterly curb and gutter would enter a proposed catch basin located at the northwest corner of the property before discharging on-site into the open bioretention basin. Similarly, stormwater from the street improvements along Byers Road from the center line to westerly curb and gutter would enter a proposed catch basin located at the northeast corner of the property before discharging on-site to the open storage basin. Runoff from the south half of the street improvements along Kuffel Road between Wheat Street and Byers Road would also flow to a catch basin at the northeast corner of the property before discharging on-site to the bioretention basin. Discharge from the basin would flow directly to proposed storm drain Line A-14a of the Perris Valley MDP and discharge directly into Line A before reaching the San Jacinto River.

Stormwater runoff from the site discharges to MDP line A-14a before discharging directly to an engineered channel (MDP Line A). The engineered channel discharges to an adequate sump (San Jacinto River). Due to the fact that the downstream conveyance from the Project site is engineered and an MS4 facility, Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) mitigation is not required. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in regard to redirecting flood flows, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.9-23 and 4.9-24)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 610
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1456 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
21 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24.

Impact 4.9-8: Less than Significant Impact
The Project’s components are not anticipated to obstruct groundwater facilities as groundwater facilities are not planned by EMWD for this Project. Furthermore, the Project would not substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies or directly impact groundwater supplies because the Project’s proposed BMPs would include design features that would assist in the recharge of groundwater supplies. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Plan or the West Jacinto Groundwater Basin Management Plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-25)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with adopted water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-25.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.10-1 Less than Significant
The Project would not physically divide an established community, because it would use existing owned parcels that are already inaccessible for pedestrian or vehicular through traffic. In addition, although residential uses will be demolished, these are intermixed with other vacant land. As a result, there is a substantial lack of geographic neighborhood cohesion. The Project would add no additional barriers than those that already exist (i.e., fencing throughout some of the homes and portions of the Project site).

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not involve the removal of vital roadways or points of connection for residents but would improve Project area roadways. Lastly, the Project’s proposed uses would be consistent with all applicable Menifee GP goals and policies and specific development standards contained in the Menifee MC. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-5)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to established communities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.10-5.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 611
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1457 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
22 Impact 4.10-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As set forth in the EIR, regionally, the Project would comply with the goals and policies presented in SCAG’s Connect SoCal. As further discussed in Draft EIR Table 4.10-4, the Project would comply with the Menifee GP’s relevant goals and policies. Lastly, the Project would be designed in compliance with Menifee MC, Title 9, also referred to as the Development Code. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5- and 4.10-19)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with adopted land use policies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.10-5 through 4.10-19.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 7.3-1 and 7.3-2: No Impact
The Project site would be within an area of the City which is currently disturbed and partially developed.

None of the existing uses include mineral refinement or mining. No mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site. The previous uses at the Project site did not include mining activities or mineral processing, and no active mining sites exist within the City. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with any existing or potential mining activities. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-3 and 7-4).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to the loss of mineral resources beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 7-3 and 7-4.

4.13 NOISE
Impact 4.11-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Although sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 612
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1458 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
23 noise levels during Project construction, these noise levels would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses. Pursuant to Menifee MC Section 8.01.010 all construction activities would occur Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. While the Menifee Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards, this analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses, 85 dBA (8 hour Leq) for commercial uses, and 90 dBA (8-hour Leq) for industrial uses. As concluded in Draft EIR Table 4.11-9, noise levels at these sensitive receptors would reach 74.0 dBA Leq and therefore do not exceed the applicable FTA 80 dBA 8-hour Leq construction threshold, resulting in a less than significant impact. During operations, Draft EIR Table 4.11-10 shows that none of the closest sensitive receptors would experience a noise level increase greater than 4.5 dBA.

Lastly, review of Draft EIR Table 4.11-11 shows that the Project’s off-site traffic noise levels between 2024 Year without conditions and Year 2024 with Project would be insignificant and therefore, a less than significant impact would not occur. As such, traffic noise impacts from the Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.11-16 through 4.11-22)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-16 through 4.11-22.

Impact 4.11-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The nearest structure to the Project construction site is approximately 50 feet away. Draft EIR Table 4.11-12 shows that at 50 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.0315 in/sec Peak particle velocity (PPV), which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and below the 0.04 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-23). It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Project’s truck movements would be at low speed (not at freeway speeds) and would be over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), Project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive ground-borne vibrations; no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground-borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. The Project would not create or cause any vibration impacts due to operations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-23 and 4.11-24).

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 613
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1459 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
24 Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to excessive groundborne vibrations beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-23 through 4.11-24.

Impact 4.11-3: No Impact
The closest airport to the Project site is the Perris Valley Aviation Airport located approximately one mile to the northwest. Although the Project is within two miles of the Perris Valley airport, it is outside of the 55 CNEL noise contour. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people working in the Project area to excessive airport- or airstriprelated noise levels and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts stemming from proximity to airport land use plan areas or private airstrips beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.11-24.

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 7.4-1: Less than Significant Impact
Given that the current unemployment rate for Riverside County is approximately 4.0 percent (as of October 2022), 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. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the SCAG’s regional growth assumptions. As a result, the Project would not be anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the Project area. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial, unplanned population growth would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-4 and 7-5) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from induced population growth beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 7-4 and 7-5.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 614
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1460 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
25 Impact 7.4-2: No Impact
There are two single-family residences with associated outstructures located on the Project site. All residences appear to be manufactured homes. As such, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-5)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the displacement of individuals or housing beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 7-5.

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 4.12-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project Applicant would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) toward new fire facilities.

With payment of these fees, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. 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 facilities.

Compliance with applicable local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.12-7 and 4.12-8) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to fire services beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-7 through 4.12-8.

Impact 4.12-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be subject to the applicable DIFs. Funding for the operation and maintenance of existing services comes from the City’s General Fund, Measure DD funds, and DIFs. The Project site would be adequately served by existing Menifee Police Department (MPD) facilities, equipment, and personnel such that new facilities would not be required. Because the Project site is not residential, although some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for police services would not be significantly impacted due to construction and operation of the Project warehouse. Additionally, development of the site would increase Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 615
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1461 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
26 property tax revenues to provide a source of funding to offset any increases in demands for public services generated by the Project. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.12-9 and 4.12-10) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to police services beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-9 and 4.12-10.

Impact 4.12-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not draw a substantial number of new residents to the districts and therefore, would not indirectly generate school-aged students requiring public education. The Project does not include residential land uses and would not directly introduce new school-age children within the Romoland Unified School District (RUSD) and Perris Union High School boundaries.

The Project, however, would not create a direct demand for public school services, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate any school-aged children requiring public education. The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the districts and therefore, would not indirectly generate school-aged students requiring public education. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a direct demand for additional public school services, the Project Applicant would be required to contribute DIF to the Romoland School District and the Perris Union High School District in compliance with California SB 50 (Greene), which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits and the payment of school fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA. Developer fees for industrial development located within the Romoland School District is $0.56 per square foot. Developer fees for industrial development located in the Perris Union High School District (within the City) is $0.2184 per square foot. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR. p. 4.12-10) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to schools beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.12-10.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 616
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1462 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
27 Impact 4.12-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not create a direct demand for park facilities, as the subject property would contain nonresidential uses that would not generate population growth requiring park facilities. The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the area and therefore, would not indirectly generate population growth requiring park facilities. Since the Project would not directly generate population growth and is not expected to indirectly introduce parkgoers to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter park facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to park facilities. (Draft EIR. p. 4.12-11) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to parks beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.12-11.

Impact 4.12-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project, however, would not create a direct demand for other public facilities, as the subject property would contain non-residential uses that would not generate population growth requiring other public facilities. The Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the area and therefore, would not indirectly generate population growth requiring other public facilities. Because the Project would not directly generate population growth and is not expected to indirectly introduce new population to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically alter other public facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to other public facilities. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.12-11 and 4.12-12) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to other public facilities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-11 and 4.12-12.

4.16 RECREATION
Impact 7.5-1 and 7.5-2: No Impact
The closest parks to the Project site are Nova Park (located 25444 Nova Lane, approximately one mile southeast of the Project site) and Talavera Park located at 27931 Calle Talavera, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Project site. However, the Project is a warehouse building with office space and does not propose any residential development or other land use that may generate a population that would increase Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 617
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1463 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
28 the use of these parks or any existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facility.

Furthermore, the Project does not include the subdivision of land for residential use and therefore is not required to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu thereof, or combination of both, for park and recreational purposes, pursuant to Menifee MC Chapter 7.75. Implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park, include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-5 and 7-6)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts due to the increased demand on established parks beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 7-5 and 7-6.

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Impact 4.13-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be consistent with SB 375 by complying with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The Project’s consistency analysis with SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals is further discussed in Draft EIR Table 4.10-3, Project Compatibility with SCAG Connect SoCal Strategies within Draft EIR Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

The Project would also be consistent with Riverside County’s CMP goals which include, but are not limited to, adhering to the CMP by maintaining and enhancing the performance of the multimodal transportation system near the Project site and minimizing travel delay (refer to the LOS analysis in the Project’s Traffic Study [Draft EIR Appendix K1] evaluating the effectiveness of recommendation measures).

The Project would include improvements to the existing Byers Road, Wheat Street, and Kuffel Road.

Internal circulation improvements would include on-site perimeter circulation in compliance with all applicable Menifee MC development standards. Furthermore, the Project would include off-site improvements for Opening Year 2024 and Opening Year 2024 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions through a combination of fee payments to help establish programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of fair-share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches.

The Project’s fair share proportion at deficient study intersections is furthered addressed in the LOS analysis provided in the Project’s Traffic Study.

Furthermore, the Project’s development could result in an increased demand of public transportation as employment opportunities increase. RTA, as the public transit agency for the area, would be responsible for routinely reviewing and adjusting their ridership schedules and service destinations to accommodate public demand. Thus, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local public transit services.

Overall, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the Project’s circulation system. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-11 and 4.13-12) Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 618
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1464 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
29 Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.13-11 through 4.13-12.

Impact 4.13-2: Less than Significant Impact
Review of Draft EIR Table 4.13-1 concluded that the Project’s Employment-Based VMT land use does not exceed the City’s VMT threshold under any Project scenario. The VMT per service population for the Project is less than the City's VMT threshold. This finding should remain consistent whether the entirety of the Project's VMT is considered, or if only the VMT within the City is considered. This is because both the Project and the rest of the City, under which the threshold was developed, will have consistent travel patterns and so the relative VMT per service population between the project and the remainder of the City should remain consistent within the City. Therefore, it can be determined that under baseline conditions, the Project effect on VMT would be considered a less-than-significant impact on VMT within the City.

Therefore, under baseline conditions, the Project’s effect on VMT would be less than significant impact on VMT within the City. As such, if a project is consistent with the Connect SoCal, then the cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant. The proposed land use is consistent with the Menifee GP; therefore, the Project’s cumulative VMT impact is considered less than significant.

The City provides Industrial Good Neighbor Policies for new industrial project sites. Although the Project’s VMT impact is considered to be less than significant, the Project would comply with the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for industrial uses with over 100 employees to reduce work-related vehicle trips. Overall, impacts concerning the Project’s VMT effects are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-12 and 4.13-14) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impactsregarding conflicts with CEQA transportation guidelines beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.13-12 through 4.13-14.

Impact 4.13-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on-site, such as farm equipment. All circulation improvements (i.e., Byers Road and Wheat Street) would be constructed as approved by the City’s Public Works Department. Additionally, the Project would be constructed in accordance with Menifee MC Section 9.160.050. All structures shall be located to provide safe and Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 619
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1465 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
30 convenient access for servicing, fire protection and required off-street parking. In addition, all Project driveway intersections operate at an acceptable LOS with implementation of the recommendations and would therefore not create unsafe traffic conditions at these intersections. Sight distance at Project access points would comply with applicable sight distance standards and no sharp curves are proposed as part of the Project design (Menifee MC Section 9.160.060). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-14)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from hazardous design features beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.13-14.

Impact 4.13-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Project access is proposed via two fullmovement, 40-foot driveways on Byers Road and two full-movement, 40-foot driveways on Wheat Street.

On-site drive aisles would provide two-way circulation on site, connecting to the City’s evacuation system.

Emergency access lanes would be provided around the perimeter of the building. In accordance with the City’s Development Code § 9.160.050, “Every structure shall be constructed upon or moved to a legally recorded parcel with a permanent means of access to a public street or road, or a private street or road, conforming to city standards. All structures shall be located to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection and required off-street parking.” Metal, manual operated gates with Knox-Padlock would be provided at each driveway per Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. Curbs would be painted, and signage provided to inform of the fire lanes, as required by the RCFD. The RCFD would review the Project for access requirements concerning minimum roadway width, fire apparatus access roads, fire lanes, signage, access devices and gates, and access walkways, among other requirements, which would enhance emergency access to the Project site. Following compliance with RCFD access requirements, adequate emergency access to the Project site would be provided. Project impacts concerning emergency access would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.13-14 and 4.13-15) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from impaired emergency access beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.13-14 and 4.13-15.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 620
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1466 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
31 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.14-1: Less than Significant Impact
The City of Menifee sent letters to those interested tribes that requested notification from projects occurring within the City pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The following are the interested tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Pechanga Band of Indians;
• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians; and
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

To date, no response from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Cultural Resources Department has been received. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians closed consultation on August 23, 2022, following review of the cultural resources assessment. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested that the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Section be sent to them upon completion. On October 3, 2022, during a quarterly meeting with the City, the Pechanga Tribe stated they’re satisfied with the City’s standard conditions of approval for cultural/tribal cultural resources and consultation is concluded. Based on consultation with local tribes, Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) COA-CUL-1 through COA CUL-8 (see Draft EIR Section 4.4, Cultural Resources) would ensure that any impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.14-9 and 4.14-11) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts on tribal cultural resources beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.14-9 and 4.14-11.

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 4.15-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is currently composed of vacant land with mixed single residential structures and associated out buildings. Adjacent and nearby uses include vacant, undeveloped land, and residential land which is served by existing utilities, including electricity, natural gas, wet and dry facilities. Existing utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of the Project to serve the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the Project. All required improvements and extensions to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing roadway rights-of-way adjacent to the Project site. The new facilities required for the Project would be constructed within the development area, and would be placed underground as per the Menifee Development Code, Title 9. All areas adjacent to the existing roadways also are disturbed and are within the overall footprint of Project and any impacts are, therefore, discussed and disclosed as part of this Draft EIR within the various sections of this document. As such, upgrades to existing utilities are already evaluated as part of the overall Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 621
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1467 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
32 Project. Therefore, impacts associated with extension of services in these areas and within the site are less than significant.

Based on land use information provided by the developer and the lead agency, the actual average water demand for the Project is estimated to be 23.75 AFY, which is well within the limits of the estimated demand considered in the 2020 UWMP. Based on the Project water usage rate, the Project would represent a nominal percentage of EMWD’s present and future water supplies for both single- and multiple-dry-year scenarios. As such, the Project would have sufficient water supplies. Additionally, based on the incremental increase in demand that would result from implementation of the Project, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.15-12 and 4.15-15) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the increased demand on public facilities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-12 and 4.15-15.

Impact 4.15-2: Less than Significant Impacts
The Project’s water service provider is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the projected demands. Additionally, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by EMWD for the Project to evaluate the existing and future demands on the water supply needed to be supplied from EMWD (Draft EIR Appendix L). The WSA determined that adequate water is available to serve the Project. The Project would result in less than significant impacts on services provided by the water service provider. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to water supplies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.15-17.

Impact 4.15-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project’s wastewater service provider is anticipated to have adequate capacity to treat the projected demand. The Project is anticipated to cause a less than significant impact on services provided by the wastewater service provider. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 622
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1468 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
33 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding wastewater treatment demand beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.15-16.

Impact 4.15-4: Less than Significant Impact
According to CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, a warehouse facility is estimated to produce 13.82 pounds of waste per employee per day. The estimated number of employees for the Project site is 860 to operate the warehouse. This equates to approximately 11,885 pounds (5.9 tons) of waste per day from the Project site. That is approximately 0.04 percent of the El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum daily throughput and 0.12 percent of Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed above. Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and Assembly Bill 939. The Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-16 and 4.15-17) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding solid waste generation beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-16 through 4.15-17.

Impact 4.15-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be constructed in compliance with Government Code Section 5.408.1, the more stringent of the code sections which requires that projects recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Government Code Sections 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent. As such a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-17 and 4.15-18)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with established solid waste policies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-17 and 4.15-18.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 623
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1469 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
34 4.20 WILDFIRE
Impact 7.6-1, 7.6-2, 7.6-3, 7.6-4: No Impact
According to CAL FIRE’s State Responsibility Areas (last updated in September 2023), the Project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area or within or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). In addition, the Project site does not contain lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZ is located approximately 1.9 miles to the west of the Project site. Therefore, no impact associated with the substantial impairment of an adopted emergency response plan would occur. Because the site is located within an urbanized area, it would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Additionally, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, nor would it require the installation/maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR pp. 7-6 and 7-7)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts to the following: established emergency response or evacuation plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR; wildfire impacts beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR; substantial impacts due to the installation of infrastructure beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR; substantial post-fire flooding or landslide impacts beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 7-6 and 7-7.

5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A

LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City finds, based upon the threshold criteria for significance presented in the Draft EIR, that all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with feasible mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. No substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the following impacts would, in fact, occur at levels that would necessitate a determination of significance.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b), requires a description of any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented.

5.1 AESTHETICS
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 624
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1470 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
35 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.3 AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-1: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated 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 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. (Draft EIR. p. 4.2-18) 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.

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-8, the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with Mitigation Measures (MM) AQ-1 and MM AQ-2. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2-10, MMs AQ-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 EDC Northern Gateway, and the Project’s existing zoning designation is 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 MC.

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.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 625
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1471 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
36 Implementation of 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. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-18 and 4.2-19)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

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 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.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 626
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1472 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
37 • 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. • 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.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.2-18 through 4.2-21.

Impact 4.2-2: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Review of Draft EIR Table 4.2-8 shows that Project unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-22). The majority of PM10 emissions Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 627
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1473 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
38 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.

Review of Draft EIR Table 4.2-9, Project unmitigated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. However, through implementation of various mitigation measures discussed below, the Project’s operational emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-23) MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a 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.

Additionally, the Project would comply with applicable Plans, Programs, and Policies (PPP)-1 through PPP-8 which include provisions of the CBC, CalGreen Code, Menifee MC, SCAQMD Rules, etc. Therefore, implementation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5 and MM HRA-1 and compliance with relevant PPPs would ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-26) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5 and MM HRA-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5 and MM HRA-1 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM 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 Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 628
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1474 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
39 (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.2-21 through 4.2-26.

Impact 4.2-3: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Applied Review of Draft EIR Table 4.2-12 shows that Project construction emissions from the Project are below SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) and therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction. The maximum daily emissions of these pollutants for Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. 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 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. 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.

MM AQ-2 prohibits the idling heavy equipment for more than three minutes and prohibited from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a 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. Therefore, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-26 through 4.2-35) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 and MM HRA-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 and MM HRA-1 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-26 through 4.3-35.

Biological Resources Impact 4.3-1: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the field investigation. The Project site and surrounding area have been subject to decades of anthropogenic disturbances which have removed native plant communities that historically occurred. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the site has a low to moderate potential to support smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) and paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata). There is minimal habitat on the Project site that would support the smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) and paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata). However, these special-status plant species are not state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. (Draft EIR, Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 629
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1475 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
40 p. 4.3-10) Furthermore, no CDFW special-status plant communities occur within the boundaries of the Project site.

Special-status wildlife species observed during the field investigation include great egret and Costa’s hummingbird. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a high potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharpshinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), snowy egret (Egretta thula), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); and a low potential to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californica). All remaining special-status wildlife species were presumed to be absent from the Project site due to the lack of native habitat, routine on-site disturbances, and isolation of the site from suitable habitats. None of the other aforementioned species are federally or state listed as threatened or endangered, however, white-tailed kite is fully protected under CESA. The majority of the aforementioned species are not expected to occur on-site while foraging due to the absence of suitable nesting/roosting opportunities and degree and type of routine on-site and surrounding disturbance.

To ensure impacts to aforementioned avian species do not occur from implementation of the Project, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey would be conducted prior to ground disturbance in accordance with MM BIO-1.

Furthermore, based on the results of the 2023 burrowing owl focused surveys, no burrowing owls or evidence of recent or historic use burrowing owls were observed on the Project site. As a result, burrowing owls are presumed to be absent from the Project site. Nevertheless, to ensure that burrowing owl remain absent from the Project site, the Project would implement MM BIO-2 which would require that a 30-day burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey be conducted prior to obtaining a grading permit.

Overall, based on the Project footprint, and with the implementation of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, none of the special-status species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site would be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the Project. A less than significant impact would occur with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.3-10 through 4.3-13) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following Mitigation Measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM BIO-1 If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three days of the start of Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 630
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1476 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
41 any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer (generally 300 feet for migratory and non-migratory songbirds and 500 feet raptors and special-status species) will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

MM BIO-2 The Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The results of the single one-day survey shall be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. If at any time there is a lapse of Project activities for 30 days or more, another burrowing owl survey shall be conducted and submitted to the City.

If burrowing owl are not detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgment and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with CDFW, or the Project Developer shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-10 through 4.3-13.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 631
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1477 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
42 Impact 4.3-6: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site is located within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP. No jurisdictional drainages, riparian/riverine and/or wetland features were observed within the Project site or off-site improvement areas during the field investigation. Therefore, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would not be required for the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the Project, and the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.

Additionally, based on the results of the literature review, the Project site has not supported natural plant communities since at least 1966. Accordingly, the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for these MSHCP listed Narrow Endemic Plant Species and thus, would not need to comply with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species.

Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface, is intended to address indirect effects associated with development in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project site is not located within or in close proximity of any Criteria Cells or designated conservation areas. Therefore, the Project would not need to comply with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.

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. In compliance with the conservation goals of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, a Part B-Focused burrowing owl survey was conducted during the breeding season. Pursuant to MM BIO-2, a final pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey would be required in to ensure burrowing owl remains absent from the Project site.

The Project site is located within the Mitigation Fee Area of the SKR HCP, but is not located within or adjacent to any of the Core Reserve Areas. Since the Project site is not located within or adjacent to any of the Core Reserve Areas, no focused SKR surveys or on-site mitigation would be required. On-site mitigation is only recommended in Ordinance 663.10 when a site is located within or adjacent to a Core Reserve Area.

As a result, the applicant would only be required to pay the SKR HCP Mitigation Fee prior to development of the Project site.

With completion of recommendations provided above and payment of the applicable MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for industrial developments and SKR HCP Mitigation fees, and implementation of MMs BIO-1 through BIO-2, development of the Project site would be fully consistent with the MSHCP. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.3-16 through 4.3-18)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 632
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1478 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
43 Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-16 through 4.3-18.

5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.5 ENERGY
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.6-7: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as water levels and precipitation changes throughout the year. These soils normally occur within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume changes dramatically. The near-surface soils encountered during the geotechnical investigation consisted of older alluvium which is dense to very dense silty sand or hard sandy silt or sandy clay and granitic bedrock that is locally overlain by older alluvium. Based on the results of laboratory testing for the geotechnical investigation, the older alluvial soils are considered to have a “very low” to “low” expansion potential. Although grading activities would likely involve relatively significant mixing and blending of the site materials and a reduction of the overall expansion potential of the fill soils, sandy silt soils of low expansion index would still remain beneath the fill in most areas. The Project would implement the design recommendations listed in the geotechnical reports and 2022 CBC design standards, and MM GEO-1 to reduce impacts from expansive soils. Additionally, the Project would comply with City standard conditions of approval requiring compliance with the design recommendations listed in the geotechnical reports, 2022 CBC design standards, and City standard conditions of approval would reduce impacts from expansive soil to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-13 and 4.6-14) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM GEO-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM GEO-1 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-1 Initial site preparation shall commence with removal of debris, deleterious materials, and vegetation within the limits of the planned improvements. These materials shall be properly disposed of off-site. Voids resulting from removing any materials shall be replaced with engineered fill materials with expansion characteristics similar to the onsite materials.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 633
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1479 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
44 Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-13 and 4.6-14.

Impact 4.6-9: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The geologic units underlying the Project area are mapped as middle to early Pleistocene alluvial gravel, silt, sand, and clay, and as Cretaceous granodiorite and tonalite. While the granodiorite and tonalite units are considered to be of low paleontological value, the Pleistocene alluvial units are considered highly paleontologically sensitive. Based on these results, the MM GEO-2 will be implemented. With implementation of MM GEO-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-14 and 4.6-15)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM GEO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM GEO-2 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre-construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. The PRIMP would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Information contained in the PRIMP would minimally include:

1. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations.

2. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth-moving activities.

3. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving.

4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens.

5. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City.

6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays.

7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 634
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1480 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
45 8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary.

9. Fossil identification and curation procedures.

10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material.

11. All pertinent maps and exhibits.

12. Procedures for reporting of findings.

13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRIMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-14 and 4.6-15.

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts. Refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.9-1: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Ground disturbing activities (e.g., clearing, grading, excavation), and construction activities associated with Project buildout may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in nearby drainages. The Project is required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the water quality policies of the Menifee GP and the Riverside County DAMP, all which require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP in order to obtain grading and building permits. The SWPPP shall identify site-specific construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff from the Project site. The Project will be subject to BMPs. Overall, the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements with implementation of MM HYD-1 and HYD-2. (Draft EIR, pp 4.9-14 through 4.9-18) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 635
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1481 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
46 and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM HYD-1: Prior to commencing grading, the Project Applicant shall comply with applicable construction water quality regulations including the NPDES General Construction Permit, which shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This process requires that the applicant electronically submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) prior to commencement of construction activities in the Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs consist of the NOI, Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the SWPPP, a signed certification statement by the Legally Responsible Person, and the first annual fee.

The required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted to the City of Menifee Engineering Department for review and approval, identifying specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration, contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements:

A. Compliance with the requirements of the State of California’s most current Construction Stormwater Permit.

B. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all disturbed areas.

C. Disturbed surfaces shall be treated with erosion control measures during the October 15 to April 15 rainy season.

D. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other BMPs.

E. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate discharge of materials to storm drains.

F. BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the Santa Ana RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure.

G. In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the duration of construction.

H. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit the Final Tentative Parcel Map that includes the water quality BMPs for approval Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 636
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1482 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
47 by the City of Menifee Engineer. The City of Menifee Engineer shall ensure that all applicable water quality standards are met before approving the SWPPP.

MM HYD-2: The Project Applicant shall prepare a Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with O&M Plan for submittal together with the associated grading and improvement plans which must be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. These documents shall be prepared in accordance with applicable City (Menifee) and County (Riverside) water quality requirements, for review and approval by the City of Menifee Engineering Department, including the following:
i. Site Design BMPs
ii. Source Control BMPs
iii. Treatment Control BMPs
iv. BMP Sizing
v. Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives
vi. Regionally-Based Treatment Control BMPs
vii. O&M Responsibility for Treatment Control BMPs
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-14 through 4.9-18.

Impact 4.9-3: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project would generate on-site and off-site flows. On-site runoff would sheet flow through the Project site utilizing ribbon gutters and storm network systems and drain from the south of the property to the northeast corner to the bioretention basin. The basin is purely a water quality basin and does not provide any flow mitigation. Off-site flows from the south of the property would be collected by v-gutters along the retaining wall at the south end of the property and redirect the runoff to the proposed curb and gutter along Wheat Street and Byers Road. Stormwater runoff from the street improvements along Wheat Street from the center line to the easterly curb and gutter would enter a proposed catch basin located at the northwest corner of the property before discharging on-site into the open bioretention basin. Stormwater from the street improvements along Byers Road from the center line to westerly curb and gutter would enter a proposed catch basin located at the northeast corner of the property before discharging on-site to the open bioretention basin. Runoff from the south half of the street improvements along Kuffel Road between Wheat Street and Byers Road would also flow to a catch basin at the northeast corner of the property before discharging on-site to the open bioretention basin. Discharge from the basin would flow directly to proposed storm drain Line A-14a of the Perris Valley MDP and discharge directly into Line A before reaching the San Jacinto River. In addition, due to the fact that the downstream conveyance from the site is engineered and an MS4 facility, the Project would not be subject to limits on the rate of stormwater flow leaving the site.

Additionally, the Project Applicant would obtain an NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and implement a SWPPP to minimize soil erosion and siltation on and off the site; see MM HYD-1. BMPs as outlined in the WQMP would also be implemented during construction and operation of the site to minimize erosion and Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 637
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1483 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
48 sedimentation; see MM HYD-2. In addition to the SWPPP and WQMP, the Project would comply with other applicable local and regional water quality requirements. Overall drainage patterns would be captured through the proposed drainage systems, with flows directed to the Santa Ana Watershed Region and with water quality measures applicable to the respective watershed. In consideration of existing regulations, and with implementation of MM HYD 1 and MM HYD-2, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-19 through 4.9-21)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-19 and 4.9-21.

Impact 4.9-4: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Development of the Project would introduce more impervious surfaces on the site; therefore, increasing the amount and rate of surface runoff. The Preliminary Drainage Study (Draft EIR Appendix I1) shows 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 downstream drainage facilities. The drainage design would prevent flooding on- and off-site due to an increase in surface water runoff. Therefore, with proposed onsite and off-site improvements and implementation of MM HYD-3, the Project would not cause additional flooding or substantial runoff, exceed the capacity of existing drainage facilities, or impede or redirect flood flows such that on-site or off-site areas are significantly impacted. Impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pg. 4.9-21 through 4.9-22) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM HYD-3.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM HYD-3 is feasible and is made Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 638
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1484 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
49 binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM HYD-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City of Menifee, including final drainage design plans supported by a final drainage study. The tract maps, grading plans, and final drainage study shall demonstrate compliance with applicable City and County drainage plans, policies, design guidelines and regulations including but not limited to City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.26 Grading Regulations.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-21 through 4.9-22.

Impact 4.9-5: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As previously discussed in Impact 4.9-3, on-site runoff would sheet flow through the Project site through an extensive drainage plan utilizing ribbon gutters and a storm drain network system. An NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit shall be obtained and a SWPPP would be implemented to minimize soil erosion and siltation on and off the site; see MM HYD-1. BMPs as outlined in the WQMP (Draft EIR Appendix I2) would also be implemented during construction and operation of the site to minimize erosion and sedimentation (see MM HYD-2). In addition to the SWPPP and WQMP, the Project would comply with other applicable local and regional water quality requirements. The Project would include street improvements along the west, east, and north side of the property and mimic the existing drainage pattern.

Overall drainage patterns would remain consistent, with flows directed to the Santa Ana Watershed Region, with water quality measures applicable to the respective watershed. In consideration of existing regulations, and with implementation of MMs HYD 1 and HYD-2, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-20 and 4.9-21)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-20 through 4.9-21.

Impact 4.9-7: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project is inland and is not at risk for inundation due to a tsunami since it is more than 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The Project site is not within a seiche zone, since no large bodies of water border the Project site.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 639
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1485 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
50 A review of the FEMA FIRMs was conducted to determine whether the Project site is largely located within a flood zone. According to Map No. 06065C2055H (effective 8/18/2014), the Project site is largely within a Flood Boundary, identified as Zone X which indicates that the Project is located in a minimal flood hazard zone, which are areas outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the

0.2-percent-annual-chance flood. The Project is not within a dam inundation zone, and therefore the potential for inundation from dam failure would be considered low. Additionally, BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all DMAs. Along with the implementation of the proposed DMAs, runoff would be conveyed to a proposed bioretention basin, which would be provided at the north end of the property to detain on-site and off-site runoff. Overflow from the site would discharge directly to the constructed open channel north of Ethanac Road. The Project would implement BMP’s and efficient design measures pursuant to the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP (MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3), that includes, but is not limited to, the pretreatment of runoff through the proposed open bioretention basin. Therefore, the Project‘s impacts regarding the risk of pollutants would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-24 and 4.9-25)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs HYD-1 through HYD-3 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-24 and 4.9-25.

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.12 NOISE
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

Item Title: 11.2
Appeal of the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 640
Menifee Mayor and City Council November 20, 2024 Page 1486 of 2294 CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee August 2024
51 5.15 RECREATION
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.16 TRANSPORTATION
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

5.19 WILDFIRE
No impacts were concluded to be significant.

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN NOT BE MITIGATED

TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City finds, based upon the threshold criteria for significance presented in the EIR, that all of the following potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR. For each significant and unavoidable impact identified below, the City has made a finding(s) pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081. An explanation of the rationale for each finding is also presented below.