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 ro adway 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
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 si te, 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 t he 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 flui d 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 disti nctions 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 prehistori c
1 BCR Consulting LLC. 2022. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment .
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 Proje ct 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.
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 B and 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 Pechang a 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 Sobob a 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 consult ation 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 de picted 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 re sidences 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.
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 governm ents, 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 di scretionary 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).
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, it s 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 hist orical 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, structu re, 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 even ts 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 o f 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 CRHR- eligible (Title 14 CCR, § 4852).
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 legislat ive 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 a rchaeological 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 protect ions 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 Calif ornia Points of Historical Interest programs. The purposes of a SHPO include surveying and recognizing historic 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 bui ldings, 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 Histori cal 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 lo cal 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 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 C alifornia 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, landfo rms, 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/Open - Space-Conservation-Element (accessed July 2023).
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 l ocal 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 subdivisi on (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 recomme nded, 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 photogr aphs; 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 Cali fornia 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
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 decl aration 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 Cit y’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.
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 resourc es, 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 paleontol ogical 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 wit h 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.
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.
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 ev aluate 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 (M WD). This WSA analyzes and evaluates EMWD’s past and proje cted 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 groundwat er 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 ar e all connected through the recycled water system. 1 EMWD 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/file - attachments/urbanwatermanagementplan_0.pdf?1625160721 (accessed July 2022). 2 EMWD. ND. Wastewater Service. https://www.emwd.org/wastewater -service (accessed July 2022).
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 f or 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.
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).
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 w ater 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 l arger 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 t he 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.6 The Project is located within RCFCWCD Zone 4 which encompasses approximately 733 square miles and includes the cities of Beaumont, Canyon Lake, H emet, 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).
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.9 The 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, the re 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. Further more, there are no recycled water main s 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 ext raordinary 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/sustaina ble-groundwater-management-act (accessed July 2022).
12 EMWD. 2018. Recycled Water System . https://www.emwd.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/recycledwatersystem_englis.pdf?1537295072 (accessed July 2022). 13 EMWD. ND. Public Map Portal. https://mapportal.emwd.org/ (accessed July 2022).
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 ve getations, 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/webapp viewer/index.html?id=05a84ec9d19f43ac93b451939c330888 (accessed April 2022).
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 water s 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 reg ions.
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 s pecified 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 J une of 20 20, the EMWD Board of Directors adopted the District’s 20 20 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 201 5 MWD UWMP when determining supply reliability. Demand for EMWD included in the 20 20 UWMP is calculated across the District and is not project-specific.
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 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 wa ter 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 agricultur al 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 tha t 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 perce nt 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.
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 t he 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 ado pt 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 through out 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).
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: Collectio n 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 co nsistent 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 wat er, 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 ad dressed 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 treatme nt 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;
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 capa city 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 eval uated 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 ag encies 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.
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 sit e. 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, upgrad es 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 opera ted 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.
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 th e 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 percent age 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 an d 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 w ould 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 cu rrently 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 tie- ins 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/file - attachments/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).
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. Electrici ty 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 c onstruction. 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-of- way 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 suc h 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).
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 gener ate 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 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. Tha t is approximately 0.0 4 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 disposa l 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 mat erials 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.
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 demoli tion 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, t he 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 impac t 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 t he 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, pres ent, 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.
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/file- attachments/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/file- attachments/recycledwatersystem_englis.pdf?1537295072.
EMWD. ND. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. https://www.emwd.org/post/sustainable- groundwater-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.
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 measur es (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 p urchase 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.
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 MTCO 2e 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 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 EDC- NG 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.
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 condi tions 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, 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 pro posed 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 indi rectly 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 rig hts-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 construc tion 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 exte nsions 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 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).
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 ar ea, 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 efficie nt 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 Proje ct’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 greenho use 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 MTCO 2e 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.”
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 th at 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 mitigati on 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 ass ociated with economic and population growth that are associated with the 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 requir e 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 hum an 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 MTCO 2e 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 MTCO 2e/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 MTCO 2e per 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 MTCO 2e 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.
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 eve ry 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 t hat 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 e xisting 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 alt ernative 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 c an 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)).
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 operation al 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 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 sel ected 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 b asic 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 objec tives. 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 t hat 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 a lternatives analysis therefore focuses on Project alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts of the Project related to the environmental 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 wa s 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 m ay 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 a s 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 feasi bly 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.
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 alternati ve 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 altern ative 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 alternat ive 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, eventuall y, 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, 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 Proj ect 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 Corridor- Northern 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 l ess 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 en vironmental 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
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 MTCO 2e 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 G HG emissions would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project would have a less than significant impact regarding h azards 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 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 pro posed 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 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 recommendatio ns 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 establ ishing 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 Proj ect 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 se rvices 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, t he Project site would not provide employmen t opportunities or increase the 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 signific ance. 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 us e 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 aesthe tics 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 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 o ther 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 Al ternative 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 subje ct to the implementation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 and HRA-1.
Cultural Resources
The Project would result in less than significant impact s 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 comp lete 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.
City of Menifee
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
March 2024 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
Development unde r Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would continue to require energy (fuel, electric, gas) during both the construction and operation al 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 eq uivalent 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 MTCO 2e threshold and would conflict with an applicable plan, pol icy 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 Pro ject, 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.
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 wast e. 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 buildin gs/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 Proje ct’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 consist ent 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.
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, specificall y 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 woul d 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 cultu ral 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.
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 sma ller 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 potential ly 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 “f acilitate 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, t he 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 fo otprint 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 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 Alt ernative 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 superio r 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 t he 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 al ternative 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 b e 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.
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.
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 Agricultu re 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 com piled 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 Finder 1 and Exhibit OSC-5: Agricultural Resources2 from 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/ExhibitOSC - 5_AgriculturalResources_HD0913?bidId= (accessed October 2022).
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. 3 Implementation of the Project would not involve the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agricultural 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.5 The 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. 6 Therefore, the P roject 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 Fores t, 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. 7 The 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-Use- Map---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).
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 non- forest 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 porti on 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, I nc. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. Page 7.
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.9 The 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 mine ral 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 ma pper.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 in duce 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 appr oximately 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/ExhibitOSC - 3_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/ExhibitOSC - 3_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/file - attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics -and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed October 2023).
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 nu mbers 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 t he 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).
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 o r 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 nea r 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 h igh 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://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d0 08 (accessed November 2023).
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 are as 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/ExhibitOSC- 3_Mineral_Resource_Zones_HD0913?bidId=.
City of Menifee. 2013. Exhibit OSC-5: Agricultural Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1086/ExhibitOSC- 5_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).
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-and- growth-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-Force- and-Unemployment-Rates/Local-Area-Unemployment-Statistics-LAUS-Riverside-/f6zd-dtm5.
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.
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
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