Comment Letters Received — Menifee City Council, November 20, 2024

Comment Letters
Received
From: Mauricio Alvarez
To: Fernando Herrera
Subject: Ethanac Business Park
Date: Friday, October 4, 2024 9:49:33 AM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning Fernando,

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

Thank you,

Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
Planning Analyst
Riverside Transit Agency
p: 951.565.5260 | e: [email protected]
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507

1 Fernando Herrera
From: Charles Benjamin
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Fernando Herrera
Subject: FW: 9/25/24-RE: City of Menifee Public Notice - PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park Attachments: PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park.pdf
Categories: Question, Internal Comment
Hey Fernado!

Please see below. Thank you!

Connect with us on social media: | | |

*Please note that email correspondence with the City of Menifee, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Menifee shall not be responsible f or any claims, losses
or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.

From: SCG SE Region Redlands Utility Request <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Charles Benjamin <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephanie Roseen <[email protected]>
Subject: 9/25/24-RE: City of Menifee Public Notice - PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park

[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

To avoid delays in processing requests and notiﬁcations, please have all Franchise corespondence sent to our Utility Request inbox, at
[email protected]

I cover the Southeast Region – Redlands
[email protected] would be your contact for requests in the southeastern ends of LA County, Riverside County, San Bernardino & Imperial Counties.

Southeast Region - Anaheim office which is all of Orange County and the southern ends of Los Angeles County; therefore, any Map and/or Will Serve Letter requests you have in these areas please send them to AtlasRequests/[email protected]

Northwest Region – Compton HQ For West and Central LA County, your Map Request and Will Serve Letters, will go to [email protected]

Northwest Region - Chatsworth
For any requests from the northern most parts of LA County all the way up to Visalia, San Luis Obispo, Fresno and Tulare you would contact [email protected]

Transmission
For Transmission requests, please contact SoCalGas Transmission, at [email protected]

Thank you,
Josh Rubal
Lead Planning Associate
Distribution Planning & Project Management
Redlands HQ - Southeast Region
(213) 231-7978 Oice
[email protected]

From: Charles Benjamin < [email protected] >
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 8:01 AM
3 To: Charles Benjamin < [email protected] >
Cc: Stephanie Roseen < [email protected] >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City of Menifee Public Notice - PLN23-0215 Menifee West Coast Self-Storage; PLN23-0171 Ethanac Business Park; PLN23-0246 Garbani and Evans TTM

Good Morni ng, Ple ase see the attac hed public notices for the City of Meni fe e. All public notic es can be fou nd by clicking here [cityofme nifee. us]. Thank you. Chuck Be njami n | Rec ords Tec hnici an Offi ce of the City Clerk City of Meni fee | 29844

Good Morning,

Please see the attached public notices for the City of Menifee.

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

Connect with us on social media: [facebook.com] | [twitter.com] | [instagram.com] | [linkedin.com]

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

JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET
General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
259320
October 15, 2024

City of Menifee
Planning Division
29714 Haun Road, Building A
Menifee, CA 92586

Attention: Fernando Herrera Re: Ethanac Business Park, Plot Plan PLN 23-0171, PLN 23-0173, PLN 23-0175,
PLN23-0174, APNs 331-110-038,
331-110-039 and 331-110-023

The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.

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

The District's review is based on the above -referenced project transmittal, received September 25, 2024. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:

☐ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed.

☒ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, Romoland Master Drainage Plan Line A-1. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and a ny other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required.

All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits ' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.

☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the Distr ict and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance.

Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits ' terms and City of Menifee - 2 - October 15, 2024
Re: Ethanac Business Park, Plot Plan 259320 PLN 23-0171, PLN 23-0173, PLN 23-0175,
PLN23-0174, APNs 331-110-038,
331-110-039 and 331-110-023
EM:mm
conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District 's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.

☒ This project is located within the limits of the District' s Homeland/Romoland - Line A Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier 's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.

☒ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, Romoland Master Drainage Plan Line A. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District 's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266.

☐ The District's previous comments are still valid.

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager

01006.0003/1022291.2

October 11, 2024

Fernando Herrera
City of Menifee
Planning Division
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586

SUBJECT: CITY OF PERRIS COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (“MND”) PREPARED FOR THE ETHANAC BUSINESS
PARK -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PLN23–0173), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ( PLN23–0175), ZONE CHANGE ( PLN 23 –0174), AND PLOT PLAN (PLN23–0171)

Dear Mr. Herrera:

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

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

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

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
135 N. “D” Street, Perris, CA 92570-2200
TEL: (951) 943-5003 FAX: (951) 943-8379

01006.0003/1022291.2
Assembly Bill 98 which mandates certain development standards for certain warehouse and distribution centers. Perris recognizes that this Project is not required to comply with Assembly Bill 98. However, Perris believes that compliance will lessen some of the environmental impacts to neighboring residential communities including those in Perris.

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

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

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

2. Page 10, Off-Ramp Queues. While the Project analyzes queuing on the I-215 southbound and northbound freeway off -ramps, it does not include a queuing analysis along Ethanac Road itself. This is critical as the queuing at these intersections along Ethanac Road could adversely impact traffic operations at these two ramp intersections thus creating traffic 01006.0003/1022291.2
safety hazards. The traffic study needs to address queuing at these critical locations and how they may affect east-west traffic along Ethanac Road over the I-215 freeway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Page 82, Table 7- 4: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2026) Conditions With Improvements. This table assumes the ultimate reconstruction of the I -215 interchange at Ethanac Road. Is there currently a funding source for these improvements? Additional clarification is needed, including how these improvements will be implemented. 01006.0003/1022291.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

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

Given the proximity of the project to the GVSP, it is crucial that a comprehensive health impact assessment be conduct to provide a more accurate picture on the pro ject’s impact on air quality and public health.
01006.0003/1022291.2

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

IV. PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

V. COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 98

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patricia Brenes
Planning Manager

cc: Clara Miramontes, City Manager
Wendell Bugtai, Assistant City Manager
Robert Khuu, City Attorney
John Pourkazemi, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services

Menifee City CouncilNovember 20, 2024

Menifee City Council
November 20, 2024