2 4
5 6
•The District Facilities would be owned and operated by the District as district drainage facilities.
•The City would be responsible for maintaining the appurtenances associated with the District Facilities including catch basins, connector pipes, and storm drain lines that are 36 inches or less in diameter and fall within City limits (“City Facilities”).
•County of Riverside (“County”) would be responsible for the appurtenances associated with the District Facilities including catch basins, connector pipes and storm drain lines that are 36 inches or less in diameter, within the unincorporated area of Riverside County (“County Facilities”).
•Construction of District Facilities would include the construction of a daylight channel (“Daylight Channel”), located within the Developer’s right of way. The Daylight Channel will be owned and maintained by the Developer (“Developer Facilities”).
The attached four-party Cooperative Agreement (“Agreement”) memorializes the roles and responsibilities of each party in the construction, inspection, ownership, operation and maintenance of the District Facilities, City Facilities, County Facilities, and Developer Facilities.
The Agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by both the City Attorney and the Riverside County Counsel. If approved by the City Council, the Agreement would then be presented to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors for approval, and full execution.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Safe and Vibrant Community
FISCAL IMPACT
All costs incurred in constructing the Project would be borne by the Developer. Upon acceptance of the Project, the District would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the District Facilities, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of City Facilities, the County would be responsible for the maintenance of County Facilities, and the Developer would be responsible for maintenance of the Developer Facilities. Funding to support the costs associated with the maintenance of City Facilities would be established in future fiscal year operating budgets.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Agreement
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
505 of 1648
EXHIBIT A
MENIFEE VALLEY - HOLLAND CHANNEL STAGE 1
BEGIN PROJECT
HOLLAND
CHANNEL -
STAGE 1 HOLLAND ROAD
END PROJECT
CANTERWOOD
PROJECT
CHANNEL
CRAIG AVE. CRAIG AVE.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the
Menifee
Valley
–
Holland
Road
Channel,
Stage 1
Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
506 of 1648
259254
- 1 -
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Menifee Valley - Holland Channel, Stage 1
Project No. 4-0-00412
Tract Map No. 37439
This Cooperative Agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of _____ _____________, is entered into by and between the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, a body corporate and politic ("DISTRICT"), the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, on behalf of its Transportation Department ("COUNTY"), the City of Menifee, a municipal corporation ("CITY"), and D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Company, Inc., a California corporation ("DEVELOPER"), (together, the "Parties").
RECITALS
A. DEVELOPER is the legal owner of record of certain real property located within the County of Riverside. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Map No. 37439 located in an unincorporated area of western Riverside County and in the city of Menifee. As a condition of approval, DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order to provide flood protection and drainage for DEVELOPER's planned development; and B. The legal description of Tract Map No. 37439 is provided in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
C. The required flood control facilities and drainage improvements, related to Tract Map No. 37439, are shown on DISTRICT Drawing No. 4 -1214, the relevant portions of which are shown in concept on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, include the construction of the following:
i. Menifee Valley - Holland Channel, Stage 1 ("HOLLAND CHANNEL STAGE 1"), consists of approximately 370 feet of 14'W x 7'H five cell concrete box, approximately 225 lineal feet of transition structures, its associated riprap outlet structure and access road; and Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
507 of 1648
259254
- 2 -
ii. All safety devices requested by DISTRICT staff during the course of project construction and during any final field inspections, including, but not limited to, concrete pads, slope protection barriers, signage and fencing ("SAFETY DEVICES"). SAFETY DEVICE S shall be
purchased and installed by DEVELOPER's contractor and are subject to DISTRICT's inspection and approval; and
D. Together, HOLLAND CHANNEL STAGE 1 and SAFETY DEVICES, are hereinafter called "DISTRICT FACILITIES"; and
E. Associated with the construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES includes the construction of certain lateral storm drains that are 36 inches or less in diameter, which includes various catch basins, curb and gutters within COUNTY held rights of way, hereinafter called "COUNTY FACILITIES"; and
F. Associated with the construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES includes the construction of a certain lateral storm drain that is 36 inches or less in diameter, within CITY held rights of way, hereinafter called "CITY FACILITY"; and G. Associated with construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES includes the construction of a certain daylight channel, located within DEVELOPER's held rights of way or easements, hereinafter called " DAYLIGHT CHANNEL ". DAYLIGHT CHANNEL is to be owned and maintained by DEVELOPER; and
H. Together, DISTRICT FACILITIES, COUNT Y FACILITIES , CITY FACILITY and DAYLIGHT CHANNEL are hereinafter called "PROJECT"; and I. DEVELOPER has reserved a permanent Channel Easement (Flooding Easement), to be dedicated to DISTRICT until the ultimate condition is built, as shown in concept on Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof. In the event DEVELOPER does not operate and maintain DAYLIGHT CHANNEL, the Flooding Easement grant DISTRICT's access Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
508 of 1648
259254
- 3 -
to, and if necessary, operation and maintenance of DAYLIGHT CHANNEL to protect the public; and
J. All Parties recognize that the access roads seek to accommodate a proposed public access trail along the proposed HOLLAND CHANNEL STAGE 1 interior maintenance access roads ("FUTURE TRAIL"). FUTURE TRAIL is proposed to be constructed within rights of way to be conveyed to DISTRICT. Subsequently, FUTURE TRAIL is anticipated to be maintained by the Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District ("VALLEY -WIDE"). DISTRICT intends to enter into a separate license agreement with VALLEY -WIDE setting forth the operation and maintenance responsibilities for FUTURE TRAIL; and K. On or about September 29, 2022 , DISTRICT and DEVELOPER entered into a Right of Entry and Inspection Agreement that authorizes DEVELOPER to construct DISTRICT FACILITIES. Pursuant to the Right of Entry and Inspection Agreement, DEVELOPER has commenced construction of the At-Risk Portions of DISTRICT FACILITIES; and
L. DEVELOPER, COUNTY and CITY desire DISTRICT to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES. Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve DEVELOPER's plans and specifications for PROJECT and subsequently inspect the construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES; and M. DEVELOPER, DISTRICT, and CITY desire COUNTY to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES.
Therefore, COUNTY must review and approve DEVELOPER's plans and specifications for PROJECT and subsequently inspect and approve the construction of PROJECT; and N. DEVELOPER, DISTRICT and COUNTY desire CITY to accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY FACILIT Y. Therefore, CITY must review and approve DEVELOPER's plans and specifications for PROJECT and Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
509 of 1648
259254
- 4 -
subsequently inspect and approve the construction of CITY FACILITY; and O. DISTRICT is willing to (i) review and approve DEVELOPER's plans and specifications for PROJECT, (ii) inspect the construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES and (iii) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES; provided DEVELOPER does all of the following: (a) complies with the terms of this Agreement, (b) constructs PROJECT in accordance with DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY approved plans and specifications and (c) accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT following completion of PROJECT construction until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES, COUNTY accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES, and CITY accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY FACILITY; and
P. COUNTY is willing to (i) review and approve DEVELOPER's plans and specifications for PROJECT, (ii) inspect the construction of PROJECT, (iii) accept and hold faithful performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER for DISTRICT FACILITIES, (iv) grant DISTR ICT the right to inspect, operate and maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES within C OUNTY rights of way subject to the terms of this Agreement and (v) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES; provided DEVELOPER does all of the following: (a) complies with the terms of this Agreement, (b) constructs PROJECT in accordance with DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY approved plans and specifications , (c) obtains and conveys to C OUNTY all rights of way necessary for the inspection, operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES as set forth herein and (d) accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT following completion of PROJECT construction until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance o f DISTRICT FACILITIES , Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
510 of 1648
259254
- 5 -
COUNTY accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES and CITY accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY FACILITY; and
Q. CITY is willing to (i) review and approve DEVELOPER's plans and specifications for PROJECT (ii) inspect the construction of PROJECT, (iii) grant DISTRICT the right to inspect, operate and maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES within CITY rights of way subject to the terms of this Agreement and (iv) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY FACILITY; provided DEVELOPER does all of the following: (a) complies with the terms of this Agreement, (b) constructs PROJECT in accordance with DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY approved plans and specifications, (c) obtains and conveys to CITY all rights of way necessary for the inspection, operation and maintenance of CITY FACILITY as set forth herein and (d) accepts ownership and responsibility fo r the operation and maintenance of PROJECT following completion of PROJECT construction until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES , COUNTY accepts ownership and responsibility f or the operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES and CITY accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY FACILITY; and
R. Pursuant to Water Code Appendix Chapter 48, Section 10, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is designated as, and is empowered to act ex officio as the Board of Supervisors of DISTRICT therefore the County of Riverside is included as an indemnified party; and
S. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "CITY" shall mean and refer to the City of Menifee, including its governing bodies, agencies, districts, special districts and departments, their respective directors, councilmembers, officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
511 of 1648
259254
- 6 -
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SECTION I
DEVELOPER shall:
1. Prepare PROJECT plans and specifications, hereinafter called "IMPROVEMENT PLANS", in accordance with applicable DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY standards, and submit to DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY for their respective review and approval.
2. Continue to pay DISTRICT and CITY, within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of periodic billings from DISTRICT and CITY, any and all such amounts as are deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT and CITY to cover DISTRICT's and CITY's costs associated with the review and implementation of IMPROVEMENT PLANS, review and approval of rights of way and conveyance documents, construction inspection costs, and with the processing and administration of this Agreement.
3. Deposit with DISTRICT (Attention: Business Office – Accounts Receivable), at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY of the start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section I.8, the estimated cost of providing construction inspection for DISTRICT FACILITIES, in an amount as determined and approved by DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749 of the Coun ty of Riverside, including any amendments thereto, based upon the bonded value of DISTRICT FACILITIES. If at any time the inspection costs exceed the deposit or are anticipated by DISTRICT to exceed the deposit with DISTRICT, DEVELOPER shall pay such addi tional amount(s) as deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT to complete inspection of DISTRICT FACILITIES within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of billing from DISTRICT.
4. Deposit with CITY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY of the start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section I.8, the Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
512 of 1648
259254
- 7 -
estimated cost of providing construction inspection for PROJECT, in an amount as determined and approved by CITY in accordance with CITY's municipal code and regulations. If at any time the inspection costs exceed the deposit or are anticipated by CITY to exceed the deposit with CITY, DEVELOPER shall pay such additional amount(s), as deemed reasonably necessary by CITY to complete inspection of PROJECT, within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of billing from CITY.
5. Secure, at its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses, agreements, permits and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured such necessary licenses, agreements, permits, and rights of entry, as determined and approved by DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8, or not less than twenty (20) calendar days prior to recordation of the final map s for Tract Map No. 37439 or any phase thereof, whichever occurs first.
6. Prior to commencing construction, f urnish DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY with copies of all permits, approvals or agreements required by any Federal, State or local resource and/or regulatory agency for the construction, operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
Such documents, include, but are not limited to , those issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water Resources Control Board and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ("REGULATORY PERMITS").
7. Provide COUNTY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section) and CITY of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8, or not less than twenty (20) calendar days prior to recordation of the final map s for Tract Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
513 of 1648
259254
- 8 -
Map No. 37439 or any phase thereof, whichever occurs first, with faithful performance and payment bonds, each in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost for construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES and CITY FACILITY as determined by DISTRICT and CITY, respectively. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY. The bonds shall remain in full force and effect until DISTRICT FACILITIES and CITY FACILIT Y are accepted by DISTRICT and CITY respectively as complete; at which time the bond amount may be reduced to ten percent (10%) for a period of one year to guarantee against any defective work, labor or materials. Both bonds shall be subscribed by an Admitted Surety Insurer, which is authorized to transact surety insurance business in the State of California with a policy holder's rating of A or higher and a Financial Class of VIII or larger. Should any bond or su rety become insufficient, DEVELOPER shall furnish a new bond within ten (10) calendar days after receiving notice from CITY.
8. Notify DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section) , COUNTY and CITY in writing at least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the start of construction of PROJECT.
Construction shall not begin on any element of PROJECT, for any reason whatsoever, until DISTRICT and CITY have issued to DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to commence construction of PROJECT.
9. Grant DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY, by execution of this Agreement, the right to enter upon DEVELOPER's property where necessary and convenient for the purpose of gaining access to and performing inspection service for the construction of PROJECT as set forth herein.
10. If applicable, obtain and provide DISTRICT (Attention: Plan Check Section), COUNTY and CITY, at the time of providing written notice of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8, or not less than twenty (20) calendar days prior to the recordation of the final maps for Tract Map No. 37439, with duly executed Irrevocable Offers(s) of Dedication Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
514 of 1648
259254
- 9 -
to the public for flood control and drainage purposes, including ingress and egress, for the rights of way deemed necessary by DISTRICT for the construction, inspection, operation , and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES. The Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication shall be provided to C OUNTY and CITY to accept on behalf of DISTRICT, in a form approved by DISTRICT, and shall be executed by all legal and equitable owners of the property described in the offer(s).
11. If applicable, furnish DISTRICT (Attention: Plan Check Section) , when submitting the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication as set forth in Section I.10, with Preliminary Reports on Title dated not more than thirty (30) calendar days prior to date of submission of all the property described in the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication.
12. Furnish DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section) , COUNTY and CITY, at the time of providing written notice of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8, with a complete list of all contractors and subcontractors to be performing work on PROJECT, including the corresponding license number and license classification of each. At such time, DEVELOPER shall further identify in writing its designated superintendent for PROJECT construction.
13. Furnish DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section) , COUNTY and CITY, at the time of providing written notice of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8, a construction schedule which shall show the order and dates i n which DEVELOPER or DEVELOPER's contractor proposes to carry out the various parts of work for PROJECT , including estimated construction start and completion dates. As construction of PROJECT progresses, DEVELOPER shall update said construction schedule as requested by DISTRI CT, COUNTY and/or CITY.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
515 of 1648
259254
- 10 -
14. Furnish DISTRICT with final mylar plans ("RECORD DRAWINGS") for PROJECT and assign their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start of construction on any portion of PROJECT.
15. Not permit any change to, or modification of, DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS without the prior written permission and consent of DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY.
16. Comply with all Cal/OSHA safety regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations concerning confined space and maintain a safe working environment for DEVELOPER, DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY employees on the site.
17. Prior to commencing construction, submit all environmental documentation and applications related to the operation and maintenance ("ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS") of DISTRICT FACILITIES to DISTRICT (Attn: Regulatory Section IV) for review and approva l to ensure that any environmental conditions (i.e., CEQA mitigation measures, permit terms and conditions, etc.) imposed on PROJECT will not have a negative impact on operations and maintenance of future DISTRICT FACILITIES. If routine maintenance a ctions required by DISTRICT for DISTRICT FACILITIES is not specified in REGULATORY PERMITS, such as mowing, sediment removal, etc., DEVELOPER shall obtain the requisite regulatory approvals that covers DISTRICT's operations and maintenance activities needed to maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES to the satisfaction of DISTRICT.
18. Furnish DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section) , COUNTY and CITY, at the time of providing written notice of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8, a confined space entry procedure specific to PROJECT. The procedure shall comply with requirements contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Section 5158, Other Confined Space Operations, Section 5157, Permit Required Confined Space and District Confined Space Procedures, SOM-18. The procedure shall be reviewed and approved by DISTRICT, COUNTY Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
516 of 1648
259254
- 11 -
and CITY prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed , which shall be given by DISTRICT to DEVELOPER upon DISTRICT's, COUNTY's and CITY's authorization to proceed, as provided in Section I.8.
19. DEVELOPER shall not commence operations until DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY have been furnished with original certificate(s) of insurance and original certified copies of endorsements and if requested, certified original policies of insurance including all endorsements and any and all other attachments. Prior to DISTRICT issuing a Notice to Proceed to DEVELOPER and/or DEVELOPER's construction contractor(s) to begin construction of PROJECT, an original certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage shall be provided to DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section ), COUNTY and CITY. At minimum, the procured insurance coverages should adhere to DISTRICTꞌs and CITYꞌs required insurance provided in Exhibit "D", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Failure to maintain the insurance required by the above paragraph shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority for DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY, at their sole discretion, to provide written notice to DEVELOPER that either DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY will no longer be required to perform their obligations of this Agreement , nor accept responsibility for ownership, operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES , COUNTY FACILITIES or CITY FACIL ITY due, either in whole or in part, to DEVELOPER's said breach of this Agreement.
20. Construct or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at DEVELOPER's sole cost and expense in accordance with DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS and all terms of this Agreement.
21. Within two (2) weeks of completing PROJECT construction, provide DISTRICT (Attention: Construction Management Section), COUNTY and CITY with written notice that PROJECT construction is substantially complete and request ing that (i) DISTRICT Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
517 of 1648
259254
- 12 -
conduct a final inspection of DISTRICT FACILITIES and (ii) COUNTY and CITY conduct a final inspection of PROJECT.
22. If right of way conveyance to DISTRICT is required , upon completion of PROJECT construction, and upon acceptance by COUNTY and CITY of all rights of way deemed necessary by DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES for ownership, operation and maintenance, convey, or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT the flood control easement(s) and/or grant deeds, including ingress and egress, for the rights of way , as shown in concept in hatching on Exhibit "C".
23. At the time of recordation of the conveyance document(s) as set forth in Section I.21, furnish DISTRICT (Attention: Plan Check Section) with policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than (i) fifty percent (50%) of the estimated fee value, as determined by DISTRICT, for each easement parcel to be conveyed to DISTRICT or (ii) one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated value, as determined by DISTRICT, for each fee parcel to be conveyed to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT's interest in said property as being free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, taxes and leases (recorded or unrecorded), and except those which, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, are acceptable.
24. Upon completion of PROJECT construction, accept ownership, sole responsibility and all liability whatsoever for the ownership, operation and maintenance of DEVELOPER FACILITIES. Additionally, DEVELOPER shall ac cept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and all liability whatsoever associated with such ownership, operation and maintenance of PROJECT until such time as (i) DISTRICT FACILITIES are formally accepted by DISTRICT for ownership, operation and maintenance, (ii) COUNTY FACILITIES are formally accepted by COUNTY for ownership, Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
518 of 1648
259254
- 13 -
operation and maintenance and (ii i) CITY FACILITY are formally accepted by CITY for ownership, operation and maintenance.
25. Pay, if suit is brought upon this Agreement or any bond guaranteeing the completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and fees of all Parties , including reasonable attorneys' fees of all Parties, and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such Parties' costs, expenses and fees shall be computed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
26. Upon completion of PROJECT construction, but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES for ownership, operation and maintenance, COUNTY acceptance of COUNTY FACILITIES and CITY acceptance of CITY FACILITY for ownership, operation and maintenance, provide or cause its civil engineer of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of California, to provide DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY with a redlined RECORD DRAWINGS copy of PROJECT plans. After DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY approval of the redlined RECORD DRAWINGS, DEVELOPER's engineer shall schedule with DISTRICT a time to transfer the redlined changes onto DISTRICT's original RECORD DRAWINGS at DISTRICT's office, after which the engineer shall review, stamp, and sign the original PROJECT engineering plans RECORD DRAWINGS.
27. Ensure that all work performed pursuant to this Agreement by DEVELOPER, its agents or contractors is done in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, all applicable provisions of the Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and Water Code. DEVELOPER shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
SECTION II
DISTRICT shall:
1. Review IMPROVEMENT PLANS and approve when DISTRICT has Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
519 of 1648
259254
- 14 -
determined that such plans meet DISTRICT standards and are found acceptable to DISTRICT prior to the start of PROJECT construction.
2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review and, if COUNTY and CITY deems appropriate in its sole and absolute discretion, approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prior to DISTRICT's final approval. DISTRICT shall not approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS until CITY has provided its approval pursuant to this Section.
3. Provide COUNTY an opportunity to review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prior to DISTRICT's final approval.
4. Upon execution of this Agreement, record or cause to be recorded, a copy of this Agreement on the property through the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder.
5. If applicable, DISTRICT shall request CITY review any requested Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication in connection with PROJECT and accept any such Irrevocable Offers of Dedication on behalf of DISTRICT. In the same action, CITY shall immediately convey the property interest(s) associated with the requested Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication to DISTRICT via quitclaim or other similar conveyance document, which shall be prepared by DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall be deemed to have accepted the property interest(s) associated with the requested Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication upon the recordation of the conveyance document. If applicable, DISTRICT shall then record or cause to be recorded, the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication pursuant to Section I.10. Neither this sect ion nor Section I.10 restricts CITY's ability to require any other lawful Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication from DEVELOPER.
6. Endeavor to issue DEVELOPER a Notice to Proceed within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of DEVELOPER's written notice of intent to start construction as set forth in Section I.14., however, DISTRICT's construction inspection staff is limited and, therefore, the issuance of a Notice to Proceed is subject to DISTRICT's staff availability.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
520 of 1648
259254
- 15 -
7. Reserve the right to withhold issuance of the Notice to Proceed pursuant to Section IV.4.
8. Allow DEVELOPER to proceed with the construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES without the necessary ONGOING REGULATORY PERMITS in place, provided DEVELOPER submits its ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS as set forth in Section I.17.
9. Review, and if applicable, comment on (i) ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS prior to DEVELOPER submitting to REGULATORY AGENCY(IES), and (ii) any draft ONGOING REGULATORY PERMITS prior to DEVELOPER executing or accepting ONGOING REGULATORY PERMITS. DIS TRICT's review is necessary to avoid receiving permits with terms and conditions that may not be acceptable to DISTRICT.
10. Upon review of ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS,
DISTRICT reserves the right to request the relevant environmental permits if routine maintenance actions required by DISTRICT are not specified in ONGOING REGULATORY PERMITS for DISTRICT FACILITIES.
11. Inspect construction of DISTRICT FACILITIES.
12. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT costs associated with the review and approval of IMPROVEMENT PLANS, the review and approval of right of way and conveyance documents, and the processing and administration of this Agreement.
13. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT construction inspection costs, and within forty-five (45) calendar days after DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES as being complete, submit a final cost statement to DEVELOPER. If the deposit, as set forth in Section I.3, exceeds such costs, DISTRICT shall reimburse DEVELOPER the excess amount within sixty (60) calendar days after DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES as being complete.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
521 of 1648
259254
- 16 -
14. Prior to DISTRICT acceptance of ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES, DISTRICT FACILITIES shall be in a satisfactorily maintained condition as solely determined by DISTRICT. If, subsequent to the inspection and, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, DISTRICT FACILITIES or PROJECT are not in an acceptable condition, corrections shall be made at sole expense of DEVELOPER.
15. Accept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES from DEVELOPER upon (i) DISTRICT inspection of DISTRICT FACILITIES in accordance with Section I. 21, (ii) DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES construction as being complete in accordance with DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS , (iii) DISTRICT receipt of stamped and signed RECORD DRAWING S of PROJECT plans, as set forth in Section I.2 8, (iv) DISTRICT acceptance of all rights of way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY for the ownership, operation, and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES , COUNTY FACILITIES and CITY FACILITY, (v) DISTRICT receipt of the related policies of title insurance, as set forth in Section I.2 3, (vi) DISTRICT receipt of the ONGOING REGULATORY PERMITS for DISTRICT FACILITIES described in Sections I.24. and I.25., (vii) COUNTY acceptance of COUNTY FACILITIES for ownership, operation and maintenance , (viii) CITY acceptance of CITY FACILIT Y for ownership, operation, and maintenance and ( ix) DISTRICT's sole determination that DISTRICT FACILITIES are in a satisfactorily maintained condition. If, subsequent to the inspection and, in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, DISTRICT FACILITIES are not in an acceptable condition, corrections shall be made at sole expense of DEVELOPER.
16. Provide CITY with a reproducible duplicate copy of RECORD DRAWINGS of PROJECT plans within ten (10) calendar days of receipt.
17. Upon both of the following: DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES and DISTRICT receipt of stamped and signed RECORD DRAWINGS of Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
522 of 1648
259254
- 17 -
IMPROVEMENT PLANS as set forth in Section I.28., provide COUNTY with (i) a reproducible duplicate copy of RECORD DRAWINGS of constructed DISTRICT FACILITIES, (ii) a written notice that PROJECT is complete and (iii) request COUNTY to release bonds held for DISTRICT FACILITIES and CITY FACILITY.
18. In the event CITY wishes to utilize DISTRICT's construction inspection, materials testing and construction survey services, and CITY provides DISTRICT with a written request for such services under Section III.3, DISTRICT shall provide a timely response whether or not they have the resources to perform such services. If DISTRICT wishes to provide such services, DISTRICT shall provide all necessary construction inspection, materials testing and construction survey services for PROJECT and assist CITY as needed with the administration of PROJECT's construction contract. DISTRICT hereby agrees to pay all DISTRICT costs associated with the inspection of PROJECT construction, as set forth herein.
SECTION III
COUNTY shall:
1. Review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prior to the start of PROJECT construction when COUNTY has determined that such plans meet COUNTY standards.
2. Accept COUNTY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance and payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER, which meet the requirements of COUNTY Ordinance No. 460, including any amendments thereto, as set forth in Section I.4., for the estimated cost for construction of (i) DISTRICT FACILITIES as determined by DISTRICT, (ii) COUNTY FACILITIES as determined by COUNTY and (iii) CITY FACILITY as determined by CITY and hold said bonds as provided in this Agreement. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall list D ISTRICT and COUNTY as obligee and be subject to the approval of DISTRICT (Attention: Contract Services Section) and COUNTY. The bonds shall remain in full Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
523 of 1648
259254
- 18 -
force and effect until DISTRICT FACILITIES are accepted by DISTRICT and COUNTY FACILITIES are accepted by COUNTY as complete. Both bonds shall be subscribed by an Admitted Surety Insurer, which is authorized to transact surety insurance business in the State of California with a policy holder's rating of A or higher and a Financial Class of VIII or larger.
Should any bond or surety become insufficient, DEVELOPER shall furnish a new bond within ten (10) calendar days after receiving notice from COUNTY. CO UNTY shall not release said bonds until DISTRICT provides COUNTY with a reproducible duplicate copy of "record drawings" and written notification as set forth in Section II.17.
3. Request DEVELOPER update the construction schedule as deemed necessary.
4. By execution of this Agreement, grant DISTRICT the right to inspect, operate and maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES within COUNTY rights of way.
5. By execution of this Agreement, consent to DISTRICT recording of any Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication furnished by DEVELOPER pursuant to this Agreement.
6. As requested by DISTRICT, accept the Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication as set forth herein and any other outstanding offers of dedication necessary for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES and convey sufficient rights of way to DISTRICT to allow DISTRICT to construct, inspect, operate and maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES.
7. Inspect PROJECT construction.
8. Upon completion of PROJECT construction but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES for ownership, operation and maintenance, convey or cause to be conveyed to DISTRICT the flood control easement(s), including ingress and egress, to the rights of way as shown in concept in "cross-hatched" on Exhibit "C".
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
524 of 1648
259254
- 19 -
9. Accept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of COUNTY FACILITIES upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES for ownership, operation and maintenance, (ii) COUNTY's final inspection of COUNTY FACILITIES and (iii) COUN TY's sole determination that COUNTY FACILITIES are in a satisfactorily maintained condition.
10. Release occupancy permits in accordance with the approved conditions of Approval for Tract Map No. 37439.
11. Upon DISTRICT and COUNTY acceptance of PROJECT construction as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the adjustment of all PROJECT manhole rings and covers located within COUNTY rights of way, which must be performed at such time(s) that the finished grade along and above the underground portions of DISTRICT FACILITIES are improved, repaired, replaced or changed. It being further understood and agreed that any such adjustments shall be performed by COUNTY at no cost to DISTRICT.
SECTION IV
CITY shall:
1. Review and approve IMPROVEMENT PLANS prior to the start of PROJECT construction.
2. Inspect PROJECT construction or cause PROJECT's construction to be inspected by its construction manager, to be reimbursed by DEVELOPER . In the event CITY wishes to utilize DISTRICT's construction inspection, materials testing and construction survey services, CITY shall provide DISTRICT with a written request (Attn: Construction Management Section) for such services pursuant to Section II.18.
3. Upon request by DISTRICT, CITY shall review any requested Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication in connection with PROJECT and accept any such Irrevocable Offers of Dedication on behalf of DISTRICT. In the same action, CITY shall immediately convey the Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
525 of 1648
259254
- 20 -
property interest(s) associated with the requested Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication to DISTRICT via quitclaim or other similar conveyance document, which shall be prepared by DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall be deemed to have accepted the property interest(s) associated with the requested Irrevocable Offer(s) of Dedication upon the recordation of the conveyance document.
4. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to inspect, operate and maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES within CITY rights of way, provided DISTRICT (including its employees, supervisors, agents, contractors, and anyone else operating under their direction) exercises such right(s) in a safe and reasonable manner that does not adversely impact the public health and safety.
5. Accept ownership and sole responsibility for the operation and maintenance of CITY FACILITY upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES for ownership, operation and maintenance, (ii) CITY inspection of PROJECT in accordance with Section I.20, (iii) CITY and DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT construction as being complete in accordance with DISTRICT and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS , (iv) CITY receipt of signed reproducible duplicate copy of RECORD DRAWINGS of PROJECT plans, as set forth in Section II.11, (v) CITY acceptance of all rights of way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT and CITY for the ownership, operation, and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES and CITY FACILITY and (vi) CITY's sole determination that PROJECT is in a satisfactorily maintained condition. In addition to the foregoing, CITY's acceptance under this section shall not be effective until DISTRICT's acceptance of DISTRICT FACILITIES and COUNTY's acceptance of COUNTY FACILITIES under Sections II and III, above. As such, until DISTRICT accepts DISTRICT FACILITIES, and COUNTY accepts COUNTY FACILITIES, the ownership and maintenance obl igations regarding CITY FACILIT Y shall be the sole responsibility of DEVELOPER.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
526 of 1648
259254
- 21 -
6. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, prior to accepting ownership of CITY FACILITY, PROJECT shall be in a satisfactorily maintained condition as solely determined by CITY. If, subsequent to the inspection and, in the sole discretion of CITY, CITY FACILITY is not in an acceptable condition, corrections shall be made at sole expense of DEVELOPER.
9. Upon DISTRICT and CITY acceptance of PROJECT construction as being complete, accept sole responsibility for the adjustment of all PROJECT manhole rings and covers located within CITY rights of way which must be performed at such time(s) that the finished grade along and above the underground portion of DISTRICT FACILITIES is improved, repaired, replaced or changed. It being further understood and agreed that any such adjustments shall be performed at no cost to DISTRICT.
SECTION V
It is further mutually agreed by the Parties hereto that:
1. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY, and shall not be deemed complete until DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY mutually agree in writing that construction of PROJECT is completed in accordance with DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY approved IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
2. CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect all work being done on PROJECT but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT personnel who shall be solely responsible for all quality control communications with DEVELOPER' s contractor(s) during the construction of PROJECT. Prior to any communication with DEVELOPER under this section, DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY personnel shall meet and confer, and agree to all communications conveyed to DEVELOPER. If DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY should disagree as to the content of any particular communication, DISTRICT personnel agree to communicate COUNTY and CITY comments to DEVELOPER in addition to DISTRICT comments.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
527 of 1648
259254
- 22 -
3. DEVELOPER shall complete construction of PROJECT within twelve (12) consecutive months after execution of this Agreement and within one hundred twenty (120) consecutive calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT , unless CITY, COUNTY and DISTRICT agree to extend the time to complete construction . It is expressly understood that since time is of the essence in this Agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed upon time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the re maining work and require DEVELOPER's surety to pay to CITY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In which case, CITY shall subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred from the proceeds of any funds received from DEVELOPER's surety to the extent any are received.
4. If DEVELOPER fails to commence construction of PROJECT within nine (9) months after execution of this Agreement, then DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY reserve the right to withhold issuance of the Notice to Proceed pending a review of the existing site conditions as they exist at the time DEVELOPER provides written notification to DISTRICT , COUNTY and CITY of the start of construction as set forth in Section I.8. In the event of a change in the existing site conditions that materially affects PROJECT function or DISTRICT's ability to operate and maintain DISTRICT FACILITIES, or COUNTY's ability to operate and maintain COUNTY FACILITIES, or CITY's ability to operate and maintain CITY FACILITY, DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY may require DEVELOPER to modify IMPROVEMENT PLANS as deemed necessary by DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY. Under no circumstances shall either DISTRICT, COUNTY or CITY be allowed to modify IMPROVEMENT PLANS without the consent of the other.
5. DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY shall endeavor to issue DEVELOPER a Notice to Proceed within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of DEVELOPER' s complete written notice, as set forth in Section I.8; however, DISTRICT' s, COUNTY's and CITYꞌs construction inspection staff is limited and, therefore, the issuance of a Notice to Proceed is Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
528 of 1648
259254
- 23 -
subject to staff availability.
In the event DEVELOPER wishes to expedite issuance of the Notice(s) to Proceed, DEVELOPER may elect to furnish an independent qualified construction inspector at DEVELOPER's sole cost and expense. DEVELOPER shall furnish appropriate documentation of the individual's credentials and experience to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY for review and if appropriate, approval as determined by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY in their reasonable discretion. DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY shall review the individual's qualifications and experience and, upon approval by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY, said individual, hereinafter called "DEPUTY INSPECTOR", shall be authorized to act on DISTRICT's, COUNTY's and CITYꞌs behalf on all PROJECT construction and quality control matters. If DEVELOPER' s initial construction inspection deposit furnished pursuant to Section I.3. exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), DISTRICT shall refund to DEVELOPER up to eighty percent (80%) of DEVELOPER's initial inspection deposit within forty -five (45) calendar days of DISTRICT' s approval of DEPUTY INSPECTOR; however, a minimum balance of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) shall be retained on account.
6. PROJECT construction work shall be on a five (5) day, forty (40) hour work week with no work on Saturdays, Sundays or DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY designated legal holidays, unless otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY . If DEVELOPER feels it is necessary to work more than the normal forty (40) hour work week or on holidays, DEVELOPER shall make a written request for permission to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY to work the additional hours. The request shall be submitted to DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the requested additional work hours and state the reasons for the overtime and the specific time frames required. The decision of granting permission for overtime work shall be made by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY , whose respective decisions can be given in at their sole discretion and shall be final. If permission is Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
529 of 1648
259254
- 24 -
granted by DISTRICT, COUNTY and CITY, DEVELOPER will be charged the cost incurred at the overtime rates for additional inspection time required in connection with the overtime work in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749, including any amendments thereto, of the County of Riverside, as well as CITY's applicable fee schedule and/or other related ordinance or regulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should DISTRICT agree to provide inspection and management services to CITY pursuant to a request by C ITY under Section II. 13 and Section IV.3, above, CITY can also agree to not require its consent under this section.
7. INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS:
i. DEVELOPER INDEMNIFICATION OF DISTRICT AND THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. DEVELOPER shall indemnify and hold harmless DISTRICT and the County of Riverside including their Agencies, Districts, Special Districts and Departments, their respective directors, officers, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives (individually and collectively hereinafter referred to as " DISTRICT INDEMNITEES") from any liability whatsoever, claim, damage, proceeding or action, present or future, based upon, arising out of or in any way relating to DEVELOPER's (including its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors and agents) actual or alleged acts or omissions related to this Agreement, performance under this Agreement, or failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, including but not limited to: (a) property damage , (b) bodily injury or death , (c) liability or damage pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution or any other law, ordinance or regulation Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
530 of 1648
259254
- 25 -
caused by the diversion of waters from the natural drainage patterns or the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT or (d) any other element of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from the performance of DEVELOPER, its officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, agents or representatives (" INDEMNITORS") from this Agreement.
DEVELOPER shall defend, at its sole expense, including all costs and fees (including but not limited to attorney fees, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards), DISTRICT INDEMNITEES in any claim, proceeding or action for which indemnification is required.
With respect to any action or claim subject to indemnification herein by DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER shall, at its sole cost, have the right to use counsel of their own choice and shall have the right to adjust, settle, compromise any such claim, proceeding or action without the prior consent of DISTRICT and the County of R iverside; provided, however, that any such adjustment, settlement or compromise in no manner whatsoever limits or circumscribes DEVELOPER's
indemnification obligations to DISTRICT INDEMNITEES as set forth herein.
DEVELOPER's indemnification obligations hereunder shall be satisfied when DEVELOPER has provided to DISTRICT and the County of Riverside the appropriate form of dismissal (or similar document) relieving DISTRICT and the County of Riverside from any liability for the claim, proceeding or action involved.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
531 of 1648
259254
- 26 -
ii. DEVELOPER INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY. DEVELOPER shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY , including its governing bodies, agencies, districts, councilmembers, special districts and departments, their respective directors, officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives, (individually and collectively "CITY INDEMNITEES" ) from any liability, claim, damage, proceeding or action, present or future, based upon, arising out of or in any way relating to this Agreement, or DEVELOPER's (including its officers, employees, subcontractors , agents or representatives ) actual or alleged acts or omissions related to this Agreement, DEVELOPER's performance under this Agreement, or
DEVELOPER's failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, including, but not limited to: (a) property damage , (b) bodily injury or death, (c) liability or damage pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution or any other law, ordinance or regulation caused by the diversion of waters from the natural drainage patterns or the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT or (d) any other element of any kind or nature whatsoever.
DEVELOPER shall defend, at its sole expense, including all costs and fees (including but not limited to attorney fees, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards), CITY INDEMNITEES with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to CITY in any claim proceeding or action for which indemnification is required. If DEVELOPER fails to meet its indemnification obligation, CITY shall have the right, but not Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
532 of 1648
259254
- 27 -
the obligation, to do so with counsel of their own choosing, with no right of approval by DEVELOPER and, if it does, DEVELOPER shall promptly pay CITY's full cost thereof, with payments made at least on a monthly basis.
DEVELOPER's indemnification obligations as to CITY
INDEMNITEES shall be satisfied when DEVELOPER has provided to CITY a form of dismissal regarding any liability for the claim, proceeding or action involved, and CITY determines that the form of dismissal is adequate in their sole and absolute discretion.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, DEVELOPER shall enter into no settlement agreement or final resolution of any pending claim covered under this subsection, without CITY's prior written approval. iii. Should DISTRICT and CITY fail to agree with the implementation of this section, or if a pending claim pertains to only one of the two Parties, DEVELOPER shall be required to comply with this section as to DISTRICT and CITY individually.
iv. The specified insurance limits required in this Agreement shall in no way limit or circumscribe DEVELOPER' s obligations to indemnify and hold harmless DISTRICT INDEMNITEES and/or CITY
INDEMNITEES from third party claims.
v. In the event there is conflict between this section and California Civil Code Section 2782, this section shall be interpreted to comply with California Civil Code Section 2782. Such interpretation shall not relieve DEVELOPER from indemnifying DISTRICT
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
533 of 1648
259254
- 28 -
INDEMNITEES or CITY INDEMNITEES to the fullest extent
allowed by law.
8. DEVELOPER for itself, its successors and assigns hereby releases DISTRICT, the County of Riverside and CITY (including their agencies, districts, special districts and departments, their respective directors, officer, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives) from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including but not limited to any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for damage caused by the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a release by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT, or the County of Riverside , or their officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, for the negligent maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES, after the acceptance of ownership, operation and maintenance of DISTRICT FACILITIES by DISTRICT.
9. Any waiver by any Party of any breach of any one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of any Party to require exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof or estopping any Party from enforcement hereof.
10. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
534 of 1648
259254
- 29 -
11. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the Parties of this Agreement will be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
To DISTRICT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Contract Services Section
To COUNTY: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Transportation Department
Plan Check Section
To CITY: CITY OF MENIFEE
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Attn: Alberto Paiva, City Engineer
Land Development Section
To DEVELOPER: D. R. HORTON LOS ANGELES HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 980 Montecito Drive, Suite 300
Corona, CA 92879
Attention: Robert J. Skands
12. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the Parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by the Agreement, shall be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the Parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county.
13. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the Parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their respective counsel , as such the authorship of this Agreement shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared this Agreement in its final form.
Likewise, any uncertainty or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against CITY because CITY participated in the preparation of this Agreement.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
535 of 1648
259254
- 30 -
14. The rights, obligations, and releases (including the indemnification obligations) of DEVELOPER shall inure to and be binding upon all heirs, successors and assignees.
15. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, duties or obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of the other Parties hereto being first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the obligations and duties contained in this Agreement.
16. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of DEVELOPER hereby certify that they have the authority within their company to enter into and execute this Agreement and have been authorized to do so by any and all boards of directors, legal counsel, and/or any other board, committee or other entity within their company which have the authority to authorize or deny entering this Agreement.
17. This Agreement is intended by the Parties hereto as a final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject matters hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This Agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the Parties hereto.
18. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
//
//
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
536 of 1648
259254
- 31 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on .
(to be filled in by Clerk of the Board)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By By
JASON E. UHLEY KAREN SPIEGEL, Chair
General Manager-Chief Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
MINH C. TRAN KIMBERLY RECTOR
County Counsel Clerk of the Board
By By
RYAN YABKO Deputy
Deputy County Counsel
(SEAL)
[SIGNED IN COUNTERPART]
Cooperative Agreement with County of Riverside, City of Menifee and D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Company, Inc.
Menifee Valley - Holland Channel, Stage 1
Project No. 4-0-00412
Tract Map No. 37439
AMR:blj
10/09/24
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
537 of 1648
259254
- 32 -
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
By
DENNIS ACUNA
Director of Transportation
By
CHUCK WASHINGTON, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
MINH C. TRAN
County Counsel
KIMBERLY RECTOR
Clerk of the Board
By
STEPHANIE K. NELSON
Deputy County Counsel
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
Cooperative Agreement with County of Riverside, City of Menifee and D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Company, Inc.
Menifee Valley - Holland Channel, Stage 1
Project No. 4-0-00412
Tract Map No. 37439
AMR:blj
10/09/24
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
538 of 1648
259254
- 33 -
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: CITY OF MENIFEE
By By
ALBERTO PAIVA ARMANDO G. VILLA
City Engineer City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
By By
JEFFREY T. MELCHING STEPHANIE ROSEEN
City Attorney Acting City Clerk
(SEAL)
Cooperative Agreement with County of Riverside, City of Menifee and D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Company, Inc.
Menifee Valley - Holland Channel, Stage 1
Project No. 4-0-00412
Tract Map No. 37439
AMR:blj
10/09/24
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
539 of 1648
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
540 of 1648
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT A
Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL 1:
THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.
PARCEL 2:
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.
PARCEL 3:
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND THE
INSTALLATION OF OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT
REGARDING GRANT OF EASEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS AND FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL RECORDED SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-0757896, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
THE RIGHTS UNDER SAID AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED IN THAT CERTAIN ASSIGNMENT OF EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 31, 2019 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2019-0195009, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
541 of 1648
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
542 of 1648
Item Title: 10.11
Agreement
with
Riverside
County
Flood
Control
and
Water
Conservation
District,
County
of
Riverside,
and
D.R.
Horton
for
the Menifee Valley – Holland Road Channel, Stage 1
Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
543 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On- Call Planning Services for the Legado Project
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Molly Binnall, Management Analyst II
REVIEWED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for on-call planning services for the Legado Project, increasing the amount by $30,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $65,000.
DISCUSSION
The Community Development Department currently utilizes Rincon Consultants, Inc. to provide necessary planning services on an as-needed basis for the Legado Project. Due to the on-going post entitlement work required for the Legado Project, an amendment of $30,000 for a total not- to-exceed contract amount of $65,000 is being requested. All other terms of the agreement shall remain the same.
Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 3.12.040, on July 26, 2023 the City entered into a Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Rincon Consultants, Inc. under the City Manager’s signing authority for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,000. Amendment No. 1 was administratively executed on October 9, 2023, amending the fund amount by $15,000 for a not-to-exceed amount of $20,000, and Amendment No. 2 was administratively executed on June 4, 2024 extending the term of services to August 29, 2024. On August 7, 2024, the City Council approved Amendment No. 3 to increase the fund amount by $15,000 for a not-to-exceed amount of $35,000 and extended the terms of service through June 30, 2025. The history of the agreement activity is summarized in Table 1 on the following page.
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
544 of 1648
City of Menifee Staff Report
Rincon On-Call Contract Amendment No. 4
December 4, 2024
2 4
3 4
TABLE 1 – AGREEMENT ACTIVITY SUMMARY
PSA Activity Approval Date Summary of Changes
PSA
Change PSA Total
Original Contract July 26, 2023 $5,000 $5,000
Amendment No. 1 October 9, 2023 Increase in amount $15,000 $20,000 Amendment No. 2 June 4, 2024 Extension of term length to August 29, 2024 $0 $20,000
Amendment No. 3 August 7, 2024 Increase and extension to June 30, 2025 $15,000 $35,000
Amendment No. 4 Pending Approval Increase in amount $30,000 $65,000 Pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code Section 3.12.090, any change orders in the contract amount that exceed $25,000 in value, shall be approved by City Council.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Thriving Economy
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the proposed amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. is $30,000. Funding for the proposed amendment is available within the approved operating budget for Fiscal Year 2024/2025, under Professional Services for Planning within the General Fund (1100-CDD-PLNG- 652800) if approved. These expenditures are fully recoverable through the developer deposits and fees. No additional budget appropriation is required for this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Amendment No. 4
2. Original Professional Services Agreement
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
545 of 1648
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT This is Amendment No. 4 (“Amendment No. 4”) to that certain Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) made on July 26, 2023 between the City of Menifee (“City”) and Rincon Consultants, Inc (“Consultant”) for FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT as amended by that certain Amendment No.1 to the Agreement entered into on October 9, 2023 (“Amendment No. 1”), as amended by that certain Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement entered into on June 4, 2024 (“Amendment No. 2”), as amended by that certain Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement entered into on August 7, 2024 (“Amendment No. 3”), which this Amendment No. 4 is made and entered into on ______________, 2024 to increase the compensation amount, and augment the scope of services as indicated below:
1. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment No. 4 shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.
2.SECTION 2, “Compensation” is amended to increase the maximum compensation by ThirtyThousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($30,000.00), and is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 2. COMPENSATION.
City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed Sixty Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($65,000.00) notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's proposal, for the Services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, this Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized in advance by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.
3. Exhibit A, “Scope of Services” is supplemented to include the supplement attached as Exhibit A hereto. The supplement to the “Scope of Services” is not intended to replace the Exhibit A to the Agreement, as amended, but instead to augment and increase the scope of work listed in Exhibit A to the Agreement, as amended. The initial paragraph of the original Exhibit A, “Scope of Services”, to the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
546 of 1648
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall provide FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT in the amount not to exceed Sixty Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($65,000.00) as further detailed in the following page(s).
4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
5. This Amendment No. 4 may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
547 of 1648
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT CITY OF MENIFEE Rincon Consultants, Inc
_______________________________ _______________________________ Armando G. Villa, City Manager Deanna Hansen, Vice President /Principal Attest: ________________________________
Brenna Weatherby, Principal
_______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_______________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
548 of 1648
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
SUPPLEMENT TO SCOPE OF SERVICE
[SEE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
549 of 1648
EXHIBIT A
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
550 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23
CITY OF MENIFEE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO
PROJECT
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and effective this ______ day of __________, 2023 (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF MENIFEE, a California municipal corporation, (“City”) and RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC, a California Corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may sometimes herein be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
SECTION 1. SERVICES.
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Services, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Services”). Consultant will perform subsequent task orders as requested by the Contract Administrator (as defined below), in accordanc e with the Scope of Services. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, this Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services . The term of this Agreement shall begin on July 1, 2023 and shall end on June 30, 2024 unless the term of this Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the Services required by this Agreement shall not affect City’s right to terminate this Agreement, as p rovided for in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant is a provider of first class work and services and Consultant is experienced in performing the Services contemplated herein and, in light of such status and experience, Consultant shall perform the Services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession and to th e sole satisfaction of the Contract Administrator.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel . Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform the Services pursuant to Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 July26
Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
551 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -2-
1.5 Authorization to Perform Services. Consultant is not authorized to perform any of the Services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agr eement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.
1.6 Covid-19 Safety. If Consultant enters City property or meets in person with City employees during the performance of the Services, Consultant shall comply with all State, County, and lo cal emergency orders, directives, protocols, and best practices related to the COVID -19 pandemic, including, but not limited to: (A) wearing facial coverings, (B) maintaining adequate physical distancing when possible, (C) regular hand washing, and (D) regular hand sanitizing.
SECTION 2. COMPENSATION.
City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($5,000.00) notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant’s proposal, for the Services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, this Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein.
The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in t he manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized in advance by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices monthly during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for the Services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
a. Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.;
b. The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; c. A “Task Summary” containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under this Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
d. At City’s option, for each item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person performing the Services, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the Services, and each reimbursable expense;
e. The total number of hours of work performed under this Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing the Services hereunder necessary to complete the Services described in Exhibit A; f. Receipts for expenses to be reimbursed;
g. The Consultant Representative’s signature.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
552 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -3-
Invoices shall be submitted to:
City of Menifee
Attn: Accounts Payable
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for the Services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant.
2.3 Final Payment. City shall p ay the last five percent (5%) of the total amount due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the Services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all of the Services required have been satisfactorily performed.
2.4 Total Pay ment. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering the Services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entirety of the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement, unless this Agreement is modified in writing prior to the submission of such an invoice.
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for the Services performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the fee schedule included with Exhibit A.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included within the maximum amount of this Agreement.
2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any federal or state taxes.
2.8 Payment upon Termination . In the event that C ity or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, City shall compensate Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for Services satisfactorily completed and for reimbursable expenses as of the date of written n otice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs and reimbursable expenses incurred to that date.
SECTION 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.
Except as otherwise provided, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense , provide all facilities and equipment necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
553 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -4-
required to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long -distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
SECTION 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance checked below and provide Certificates of Insurance, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and which is satisfactory, in all respects, to City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement.
The cost of such insurance shall be include d in Consultant’s compensation. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor, consultant or other agent to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. Consultant acknowledges the insurance policy must cover inter-insured suits between City and other Insureds.
4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Cons ultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code. Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident, ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) disease per employee, and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) disease per policy. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self - insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the California Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or Consultant, if a program of self- insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against City and its officers, officials, employees, and authorized volunteers for loss arising from the Services performed under this Agreement.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. a. General requirements . Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage, for risks associated with the Services contemplated by this Agreement, TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) general aggregate, and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) products/completed operations aggregate. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Au tomobile Liability Insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the Services to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice th e required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
554 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -5-
damage to property resulting from the Services contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of hired, owned, and non-owned automobiles.
b. Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001.
Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 Code 2, 8, and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. c. Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.
b. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
a. General requirements . Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing the Services pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLAR S ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions.
Any deductible or self -insured retention shall be shown on the Certificate. If the deductible or self-insured retention exceeds TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000), it must be approved by City.
b. Claims-made limitations . The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be no later than the commencement of the Services.
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the Effective Date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or the completion of the Services. Such continuation coverage may be provided by one of the following: (1) renewal of the existing policy; (2) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (3) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the Services under this Agreement. City shall have the DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
555 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -6-
right to exercise, at Consultant’s sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to City prior to the commencement of the Services under this Agreement.
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
a. Acceptability of insurers . All insurance required by this Section is t o be placed with insurers with a Bests’ rating of no less than A:VII and admitted in California. b. Verification of coverage . Prior to beginning the Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insur ed endorsement or policy language granting additional insured status complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The Certificate of Insurance must include the following reference:
FY2023/24 ON-CALL CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE LEGADO PROJECT. The name and address for Additional Insured endorsements, Certificates of Insurance and Notice of Cancellation is: City of Menifee, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. City must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing and completed operations by or on behalf of Consultant.
c. Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage . Consultant shall provide written notice to City within ten (10) working days if: (1) any of the required insura nce policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self insured retention is increased.
d. Additional insured; primary insurance . City and its officers, employees, agents, and authorized volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability aris ing out of the Services performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by Consultant in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or authorized volunteers. The insurance provided to City as an additional insured must apply on a primary and non -contributory basis with respect to any insurance or self-insurance program maintained by City. Additional insured status shall continue for one (1) year after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or completion of the Services.
A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.
e. Deductibles and Self -insured Retentions . Consultant shall obtain the written approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the Services.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
556 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -7-
During the term of this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of the Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self - insured retentions with respect to City, its of ficers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self -insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investi gations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them.
f. Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endor sements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
g. Variation. The Contract Administrator may, but is not required to, approve in writing a variation in the foregoing insurance requi rements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that City’s interests are otherwise fully protected.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies at law or equity City ma y have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option, exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant’s breach:
a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement; b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or c. Terminate this Agreement.
SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION.
5.1 Indemnification for Professional Liability . Where the law establishes a professional standard of care for performance of the Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City), and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees, officials, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, expenses, liabilities, liens, actions, causes of action (whether in tort, contract, under statute , at law, in equity, or otherwise) charges, awards, assessments, fines, or penalties of any kind (including reasonable consultant and expert fees and expenses of investigation, costs of whatever kind and nature and, if Consultant fails to provide a defense for City, the legal costs of counsel retained by City) a nd any judgment (collectively, “Claims”) to the extent same are caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error, or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, or sub contractors (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
557 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -8-
5.2 Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability . Other than in the performance of profe ssional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by City) , and hold harmless City, and any and all of its officers, employees, officials, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all Claims, where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including bu t not limited to officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of Consultant.
5.3 Limitation of Indemnification . The provisions of this Section 5 do not apply to claims occurring as a result of City’s sole or active negligence. The provisions of this Section 5 shall not release City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and all of its officers, officials, employees, and agents acting in an official capacity.
SECTION 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes the Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. The personnel performing the S ervices und er this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents is in any manner officers, officials, employees, or agents of City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in this Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing the Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing the Services hereunder. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or beco me entitled to any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
SECTION 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractor shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. Consultant shall not hire or employ any person to perform work within City or allow any person to perform the Servic es required under this Agreement unless such person is properly documented and legally entitled to be employed within the United States. Any and all work subject to prevailing wages, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
558 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -9-
of Ca lifornia, will be the minimum paid to all laborers, including Consultant’s employee and subcontractors. It is understood that it is the responsibility of Consultant to determine the correct scale. The State Prevailing Wage Rates may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) pursuant to California Public Utilities Code, Sections 465, 466, and 467 by calling 415 -703-4774. Appropriate records demonstrating compliance with such requirement shall be maintained in a safe and secure location at all times, and readily available at City’s request. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City and its elected and appointed boards, members, officials, officers, agents, representatives, employees , and volunteers harmless from and against any liability, loss, damage, cost or expenses (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, court costs, and costs incurred related to any inquiries or proceedings) arising from or related to (i) the noncompliance by Consultant or any party performing the Services of any applicable local, state, and/or federal law, including, without limitation, any applicable federal and/or state labor laws (including, without limitation, the requirement to pay state prevailing wages and hire apprentices); (ii) the implementation of Section 1781 of the Labor Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other similar law; and/or (iii) failure by Consultant or any party performing the Services to provide any required disclosure or identification as required by Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any other sim ilar law. It is agreed by the P arties that, in connection with performance of the Services, including, without limitation, any and all public works (as defined by applicable law), Consultant shall bear all risks of payment or non-payment of prevailing wages under California law and/or the implementation of Labor Code Section 1781, as the same may be amended from time to time, and/or any other similar law. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be independently responsible for reviewing the applicable laws and regulations and effectuating compliance with such laws. Consultant shall require the same of all subcontractors.
7.3 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to C ity that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
SECTION 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant.
8.2 Termination by Consultant. Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice to City.
8.3 Consequences of Termination. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for the Services performed up to the date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or City in connection with this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
559 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -10-
8.4 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. A ny such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maxim um amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.
8.5 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties.
8.6 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consu ltant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge.
Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in Consu ltant’s proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. In the event that key personnel leave Consultant’s employ, Consultant shall notify City immediately.
8.7 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
8.8 Options upon Breach by Consultant . If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following:
a. Immediately terminate this Agreement;
b. Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; c. Retain a different consultant to complete the Services described in Exhibit A; and/or
d. Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the Services described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the Services.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
560 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -11-
SECTION 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance . All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to City upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. Any use of such documents for other projects by City shall be without liability to Consultant. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports, and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both Parties unless required by law.
9.2 Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non -exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, rights of reproduction, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, speci fications, studies, drawings, estimates, test data, survey results, models, renderings, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings, digital renderings, or data stored digitally, magnetically, or in any other medium, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant un der this Agreement (“Documents and Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that City is granted a non - exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents and Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents and Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents and Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the City. City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents and Data at any time, provided that any s uch use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at City’s sole risk.
9.3 Consultant’s Books and Records . Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for the Services or expenditures and disbursements charged to City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
9.4 Inspection and Audit of Records . Any records or documents that Section 9.3 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of City.
Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
561 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -12-
SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses including costs, in addition to any other relief to which that Party may be entitled; provided, however, that the attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to this Section shall not exceed the hourly rate paid by City for legal services multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent by the prevailing Party in the conduct of the litigation. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
10.2 Applicable Law; Venue. The internal laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in Riverside County.
10.3 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is he ld invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and all other parts of this Agreement shall nevertheless be in full force and effect.
10.4 Section Headings and Subheadings . The section headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the terms of this Agreement.
10.5 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.
10.6 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.
10.7 Consultant Representative. All matters under this Agreement shall be handled for Consultant by Brenna Weatherby (“Consultant’s Representative”). The Consultant’s Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agre ement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portion s of the Services under this Agreement.
10.8 City Contract Administration . This Agreement shall be administered by a City employee, Molly Binnall, Management Analyst (“Contract Administrator”). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract A dministrator or his designee. The Contract Administrator shall have the power to act on behalf of City for all purposes under this Agreement.
Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Contract Administrator or his designee.
10.9 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
562 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -13-
Rincon Consultants, Inc
Attn: Brenna Weatherby
2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Any written notice to City shall be sent to the Contract Administrator at:
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Attn: Molly Binnall, Management Analyst
with a copy to:
City Clerk
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
10.10 Professional Seal . Where applicable in the determination of the Contract Administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled “Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility,” as in the following example.
__________________________________________
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.11 Rights and Remedies. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the P arties are cumulative and the exercise by either P arty of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of servi ces attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
563 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -14-
10.14 Execution of Contract. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each of the Parties hereto represent and warrant that (i) such Party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver th is Agreement on behalf of said Party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such Party is formally bound to the provi sions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other A greement to which said Party is bound.
10.15 Nondiscrimination. Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that in the performance of this Agreement there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of any impermissible classification including, but not limited to, race , color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry.
10.16 No Third Party Beneficiaries. With the exception of the specific provisions set forth in this Agreement, there are no intended third -party beneficiaries under this Agreement and no such other third parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder.
10.17 Nonliability of City Officers and Employees. No officer, official, employee, agent, representative, or volunteer of City shall be personally liable to Consulta nt, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.
10.18 No Undue Influence. Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrange ment, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of City shall receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee, or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement.
10.19 No Benefit to Arise to City Employees. No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or has responsibilities with respect to this Agreement during his/her tenure or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub -agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for the Services to be performed under this Agreement. [Signatures on Following Page]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
564 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 -15-
IN WITNE SS WHEREOF, the P arties hereto have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF MENIFEE
Armando G. Villa, City Manager
Attest:
Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Deanna Hansen, Vice President/Principal
Brenna Weatherby, Principal
[Note: 2 officer’s signatures required if
Consultant is a corporation, unless provided
with a certificate of secretary in-lieu]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
565 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23
EXHIBIT A.
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Services shall include On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Menifee Project in the amount not to exceed FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($5,000.00) as further detailed in the following page(s).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
566 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
567 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
568 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
569 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
570 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
571 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
572 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
573 of 1648
2671/031858-0001
7630421.2 a05/18/23 EXHIBIT A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 938EE8F9-41BD-4286-8294-455B930C6C81 DocuSign Envelope ID: C049D540-AABA-4798-85F3-6AA80D86FE89 Item Title: 10.12
Agreement Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for On-Call Planning Services for the Legado Project Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
574 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Amanda Backlund, Assistant Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Nick Fidler, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve and authorize the filing of the final map for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimmaron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC, located west of Valley Boulevard and south of McLaughlin Road; and
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the subdivision improvement agreement to guarantee completion of the required onsite improvements associated with Tract Map 36658-4.
DISCUSSION
Tract Map 36658-4 (TM36658-4), a phase of Cimarron Ridge (“Project”), is a proposed subdivision of 36.39 gross acres of land into 81 total lots for residential use, including 10 lots for open space/water quality and drainage purposes, and a 10.9-acre public park. TM36658-4 is one of seven phases of the Project by Pulte Homes Company, LLC (“Developer”) and is generally located west of Valley Boulevard, south of McLaughlin Road, east of Goetz Road, and north of Thornton Avenue.
The City Council previously approved a landscape agreement and bonds associated with the public park on March 20, 2024. The Developer is now requesting approval and filing of the final map for TM36658-4 and approval of the associated Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“Agreement”) as required by the Project’s conditions of approval. The Agreement requires that improvement securities are posted to guarantee the completion of the required onsite improvements. The Agreement requires that these improvements be completed within 12 months from the date of City Council approval.
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
575 of 1648
City of Menifee Staff Report
Final Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge
December 4, 2024
2 4
6 6
Staff has reviewed the Developer’s request and determined that the associated Agreement meets the requirements of the Project’s conditions of approval. A summary of the bonds being posted to guarantee the required improvements are shown in the tables below.
TABLE 1 – ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TM36658-4
Improvement Security Faithful Performance Labor & Materials Streets and Drainage 0264058 $ 923,000 $ 461,500
Water System 0264058 $ 256,500 $ 128,250
Sewer System 0264058 $ 132,000 $ 66,000
Total $ 1,311,500 $ 655,750
TABLE 2 – SURVEY MONUMENT TM36658-4
Improvement Security
Survey Monument 0264057 $ 96,840
Total $ 96,840
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Safe and Vibrant Community
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The Developer has paid all necessary fees associated with review of TM36658-4. Upon completion of the improvements, and subsequent acceptance by the City, ongoing maintenance costs for the improvements would be supported through future fiscal year budgets in maintenance Community Facilities District 2017- 1 Annexation 22, Zone 22.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Map
2. Final Map
3. Agreement
4. Bond – Improvements
5. Bond – Monuments
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
576 of 1648
FRZ.REF.ICESODA
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
577 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
578 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
579 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
580 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
581 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
582 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
583 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
584 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
585 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
586 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
587 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
588 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
589 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
590 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
591 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
592 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
593 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
594 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
595 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
596 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
597 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
598 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
599 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
600 of 1648
Approved for
bonding
10/16/24
A. Backlund
CITY OF MENIFEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CONSTRUCTION COST WORKSHEET
PARCEL MAP OR TRACT MAP NO. TR 36658-4 DATE:
IP:
10/15/2024
17-065S
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
(100% of Estimated
Construction Costs)
(**50% of Estimated
Construction Costs)IMPROVEMENTS
Street/Drainage
*Flood Control
$
$
$
$
$
923,034.88
0.00 $
$
$
$
$
923,000.00
0.00 $ 461,500.00
0.00$
$
$
$
Dom Wtr EMWD 256,334.40
0.00 256,500.00
0.00 128,250.00
0.00Rec Wtr
Sewer
EMWD
EMWD 131,774.40 132,000.00 66,000.00
Total 1,311,143.68 $
$
1,311,500.00 $ 655,750.00
Warranty Retention (10%) 131,150.00
DESIGN ENGINEER'S CALCULATION OF IMPROVEMENT BONDING COSTS Construction items and their quantities, as shown on the attached sheets, are accurate for the improvements required to construct the above project and the mathmatical extensions, using City's unit costs, are accurate for determining bonding costs
Above amounts do G do not G include additional 20% for recordation prior to having signed plans (Ordinance460, Section 10.3E).
10/15/2024
Signature Date
Michael Brendecke 83363
RCE#
3/31/2025
Exp. DateName Typed or printed
Civil Engineer's Stamp
*Flood Control Construction Cost Estimate to be provided by Flood Control District. Provide a copy of Flood Control District letter stating cost estmate.
*** PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS BELOW ***
1. Quantities are to be taken from the Improvement Plans. Unit cost are to be as provided on "City of Menifee Improvement Requirement Worksheet."
2. Show Performance Bond Amounts to the nearest $500.00. Material and Labor Bond Amounts are 50% of Performance Bond Amountss. **100% for Flood Control items.
3. For Construction items not covered by "The City of Menifee Improvement Requirements Worksheet", Design Engineer is to provide his opinion of construction cost and use that cost. If City of Menifee Unit Costs are determined to be too low, in the opinion of the design engineer, the higher costs as provided by the Design Engineer should be used.
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
601 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET
STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT
S.F.
UNIT AMOUNT
COST
ROADWAY SECTION 1 Area =
Excavation
1. Projects with Grading Plan for Roadway
Area x 0.50' (hinge point to hinge point) C.Y. $ 25.00 $ 0.00
2. Projects without a Grading Plan Cut (c) =
Fill (f) =
C.Y.
C.Y.Road area and side slopes to daylight
If balance, provide (a.) only, either cut or fill
If export, provide (a.)&(b.) a = fill, b = cut - fill
If import, provide (a)&(c), a = cut, c = fill - cut
(Unit costs for (a),(b), & (c) are 20% of actual
costs to assure that work will be corrected to
eliminate hazardous conditions.)
(a.) Excavate and Fill
(b.) Excavate and Export
(c.) Import and Fill
-
-
-
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
TON
$
$
$
$
0.40 $
1.10 $
2.80 $
90.00 $
0.00 0.00
0.00 Asphalt Concrete (144 lbs/cu.ft) 2,241 201,690.00
87,350.00
0.00 Thickness in Feet (0.33' min.) = 0.33
Agg Base Class II 1,747 C.Y. $
$
50.00 $
Thickness in Feet = 0.5
Asphalt Emulsion (Fog Seal/Paint Binder)
ROADWAY SECTION 2
Ton
S.F.
600.00 $
Area =
Excavation
1. Projects with Grading Plan for Roadway
Area x 0.50' (hinge point to hinge point)
2. Projects without a Grading Plan:
Road area and side slopes to daylight
(a.) Excavate and Fill
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
TON
$ 25.00 $ 0.00
Cut (c) =
Fill (f) =
-
-
-
-
$
$
$
$
0.40 $
1.10 $
2.80 $
90.00 $
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
(b.) Excavate and Export
(c.) Import and Fill
Asphalt Concrete (144 lbs/cu.ft)
Thickness in Feet (0.33' min.) = 0.39
Thickness in Feet = 0.5
Agg Base Class II -
-
C.Y. $
$
50.00 $ 0.00
0.00Asphalt Emulsion (Fog Seal/Paint Binder) Ton
S.F.
600.00 $
ROADWAY SECTION 3 Area =
Excavation
1. Projects with Grading Plan for Roadway
Area x 0.50' (hinge point to hinge point)
2. Projects without a Grading Plan:
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
$ 25.00 $ 0.00
Cut (c) =
Fill (f) =
(a.) Excavate and Fill
(b.) Excavate and Export
(c.) Import and Fill
-
-
-
$
$
$
0.40 $
1.10 $
2.80 $
0.00 0.00
0.00 Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
602 of 1648
Asphalt Concrete (144 lbs/cu.ft)
Thickness in Feet (0.33' min.) = 0.39
-
-
-
TON
C.Y.
$
$
90.00 $
50.00 $
0.00 0.00Agg Base Class II
Thickness in Feet = 0.5
Asphalt Emulsion (Fog Seal/Paint Binder)
Sawcut Exist. A.C. Pavement
Cold Plane A.C. Pavement
Grinding A.C. , in place
Ton
L.F.
S.F.
S.Y.
S.Y.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
S.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
EA.
EA.
L.F.
L.F.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
600.00 $
1.00 $
0.00 0.00
0.50 $ 0.00
0.60 $ 0.00
Remove A.C. Pavement
Remove Curb and Gutter
Remove A.C. Dike
8.00 $ 0.00
18.00 $
3.00 $
0.00 0.00
Remove Chain Link Fence
Remove Barricade
7.50 $ 0.00
10.00 $
250.00 $
0.90 $
0.00 Relocate Mailbox 0.00
AC overlay (min. 0.10') 0.00
Curb and Gutter (Type A-6)
Curb and Gutter (Type A-8)
Type "C" Curb
4,268 14.00 $
16.00 $
12.00 $
10.00 $
15.00 $
8.00 $
59,752.00
0.00 0.00
Type "D-1" Curb 0.00
Type "D" Curb 0.00
A.C. Dike (6")(incl. material & labor)
A.C. Dike (8")(incl. material & labor)
P.C.C. Cross Gutter and Spandrels
P.C.C. Sidewalk
0.00 10.00 $
10.00 $
6.00 $
0.00 0.00
24,750
13,770
148,500.00
110,160.00
0.00 P.C.C. Driveway Approach (81 EA.)
P.C.C. Dip Section Std. 307
ADA Access Ramp (w/ new construction)
ADA Access Ramp (in existing improvements)
Barricades
8.00 $
6.00 $
1,500.00 $
2,500.00 $
100.00 $
35.00 $
0.00 0.00
0.00 Metal Beam Guard Railing 0.00
Utility Trench, one side (Edison, Telephone, Cable)
(total length of Streets) 2,410 L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10.00 $
15.00 $
24,100.00
0.00Chain Link Fence ( 6' )
Relocate Fence 12.00 $ 0.00
Pipe Gate 1,000.00 $
10,000.00 $
5,000.00 $
150.00 $
0.00 Relocate Power Pole 0.00
Street Lights (including conduit)
Adjust Water Valve to Grade ( if no water plan )
Adjust MH to Grade ( if no sewer plan )
12 60,000.00
0.00 400.00 $ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
603 of 1648
$ $ 0.00
LANDSCAPING
Maintenance Walk STD 113 S.F.
S.F.
EA
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.00 $ 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Colored Stamped Concrete
Street Trees ( 15 Gallon )
Landscape and Irrigation
Landscape Fill Material
Water Meter
10.00 $
100.00 $
S.F.
C.Y.
EA
3.50 $
27.00 $
7,000.00 $
Electric Meter S.F.
EA
10,000.00 $
Remove trees 3,000.00 $
$
$
$
$
$
DRAINAGE
Concrete Bulkhead EA.
EA.
C.Y.
EA.
EA
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
200.00 $
300.00 $
400.00 $
500.00 $
2,000.00 $
2,000.00 $
2,000.00 $
6.50 $
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 5,424.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 7,500.00
Slope Anchors for Pipes
Cut Off Wall ( Std 2' )
A. C. Overside Drain
Under Sidewalk Drain Std 309
Flat Outlet Drainage Structure Std 303
Curb Outlet Drainage Structure Std 308
Terrace Drain & Down Drain
Interceptor Drain
EA
EA
S.F.
S.F.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
EA.
EA.
6.50 $
R.C. Box Culvert (2 - 3'X5' )
Concrete Channel
400.00 $
200.00 $
80.00 $Rip Rap ( 1/4 Ton ) Methob B ( 1.9 tons /CY)
Rip Rap ( 1/2 Ton ) Method B
Rip Rap ( 1 Ton ) Method B
Rip Rap ( 2 Ton ) Method B
Grouted Rip Rap ( 1/4 Ton ) Method B
Grouted Rip Rap ( 1/2 Ton ) Method B
Grouted Rip Rap ( 1 Ton ) Method B
Grouted Rip Rap ( 2 Ton ) Method B
18" R.C.P. round, arch or elliptical
24" R.C.P. round, arch or elliptical
30" R.C.P. round, arch or elliptical
36" R.C.P. round, arch or elliptical
42" R.C.P. round, arch or elliptical
48" R.C.P. round, arch or elliptical
18" C.S.P. or HDPE N12
90.00 $
100.00 $
110.00 $
100.00 $
120.00 $
130.00 $
140.00 $
113.00 $
132.00 $
153.00 $
178.00 $
204.00 $
235.00 $
40.00 $
48 24" C.S.P. or HDPE N12 50.00 $
30" C.S.P. or HDPE N12 60.00 $
36" C.S.P. or HDPE N12 70.00 $
42" C.S.P. or HDPE N12 80.00 $
48" C.S.P. or HDPE N12 100.00 $
2,500.00 $
4,000.00 $
7,500.00 $
Catch Basin W=4'
Catch Basin W=7'
Catch Basin W=14' 1
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
604 of 1648
Catch Basin W=21' 1 EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
C.Y.
EA.
EA.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,000.00 $
14,500.00 $
2,500.00 $
3,500.00 $
4,500.00 $
5,000.00 $
12,500.00 $
12,500.00 $
4,500.00 $
5,000.00 $
6,500.00 $
2,700.00 $
6,500.00 $
400.00 $
3,500.00 $
200.00 $
100.00 $
$
11,000.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Catch Basin W=28'
Inlet Type IX or X
Junction Structure No. 1
Junction Structure No. 2
Junction Structure No. 6
Transition Structure No. 1
Transition Structure No. 2
Transition Structure No. 3
Manhole No. 1
Manhole No. 2
Manhole No. 3
Manhole No. 4
Structural Reinforcement Concrete
Headwall for 36" or smaller storm drain
Concrete Collar
Remove Concrete Bulkhead
$
$
$
$
$
SIGNING, STRIPING AND SIGNALS
Remove Painted Traffic Stripes and Markings
4" Painted Solid Stripes
S.F
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
S.F
S.F
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
S.F
S.F.
S.F.
EA.
EA.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2.50 $
0.21 $
0.30 $
0.16 $
0.47 $
0.65 $
0.82 $
1.30 $
0.36 $
0.82 $
2.70 $
2.50 $
0.52 $
0.47 $
0.83 $
0.63 $
0.78 $
0.97 $
1.13 $
2.83 $
3.61 $
2.25 $
3.00 $
50.00 $
100.00 $
275.00 $
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4" Painted Solid Stripes (2 Coats )
4" Painted Broken Stripes
4" Painted Double Solid Stripes
6" Painted Bike Lane Stripes
8" Painted Channelizing Line
12" Painted Crosswalk & Limit Line
Painted One-Way, No Passing
Painted Two-Way Left Turn Lane
Painted Pavement Markings
Remove Thermoplastic Trafffic Stripes and Markings
4" Thermoplastic Solid Stripes
4" Thermoplastic Broken Stripes
4" Thermoplastic Double Solid Stripes
6" Thermoplastic Bike Lane Stripes
8" Thermoplastic Channelizing Line
12" Thermoplastic Crosswalk & Limit Line
Thermoplastic One-Way, No Passing
Thermoplastic Two-Way Left Turn Lane
Thermoplastic Pavement Markings
Marking
Thermoplastic Cross Walk and Pavement Marking
Remove, Sign, Salvage
90 15
270.00
0.00 Relocate Roadside Sign 0.00
Street Name Sign 4,125.00
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
605 of 1648
Install Sign ( Strap and Saddle Bracket Method)
Install Sign (Mast Arm Hanger Method)
Stop Sign & Post
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
150.00 $
425.00 $
250.00 $
150.00 $
300.00 $
60.00 $
40.00 $
45.00 $
3.75 $
0.00 0.00
5 1,250.00
0.00Road Sign on existing pole / post (One Post)
Road Sign on existing pole / post (Two Post)
Object Marker - Modified Type "F" Delineator
Delineator ( Class 1 Type F)
0.00 0.00
0.00 Delineator ( Class 2 ) 0.00
Pavement Marker, Reflective 0.00
New Traffic Signal & Lighting (Major Intersection) LS $ 250,000.00 $ 0.00 New Traffic Signal & Lighting (Minor Intersection)
Retrofit of Ex. Traffic Signal & Lighting
6' Round Signal Loops
LS
LS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
150,000.00 $
100,000.00 $
450.00 $
400.00 $
500.00 $
25.00 $
30.00 $
35.00 $
$
0.00 0.00
EA 0.00
Install Pull Box (#5) EA 0.00
Install Pull Box (#6) EA 0.00
2" PVC Interconnect Conduit & Cable
3" PVC Interconnect Conduit & Cable
3" PVC Conduit & Fiber Optic Cable
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Survey LS
LS
LS
LS
8,000.00 $
40,000.00 $
30,000.00 $
15,000.00 $
$
0.00 Design/submittals/review 0.00
Mobilization 0.00
Traffic Control 0.00
A.
B.
C.
D
Subtotal 721,121.00
144,224.20
57,689.68
923,034.88
Administrative Contingency (20% x A)
CM - Inspection - LC (8%)
$
$
Streets/Drainage Total (A + B) $
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
606 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET
DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT
COST
4" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18
6" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18
8" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18
12" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18
16" Waterline PVC C-905 DR-18
18" Waterline PVC C-905 DR-18
20" Waterline PVC C-905 DR-18
4" Gate Valve RS
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25.00 $ 0.00
0.0030.00 $
35.00 $
55.00 $
90.00 $
135.00 $
180.00 $
715.00 $
830.00 $
1,340.00 $
2,300.00 $
6,270.00 $
14,300.00 $
4,000.00 $
4,500.00 $
3,500.00 $
4,000.00 $
2,400.00 $
4,000.00 $
800.00 $
2,480.00 $
2,780.00 $
4,500.00 $
200.00 $
500.00 $
2,000.00 $
1,000.00 $
1,430.00 $
1,750.00 $
2,200.00 $
3,150.00 $
250.00 $
320.00 $
$
1,980 69,300.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 6" Gate Valve RS 0.00
8" Gate Valve RS 4
5 5,360.00
0.0012" Gate Valve RS
16" Gate Valve RS 0.00
18" Gate Valve RS 0.00
6" Fire Hydrant (Standard)
6" Fire Hydrant (Super)
4" Blowoff
20,000.00
0.00 0.00
6" Blowoff 0.00
1" Air and Vacuum Valve.
2" Air and Vacuum Valve.
1" Service Connection ( No Meter)
1-1/2" Service Connection ( No Meter)
2" Service Connection ( No Meter)
4" Service Connection ( No Meter)
Adjust Water Valve to Grade
Removal of Blowoff
2 4,800.00
0.00 81 64,800.00
0.00 0.00
1 4,500.00
0.00 6
1 3,000.00
2,000.00
0.00 Join at existing end of 8" pipe
1" Hot Tap
4" Hot Tap 0.00
6" Hot Tap 0.00
8" Hot Tap 0.00
12" Hot Tap 0.00
8" Miscellaneous Fittings
12" Miscellaneous Fittings
Blue Retro-Reflective Hydrant Marker
17 5
4,250.00
0.00 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
A.
B.
C.
Subtotal $ 178,010.00
35,602.00
213,612.00
Administrative Contingency (20% x A)
Water Total (A + B)
$
$
TO HAVING SIGNED PLANS
20% x CD.
E.
$
$
42,722.40
Water Total (C + D) 256,334.40
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
607 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET
RECYCLED WATER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT AMOUNT
COST
4" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18 Purple
6" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18 Purple
8" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18 Purple
12" Waterline PVC C-900 DR-18 Purple
16" Waterline PVC C-905 DR-18 Purple
18" Waterline PVC C-905 DR-18 Purple
20" Waterline PVC C-905 DR-18 Purple
4" Gate Valve RS
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25.00 $ 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 30.00 $
35.00 $
55.00 $
90.00 $
135.00 $
180.00 $
715.00 $
830.00 $
1,340.00 $
2,300.00 $
6,270.00 $
14,300.00 $
3,500.00 $
4,000.00 $
2,400.00 $
4,000.00 $
800.00 $
2,480.00 $
2,780.00 $
4,500.00 $
200.00 $
500.00 $
2,000.00 $
1,000.00 $
1,430.00 $
1,750.00 $
2,200.00 $
3,150.00 $
$
6" Gate Valve RS
8" Gate Valve RS
12" Gate Valve RS
16" Gate Valve RS
18" Gate Valve RS
4" Blowoff
6" Blowoff
1" Air and Vacuum Valve.
2" Air and Vacuum Valve.
1" Service Connection ( No Meter)
1-1/2" Service Connection ( No Meter)
2" Service Connection ( No Meter)
4" Service Connection ( No Meter)
Adjust Water Valve to Grade
Removal of Blowoff
Join at existing end of 8" pipe
1" Hot Tap
4" Hot Tap
6" Hot Tap
8" Hot Tap
12" Hot Tap
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
A.
B.
C.
Subtotal $
Administrative Contingency (20% x A)
Water Total (A + B)
$
$
TO HAVING SIGNED PLAND
20% x CD.
E.
$
$
0.00 Water Total (C + D) 0.00
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
608 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENT WORKSHEET
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM QUANTITY
980
UNIT UNIT AMOUNT
24,500.00
COST
4" PVC SDR 35 (Use it for Residential Laterals)
6" PVC SDR 35 Green
8" PVC SDR 35 Green
10" PVC SDR 35 Green
12" PVC SDR 35 Green
15" PVC SDR 35 Green
8" VCP
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
EA.
L.F.
EA.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25.00 $
30.00 $
35.00 $
46.00 $
54.00 $
90.00 $
55.00 $
62.00 $
72.00 $
81.00 $
162.00 $
183.00 $
195.00 $
215.00 $
236.00 $
3,140.00 $
4,500.00 $
3,300.00 $
730.00 $
200.00 $
2,100.00 $
1,500.00 $
1,500.00 $
2,000.00 $
400.00 $
500.00 $
35.00 $
250.00 $
$
0.00 26,250.00
0.00 750
0.00 0.00
0.00 10" VCP 0.00
12" VCP 0.00
15" VCP 0.00
18" VCP 0.00
21" VCP 0.00
24" VCP 0.00
27" VCP 0.00
30" VCP 0.00
Standard Manhole 48"
Standard Manhole 60"
Shallow Manhole (5' or less)
Clean out
4 12,560.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Clean out Lateral 81
3 16,200.00
0.00Tie to Existing Manhole
Rechannel Existing Manhole
Join Existing 8" Pipe/Remove Temp Cleanout & Join
Join Existing 12" Pipe
Chimney
0.00 4,500.00
0.00 0.00
Adjust M.H. to grade
Concrete Encasement
8" Backflow Valves
0.00 0.00
30 7,500.00
0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
A.
B.
C.
Subtotal $ 91,510.00
18,302.00
109,812.00
Administrative Contingency (20% x A) $
Sewer Total (A + B) $
TO HAVING SIGNED PLAND ( ORD.460, SEC.
20% x CD.
E.
$
$
21,962.40
Sewer Total (C + D) 131,774.40
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
609 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
COST ESTIMATE CALCULATION SHEET
PARCEL MAP OR TRACT NO.
PP, CU, PU, MS OR VL NO.
TR 36658-4 SCH: DATE: 10/15/2024
IMPROVEMENT COSTS (Including Contingencies)
I. Streets/Drainage (Line C from Street Improvement Calculations) II. Domestic Water (Line C from Domestic Water Improvement Calculations) III. Recycled Water (Line C from Recycled Water Improvement Calculations) IV. Sewer (Line C from Sewer Improvement Calculations)
$
$
$
$
$
923,034.88
213,612.00
109,812.00
Total 1,246,458.88
INSPECTION DEPOSIT CALCULATION
Street/Drainage
NOTE: Use 3% for Inspection $ 27,691.05
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
610 of 1648
Approved for
bonding
10/14/24
CITY OF MENIFEE
OFFICE OF THE CITY SURVEYOR
MONUMENT BOND COMPUTATIONA. Backlund
MAP # TR 36658-4 SCHEDULE A MAP CHECKER Dennis Janda
Minimum Cost Cost per Monument
Schedule "A" through "H" Maps
$2500.00* $300
Schedule "I" Maps
$2500.00* $600
Total Monuments to be Bonded x Cost per Monument +
x
20% =
=
Total Bond Amount
$96,840.00269 x $300 120%
( ) Set monuments
( ) Monuments will need to be recovered and/or reset at time of inspection Monument Inspection Fee (Deposit Based)
Submitted Monument Bond Computation to Planning Dept. Plan Check Review $
Date: 9/17/2024
* Based on a crew of, 1) Registered Principal Eng. Technician, 1) Senior Eng. Technician. 1 Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
611 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE
OFFICE OF THE CITY SURVEYOR
MONUMENT BOND COMPUTATION
REVISED 2010
1 Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
612 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
613 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
614 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 41
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
615 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 42
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
616 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 43
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
617 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 44
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
618 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 45
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
619 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 46
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
620 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 47
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
621 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 48
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
622 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 49
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
623 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 50
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
624 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 51
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
625 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 52
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
626 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 53
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
627 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 54
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
628 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 55
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
629 of 1648
Item Title: 10.13
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Tract Map 36658-4, Cimarron Ridge, by Pulte Homes Company, LLC Item Page Number: 56
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
630 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Chet Robinson, Principal Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Nick Fidler, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve and authorize the filing of Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC, located north of McCall Boulevard and west of Menifee Road; and
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a subdivision improvement agreement to guarantee completion of required public improvements associated with Parcel Map 37624.
DISCUSSION
Parcel Map 37624 (PM37624), also known as Heritage Square (“Project”), is a proposed subdivision of 8.67 gross acres of land into four lots for commercial purposes. The Project, located north of McCall Boulevard and west of Menifee Road, is the second phase of the McCall Square commercial development. The Parcel Map for Phase 1, PM37624-1, was approved by City Council on May 20, 2020, and recorded on June 11, 2020.
Heritage Square Menifee, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (“Developer”) is now requesting approval and filing of PM37624 and approval of the associated Subdivision Improvement Agreement (“SIA”) as required by the Project’s conditions of approval. The SIA requires that improvement securities are posted to guarantee the completion of the required onsite and offsite improvements. The SIA requires that public improvements be completed within 24 months from the date of City Council approval.
Staff has reviewed the Developer’s request and determined that the SIA meets the requirements of the Project’s conditions of approval. A summary of the bonds being posted to guarantee the required improvements are shown in the tables on the following page.
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
631 of 1648
City of Menifee Staff Report
Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square
December 4, 2024
2 4
6 7
TABLE 1 – PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement Security Faithful Performance Labor & Materials Streets and Drainage 800188654 $ 320,000 $ 160,000
Total $ 320,000 $ 160,000
TABLE 2 – CFD LANDSCAPING
Improvement Security Faithful Performance Labor & Materials Landscape 800188655 $ 59,000 $ 29,500
Total $ 59,000 $ 29,500
TABLE 3 – MONUMENT BOND
Improvement Security Monument Bond
Monuments 800188656 $ 9,720
Total $ 9,720
The total securities required for all improvements have been provided by the Developer in the total amount of $388,720.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Safe and Vibrant Community
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The Developer has paid all necessary fees associated with review of PM37624. Upon completion of the improvements, and subsequent acceptance by the City, ongoing maintenance costs for the improvements would be supported through future fiscal year budgets in maintenance Community Facilities District 2015- 2 Annexation 35, Zone 35.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Map
2. Final Map
3. Agreement
4. Bond - Improvements
5. Bond - Landscape
6. Bond - Monuments
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
632 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
633 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
634 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
635 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
636 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
637 of 1648
”“ ”
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
638 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
639 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
640 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
641 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
642 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
643 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
644 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
645 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
646 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
647 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
648 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
649 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
650 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
651 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
652 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
653 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
654 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
655 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
656 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
657 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
658 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
659 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
660 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
661 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
662 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
663 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
664 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
665 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
666 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
667 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
668 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
669 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
670 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 41
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
671 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 42
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
672 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 43
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
673 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 44
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
674 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 45
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
675 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 46
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
676 of 1648
Item Title: 10.14
Final Map, Agreement, and Bonds for Parcel Map 37624, Heritage Square, by Heritage Square Menifee, LLC Item Page Number: 47
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
677 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Diego Guillen, Senior Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Nick Fidler, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Accept the improvements for the Romoland Grid Area – 3 rd Street – ATP Project, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 23-04, located along 3rd Street northeast of Highway 74, west of Antelope Road, and south of Watson Road; and
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Riverside County Recorder’s Office.
DISCUSSION
The Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP project, CIP No. 23-04 (“Project”), is located along 3rd Street, northeast of Highway 74, west of Antelope Road, and south of Watson Road. The Project improvements consisted of removing, replacing, and widening the existing roadway, and installing curb, gutter, sidewalks, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian ramps, and residential driveway approaches within the Project limits. The roadway was repaved, restriped, and additional signage was installed. The installation of ADA pedestrian ramps and driveway approaches were carried out on both sides of 3rd Street. The Project length was approximately 1,900 linear feet and included improvements to approximately 111,000 square feet of roadway along 3rd Street.
On March 6, 2024, the City Council approved a total construction budget of $1,427,731 for the Project and authorized the City Manager to approve a Contractor Services Agreement with Granite Construction Company (“Contractor”) in the amount of $1,237,100. During construction, there was one contract change order in the amount of $70,959.74 as shown in Table 1, on the following page. The Project was completed under budget with a final construction cost totaling $1,378,166.72.
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
678 of 1648
City of Menifee Staff Report
CIP 23-04 Romoland -3rd St NOC
December 4, 2024
2 4
6 5
TABLE 1 – CONTRACT ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Contract
Activity
Approval Date Summary of Changes Amount
Original Contract March 6, 2024 Original construction services $1,237,100.00 CCO No. 1 November 6, 2024 EMWD utility relocation T&M, Additional cross walk striping,
Additional Class 2 base, Additional
driveways, Electrical conduits
$70,959.74
TOTAL $1,308,059.74
If approved, a Notice of Completion (NOC) would be filed, which protects the City from future claims against the Project by providing proper noticing to each contractor, subcontractor, and material supplier, that the Project has been completed. The payment bond would be released upon Project acceptance by the City and the performance bond would be released one year after the date of recording of the NOC. The City has not received any stop notices that would prevent said releases.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Safe and Vibrant Community
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the acceptance of the improvements related to the Project. All costs to complete the Project were supported within previously approved Capital Improvement Program Budgets.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Map
2. Notice of Completion
3. Closeout Documents
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
679 of 1648
215
Antelope Rd
Adams Ave
Washington Ave
2nd St
4th St
Monroe Ave
3rd St
Jefferson Ave
Watson Rd
74 PERRIS
215
E t h a n a c R d
A
n
t
e
l
o
p
e
R
d
Matthews Rd
M c C a l l B l v d
Mapes Rd
Menifee Rd
M
u
r
r
i
e
t
a
R
d
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
R
d
Project Site
0 0.03 0.06
Miles
Path: E:\Project_Specific_Maps\Engineering_PublicWorks\RomolandGrid_3rdSt_ATP\RomolandGrid_3rdSt_ATP.aprx Date: 2/7/2024 Romoland Grid Area - 3rd Street - ATP (CIP 23-04)
Project Location Map
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
680 of 1648
4 7
9 0
9 Recording Requested By:
CITY OF MENIFEE
After Recording Mail To:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF MENIFEE
29844 HAUN ROAD
MENIFEE, CA 92586
Record without fee subject to Govt. Code 6103
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(Public Works – Civil Code Sec. 9204)
ROMOLAND GRID AREA 3RD STREET ATP PROJECT, CIP 23-04
Notice is hereby given that:
Work of improvements on the project herein described was accepted as complete on December 4, 2024. The project consisted of removing, replacing and widening approximately 111,000 square feet of the existing roadway, installing signage, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps and residential driveway approaches on both sides of 3rd Street. The project was completed in the city right-of-way in the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California.
1. The full name of the Owner is: CITY OF MENIFEE
2. The full address of the Owner is: 29844 HAUN ROAD
MENIFEE, CA. 92586
3. The undersigned is a Corporate Officer of the Owner of the interest stated below in the property herein described:
PUBLIC STREETS IN
MENIFEE, CA 92586
4. The name of the contractor for such work of construction is:
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
5260 EL CAMINO REAL, #200,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is within the City of Menifee, County of Riverside, State of California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
Ss
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
I, Stephanie Roseen, hereby certify that I am the Acting City Clerk of the City of Menifee, a municipal corporation, which is the owner of the properties described within this Notice of Completion, executed on behalf of the City; that I have read the notice and know the contents thereof and that the facts therein stated are true of my own knowledge under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California; that I make this verification on _________________, 20___ for and on behalf of the City.
_____________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
681 of 1648
Bond No. 107852497
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
One Million Two Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred 00/100 Granite Construction Company
29th
July 24
Isabel Barron, Attorney In Fact
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
682 of 1648
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of _____________________________)
On _________________________ before me, _________________________________________ (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ______________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ______________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Santa Cruz
July 29, 2024 Mariella Rubio, Notary Public
Mariella Rubio, Notary Public
Isabel Barron
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
683 of 1648
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
State of Connecticut
By: ___ ____________________________________
Robert L. Raney, Senior Vice President City of Hartford ss.
On this the day of , 20 , before me personally appeared Robert L. Raney , who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of , and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of by himself as a duly authorized officer.
I , I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires the 30th day of June, 202 _____________________________________ ___ , Notary Public
This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of , which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows:
I, Kevin E. Hughes , the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which remains in full force and effect.
Dated this day of , .
________________________________________
Kevin E. Hughes, Assistant Secretary
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS : That Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint their true and lawful Attorney -in-Fact to sign, execute, seal an acknowledge any and all bonds, recognizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behal f of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. 29th July 2024
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
684 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
685 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
686 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
687 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
688 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
689 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
690 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
691 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
692 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
693 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
694 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
695 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
696 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
697 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
698 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
699 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
700 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
701 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
702 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
703 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
704 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
705 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
706 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
707 of 1648
Item Title: 10.15
Notice of Completion and Acceptance for the Romoland Grid Area – 3rd Street – ATP Project Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
708 of 1648
CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Ryan Fowler, Principal Planner
REVIEWED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
APPLICANT: RPD Development, Inc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a resolution approving Appeal No. PLN24-0214 overturning the Planning Commission’s decision and certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110162), and adopting the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Adopt a resolution approving Appeal No. PLN24-0214 overturning the Planning Commission’s decision and approving Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road.
DISCUSSION
Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN22-0179 includes development of an approximately 517,720 square-foot (SF) speculative warehouse building. The environmental analysis, however, includes a development buffer to account for final design changes, equivalent to three percent of the building square footage, or 15,532 SF, which would result in a building area of 533,252 SF and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The 533,252 SF warehouse building would include approximately 20,320 SF of ground floor office space, 7,000 SF of mezzanine office space, 505,932 SF of warehouse space, and would be approximately 55 feet tall. Additional improvements include a parking lot and loading docks, ornamental landscaping, associated onsite infrastructure, and construction of offsite street improvements.
The Project would include 90 dock-high doors and four grade-level truck doors. Approximately 128 trailer parking spaces would be provided in the northern truck court and 64 trailer parking spaces would be provided in the southern truck court, within areas secured by sliding gates. The proposed Project would also provide 390 passenger car parking spaces. Access to the proposed Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 1
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
709 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road.
The Project would also include approximately 137,363 SF of ornamental landscaping that would cover 11.0 percent of the site. The proposed Project includes an approximately 14-foot-high retaining and screen wall along the interior of the northern and southern truck courts (outside facing wall would be eight feet high with a landscaping berm), which would taper to a six-foot- high screen wall along the northern property line outside of the truck court. The Project would include approximately 4.5 acres (approximately 1.5 linear miles) of construction improvements in the form of roadway and utility improvements.
Location
The Project is generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560- 001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330- 571-005).
Project Location
Planning Commission Hearing - October 23, 2024
On October 23, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing. At the hearing, the Commission expressed concern regarding impacts related to traffic (including cumulative traffic impacts), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, air quality, noise, drainage and flooding, and the land use compatibility with the immediately adjacent residences.
Commissioners expressed concern with the amount of warehousing and distribution facilities recently proposed and/or approved within the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG), stating that having one predominate use, instead of a mix of uses, within the Murrieta Rd
Geary Rd
Ethanac Rd
Floyd Ave
McLaughlin Rd
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 2
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
710 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
EDC-NG was not the intent of the General Plan when it was created. Ultimately, the Commission was unable to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC) required to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as individuals disagreed that the benefits of the Project outweighed the impacts generated by the Project.
In the end, the Commission made a motion to approve the Project entitlements (i.e., PP No.
PLN22-0179) and certify the EIR; however, that motion failed to pass by a 2-3 vote.
Appeal No. PLN 24-0214
On October 31, 2024, an application to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to not approve PP No. PLN22-0179 and not certify the EIR was submitted by the Project Applicant’s representative, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP (Appeal No. PLN24-0214).
Tract Map No. 31856
Tract Map No. 31856 was recorded within the boundaries of the current Project site in August 2018. However, subsequent to that recordation, the Project Applicant received approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38469 on April 14, 2023 which proposed to consolidate Tract Map No. 31856 (Lots 1-78), as well as Parcel Map (PM) No. 7285 (Lot 1 through 4). In the “Project Location” image below, these property lines appear. However, as a condition of approval of this Project, prior to any development of the Project site, the existing maps (i.e., TM31856 and PM7285) must be consolidated into a single parcel encompassing the whole site.
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for the Project site is EDC-NG which is intended to provide economic vitality and flexibility in land use options to promote economic development along the City’s major corridors. Surrounding Land Use designations and existing uses can be found below in Table 1. The Project’s proposed industrial use is consistent with the existing land use designation.
Zoning
The underlying zoning classification is EDC-NG. The existing zoning of the Project site allows for the development of industrial and warehousing-related uses with which the proposed Project is consistent.
General Plan Map Zoning Map
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 3
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
711 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
TABLE 1 – SURROUNDING LAND USES
Location Existing Land Use General Plan Land
Use Zoning Classification
North
Approx. ½-acre to 1-
acre single-family
residential
EDC-NG EDC-NG
East
Vacant undeveloped
land and a modular
office building dealer
EDC-NG EDC-NG
South
Southern California
Edison (SCE) utility
corridor
Public Utility Corridor
(PUC)
Public Utility Corridor
(PUC)
West Vacant undeveloped
land EDC-NG EDC-NG
Proposed Project
The Project Applicant (IPT Menifee CC LLC) is proposing the development of an approximately 517,720 SF speculative warehouse building.
Proposed Site Plan
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 4
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
712 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Circulation and Parking
Regional Project access would be from I-215 via Ethanac Road. Local access would be provided via Geary Road and Murrieta Road. Project site ingress and egress would be via two driveways on Geary Road and three driveways on Murrieta Road. The two southernmost and two northernmost driveways would provide full access for both trucks and automobiles (shown with orange arrows above), while the middle access point on Murrieta Road would provide access to passenger vehicles only (shown with the blue arrow). While there are shared access points, trucks would not be allowed circulate through the majority of the passenger vehicle parking areas.
The City of Menifee Development Code outlines the parking requirements for the Project. As demonstrated in Table 2, the Project meets the City’s parking requirements.
TABLE 2 – PARKING SUMMARY
Development Code Parking Requirements
Office: 1/300 SF (20,320 SF) 68
Warehouse (1st 100K SF): 1/1,000 SF (100,000 SF) 100
Warehouse (100K – 500K SF): 1/1,500 SF (397,400) 265
Required 433
Required (with 10% reduction per Section
9.215.070)
390
Total Spaces Provided 390
Using the City’s Parking and Loading Standards, the warehouse building would require 433 off- street parking spaces. The Project includes a total of 390 proposed off-street parking spaces. (Note truck/trailer parking is not included within these totals.) Section 9.215.070 (“Alternative Programs for Parking”) allows for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking stalls if specific alternative programs/improvements are provided.
This Section allows for parking reductions to be combined for a maximum reduction of 15 percent of the required parking standard. The proposed Site Plan would only need a reduction of 10 percent (433 required, 390 provided). The Applicant is requesting this 10 percent reduction. This would be allowed under Section 9.215.070, because the Project provides roadway improvements and/or dedication that exceed those recommended by a traffic study (i.e., the Project’s southerly corridor) (five percent reduction credit) and the Project involves lot consolidation totaling a minimum of five acres (five percent reduction credit). In addition, the Project’s mitigation measures require the Project operator to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles by employees. This shall include a transportation information center and an on-site TDM coordinator, bicycle parking and storage, self-service bicycle repair areas, a ride-matching service (e.g., bulletin boards, website, smartphone application) to connect carpool participants and provide preferential parking for rideshare vehicles to support carpool/vanpool/rideshare transportation modes, and posting of Riverside Transportation Authority schedules and referencing Riverside Transportation Authority schedules when creating employees’ operating schedules.
The 10 percent reduction results in a total requirement of 390 spaces; therefore, with the 10 percent reduction, the Project would meet its parking requirement.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 5
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
713 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Infrastructure Improvements
Onsite and Frontage Improvements
The Project Applicant would be responsible for the construction of public infrastructure improvements. Murrieta Road would be improved along the Project frontage to a secondary (four- lane with striped) designation. The improvement will include the necessary offsite transitions.
The northern driveway exiting Murrieta Road will include a signal if the developer/property owner chooses to have a left movement toward Ethanac Road. If no signal is installed, the driveway will be restricted to right-in and right-out. Turning movements at the southern driveway will be required to right-in/right-out movements only.
Geary Street would be improved along the Project frontage to an Industrial Collector (two-lane) designation. The improvement will include the necessary offsite transitions. All driveways along Geary Street will have full access, utilizing a two-way left turn along the Geary Street improvements in the ultimate condition.
The Project will include a westbound truck route along the southern Project frontage to the ultimate width of 32 feet (curb-to-curb) for a total of 54 feet with landscaping and setbacks, with parkway as shown on the site plan. This traffic shall be restricted to westbound movement only.
This truck route is required to facilitate truck circulation in the Northern Gateway and would be dedicated by the developer.
Offsite Improvements
The Project Applicant is required to construct Geary Street beyond the northern frontage of the Project to Ethanac Road to an interim condition of two 12-foot lanes, with six-foot paved shoulders, as detailed in the tentative site plans. The Project Applicant is also required to improve the intersection of Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road to a condition that allows for adequate turning movements for ingress and egress. This includes the extension of the westbound left-turn pocket to 350 feet, widening at the southwest corner to allow for adequate turning movements southbound and northbound, and any right-of-way acquisition with these improvements.
Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), Fair Share Contributions, and Other Improvements The Project has also been conditioned to participate in a RBBD that will be established for the area. The Applicant is required to pay the RBBD fees based on the designated land use and areas prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Fair share cost participation would be required for off-site intersections including Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road intersection and Case/Barnett Road and Ethanac Road intersection. Utility improvements would be constructed which include new water lines, recycled water lines, sewer, and storm drain lines.
Landscaping
Landscape standards for the Project are outlined in the City’s Development Code. Irrigated onsite landscaped areas for the Project site would total approximately 137,363 SF (11 percent of the site) and would be comprised of drought-tolerant shrubs and groundcover and evergreen and deciduous trees. The conceptual landscape plan includes trees at the perimeter, street frontages, parking areas, and adjacent to the building to soften the edges of the development and the proposed building. Note the Applicant has agreed to install 48-inch box trees along the northerly Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 6
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
714 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
boundary adjacent to the truck court screen walls to more quickly buffer the Project site from adjacent uses. In addition, the landscape and architectural plans feature site amenities that coordinate and compliment the proposed Project, including outdoor break areas, benches, tables, bike racks, and trash receptacles. The trailer parking areas are screened from Geary Road and Murrieta Road by large, landscaped setbacks and intervening passenger car parking areas as can be seen in the image below.
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Screening
On the Project’s northerly and southerly sides of the warehouse building, 14-foot-tall decorative concrete walls would be constructed to screen all loading areas, trucks, and trailers from public view. The visual height of the walls will be reduced as viewed from the outside through the use of landscaped berms, perimeter screening trees, and the truck courts’ lower elevations. As shown in the conceptual landscape plan, the intent is to provide landscape coverage with a variety of trees, shrubs and ground cover to soften the wall and to provide a more aesthetically pleasing street scene.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 7
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
715 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Because the truck court is set lower compared to the neighboring properties on the Project boundary, the decorative concrete screen wall is proposed to be eight feet tall. In addition, the conceptual landscape plans propose screen trees along the wall, which are anticipated to grow above the height of the wall and further screen views into the facility. In addition, evergreen shrubs and vines are proposed along the exterior of the screen walls.
South Perimeter Screening
North Perimeter Screening
Screen Wall
Elevations
The proposed building has unique design features as well as shared architectural elements with approved industrial developments within the northern section of the City to provide for cohesive development. There are complementing roof forms, colors, and materials. The various colors include white, deep blue, and multiple variations of gray. The building will include significant Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 8
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
716 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
glazing with clear aluminum mullions. Visual interest is maintained throughout the Project by enhancing architectural detailing and facade articulation along all building elevations.
Project Elevations
Industrial Good Neighbor Policies
On March 2, 2022, the City Council adopted the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. The focus of the policies can be summarized in three sections:
1. Minimize impacts to sensitve uses (residential, schools, parks, nursing homes, hospitals)
2. Protect public health, safety and welfare by regulating design, location and operations
3. Protect neighborhood character of adjacent residential communities When reviewing the proposed Project, the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies were referenced to ensure a compliant project. Implemented policies include added landscape buffers, screen walls, improved building design, community outreach, increased building and loading dock setbacks, on-site truck queuing, on-site signage, and environmental mitigation measures.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 9
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
717 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Environmental Determination
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
On November 7, 2023, the City of Menifee publicly noticed its decision to prepare an EIR and hold a public scoping meeting for the Project by noticing the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse [SCH]) and distributed the NOP to various agencies and surrounding property owners and residents in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The NOP review period was from November 7, 2023 to December 7, 2023. On November 28, 2023, the City of Menifee held a duly noticed public scoping meeting at City Hall regarding the preparation of the Draft EIR and provided an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR.
EIR Impacts
Within the EIR that has been prepared for the Project (SCH No. 2023110162), mitigation measures are provided under the categories of Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, GHG Emissions, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The EIR determined that the Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts under the category of GHG Emissions and Noise based on the analysis and findings in the Draft EIR and requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC). A brief description of these impacts is as follows:
GHG Emissions
With implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR related to GHG emissions, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of 4,796.13 MTCO 2e/yr. There are no feasible Project measures that would reduce substantially vehicular emissions, and more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips).
Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Menifee can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines.
The Project would install electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with the California Building Code which would allow charging stations to be supplied based on demand; however, the timing of this demand and corresponding availability is uncertain. Therefore, though the Project would implement mitigation measures to mitigate its GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable Noise
The Project’s off-site traffic noise level increases at adjacent noise sensitive land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable impact along the following impacted roadway segments:
•Murrieta Road s/o Ethanac Road
•Geary Street s/o Ethanac Road
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 10
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
718 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
•Ethanac Road e/o Murrieta Road (identified as experiencing significant/unavoidable traffic noise increase by 2013 General Plan EIR)
The proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Draft EIR Public Review
The City distributed the Draft EIR for public review beginning May 24, 2024 and ending July 8, 2024. During the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, or individuals:
Agencies
oAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
oAirport Land Use Commission
oCity of Perris
oRiverside County Department of Waste Resources
oSouthern California Gas
oSCAQMD
Organizations
oAdams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
oCenter for Community Action and Environmental Justice
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
oAdrienne Vendor
oBob Powell
oKimberly and Moo Tang
The City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), consisting of all the comment letters received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. The FEIR was distributed to the Draft EIR commenters 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Comments on the Final EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, or individuals
Agencies
oSouthern California Gas
oRiverside County Flood Control District
oCity of Perris
Organizations
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 11
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
719 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Individuals
oSanda Powell
oFernand & Kim DeChristopher
oAdrienne Vender
oLinda Fitzgerald
The FEIR, and Draft EIR, including technical appendices can be accessed for review on the City website at https://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents.
Findings of Fact and SOOC
Because the Draft EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated below the level of significance, Findings of Fact (Findings) and a SOOC are required to approve the Project. The Findings and SOOC are included within the resolution for the EIR for consideration by the Planning Commission.
According to the SOOC the following economic, legal, social, or technological benefits, independent of the other benefits, override the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:
1.The Project enhances the local economy. The Project enhances the local economy by providing additional jobs, and business development opportunities commensurate with forecasted growth.
2.The Project facilitates economic development. The Project is intended to facilitate the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base, providing new employment opportunities, and attracting new businesses.
3.The Project provides both traditional and alternative transportation mode benefits.
The Project would implement roadway, pedestrian, and infrastructure improvements that would provide social and other benefits to the City’s residents.
4.The Project transforms an underutilized site. The Project would develop the underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with the General Plan objectives for the EDC-NG and combines employment opportunities, truck routes, and freeway access.
5.The Project creates a high-quality development. The Project proposes a high-quality warehouse building within the EDC-NG that will attract businesses and provide a variety of employment opportunities in the community of Menifee, thereby reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.
6.The Project would be developed in line with the City General Plan. The Project would result in development pursuant to the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning.
Consistent with the General Plan, the Project facilitates the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base by creating building space and providing new diverse employment opportunities.
7.The Project would implement employment generating uses along the I-215 corridor.
The Project would result in development of an industrial warehouse use along the I-215 corridor, which would facilitate goods movement in Southern California.
Although significant impacts will remain, the City will mitigate any significant adverse impacts to GHG emissions and Noise to the maximum extent practicable. In its decision to approve the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 12
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
720 of 1648
City of Menifee City Council
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
December 4, 2024
2 4
5 5
Project, the Planning Commission has considered the Project benefits to override the environmental impacts.
Community Outreach
The Applicant’s team engaged in multiple community meetings and outreach throughout the entitlement process, including some meetings in coordination with the City. In addition, conversations with several area residents were conducted and the Applicant’s team has reached out to several property owners in the Project vicinity regarding the development and area-wide improvements/infrastructure. The Applicant’s team has been active with multiple Project proponents (of industrial projects within the City).
City staff held an environmental scoping meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at City Hall to discuss the Project and to receive comments from the public. A total of 10 comment letters were received in response to the environmental scoping. For the Draft EIR 45-day comment period and public hearings, property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundary were mailed notices at each step of the Project (scoping meeting, Draft EIR comment period, public hearing).
Findings
Findings for the EIR and PP No. PLN22-0179 are included in the attached Resolutions.
Public Notice
The proposed Project was noticed on November 24, 2024 for the December 4, 2024 City Council public hearing. A public notice was published in The Press Enterprise and notices were mailed to property owners and non-owner residents within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. The proper public notice was posted on-site, and in addition, all relevant public agencies and those requesting notification were notified of the public hearing.
STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Thriving Economy
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans & Exhibits
2. Resolution – EIR
3. Exhibit A – FEIR
4. Exhibit B - MMRP
5. Exhibit C - Findings of Fact and the SOOC
6. Resolution - Project Entitlements
7. Exhibit A – COAs
8. Appeal Application
9. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
10. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Correspondence
11. Public Hearing Notice
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 13
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
721 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 14
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
722 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 15
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
723 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 16
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
724 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 17
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
725 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 18
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
726 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 19
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
727 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 20
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
728 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 21
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
729 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 22
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
730 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 23
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
731 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 24
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
732 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 25
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
733 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 26
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
734 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 27
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
735 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 28
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
736 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 29
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
737 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 30
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
738 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 31
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
739 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 32
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
740 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 33
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
741 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 34
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
742 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 35
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
743 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 36
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
744 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 37
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
745 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 38
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
746 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 39
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
747 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 40
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
748 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 41
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
749 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 42
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
750 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 43
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
751 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 44
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
752 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 45
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
753 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 46
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
754 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 47
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
755 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 48
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
756 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 49
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
757 of 1648
RESOLUTION NO. 24-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING APPEAL NO. PLN 24-0214 OVERTURNING PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION THEREBY CERTIFYING AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2023110162) FOR THE MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT,
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the applicant, IPT Menifee CC LLC (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Plot Plan (PP) No.
PLN 22-0179 for the construction of a 517,720 square-foot (SF) speculative warehouse building on an approximately 28.27-acre site. This environmental analysis includes a development buffer to account for final design changes, equivalent to three percent of the building square footage, or 15,532 SF, which would result in a building area of 533,252 SF and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The Project site is generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (APNs: 330-210-010, - 011, -013, and -062, 330-560-001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570- 033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-005); and
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Murrieta Road Warehouse Project”; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2023, the City of Menifee publicly noticed its decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project by noticing the State Clearinghouse (SCH), and other agencies in compliance with Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, and surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the City of Menifee held a duly noticed public scoping meeting regarding the preparation of the EIR to discuss and hear from the public on the potential environmental impacts, which meeting was publicly noticed in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA guidelines, and surrounding property owners within a 500-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and
WHEREAS, between May 24, 2024 and July 8, 2024, the City complied with the State-mandated 45-day public review period for the Project Draft EIR took effect, which was publicly noticed in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA guidelines and mailed to surrounding property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project site. A copy of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022040622), and a copy of the Draft EIR was placed at the City Hall public counter, Menifee Library, and Sun City Library; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 50
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
758 of 1648
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
December 4, 2024
4 9
6 6
0 Agencies
oAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
oAirport Land Use Commission
oCity of Perris
oRiverside County Department of Waste Resources
oSouthern California Gas
oSouth Coast Air Quality Management District
Organizations
oAdams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
oCenter for Community Action and Environmental Justice
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
oAdrienne Vendor
oBob Powell
oKimberly and Moo Tang; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR), consisting of comments received during the 45- day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR, was submitted with the inclusion of Findings of Fact (Findings), a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOOC) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City Council’s consideration.
For the purposes of this Resolution, the Final EIR shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the FEIR’s errata section together with the other sections of the FEIR; and WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require re-circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the Project, dated May 2024, and FEIR for the Project, dated September 2024 provides an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and has been prepared in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and State regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve the Project entitlements (i.e., PP No. PLN22-0179) and certify the EIR; however, that motion failed to pass by a 2-3 vote; and WHEREAS, on October 31, 2024, an application to appeal Planning Commission’s decision to not approve the PP No. PLN22-0179 and not certify the EIR was submitted by the Project Applicant’s representative, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP (Appeal No. PLN24-0214); and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, the City Council of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project including the consideration of the FEIR, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 51
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
759 of 1648
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
December 4, 2024
4 9
6 6
0 newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notices placed on the Project site, notice to property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, notice to all relevant agencies and to persons requesting notification; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Menifee has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of Menifee, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the City shall not approve a project that has significant effects on the environment unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects and that the benefits of approving the project outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts, such that the impacts are acceptable based on CEQA Guideline Section 15093; and
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the CEQA Findings and SOOC attached as Exhibit “C”; and
WHEREAS, prior to recommending action on the Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives identified in the EIR, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b), the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee resolves as follows:
Section 1: Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct, based on substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR attached as “Exhibit A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2: Certification of EIR. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the proposed Project which have been submitted to, and received by the City, the City Council certifies that the FEIR has been completed and is in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the FEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency under CEQA, and adopt and certify the FEIR as complete and adequate. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 52
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
760 of 1648
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
December 4, 2024
4 9
6 6
0 Section 3: CEQA Findings and SOOC. The City Council adopts the CEQA Findings and the SOOC attached as “Exhibit C”, which exhibit is incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Section 4: Significant Impacts. The significant impacts of the Project under the category of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Noise have not been reduced to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly outweighed by the economic, legal, social, or technological benefits independent of any other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the Findings and SOOC.
Section 5: Alternatives. The FEIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly.
Section 6: Good Faith. A good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the FEIR as indicated by the public record for the Project and the FEIR.
Section 7: Mitigation Plan Approval. Although the FEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would result from approval of the Project, certain environmental effects can feasibly be avoided or mitigated and will be avoided or mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures included in the FEIR and the MMRP. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the City Council adopts and approves the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit "B," which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further finds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible.
Section 8: No Significant New Information Added to Draft EIR. The information provided in the various reports submitted in connection with the proposed Project and in the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, the information added to the FEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.
Section 9: Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development Department of the City of Menifee, located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's approval is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250 et seq.) during normal business hours.
Section 10: Approval of Appeal. The City Council finds the facts presented within the public record and within the Resolution provides the basis to approve Appeal No. PLN24- 0214 overturning Planning Commission’s decision thereby certifying the EIR and approving Plot Plan No. PLN 22-0179.
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 53
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
761 of 1648
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
December 4, 2024
4 9
6 6
0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December 2024. _________________________
Bill Zimmerman, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 54
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
762 of 1648
MURRIETA ROAD
WAREHOUSE PROJECT
SCH NO. 2023110162
prepared for
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
prepared with the assistance of
EPD, Solutions Inc.
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
September 2024
Final Environmental
Impact Report
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 55
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
763 of 1648
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
www.epdsolutions.com
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 56
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
764 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
2. Response to Comments............................................................................................................................ 2-1
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR........................................................................................................................ 3-1
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................. 4-1 Tables
TABLE 2-1: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIR................................................................................................................2-1 TABLE 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM................................................................................4-3 Appendices
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
REVISED NOISE REPORT
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CADO MENIFEE LLC VS CITY OF PERRIS
AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LETTER
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - GOLDEN STATE LETTER
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
City of Menifee
Final EIR
i
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 57
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
765 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
ii
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 58
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
766 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 1.0 Introduction
1. Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR; Final EIR) has been prepared in conformance with the environmental policy guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects that may result from construction and operation of the proposed Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (proposed Project).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR; Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft EIR; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, which began May 24, 2024, and ended on July 8, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency, the City of Menifee. This document and the circulated Draft EIR comprise the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.
1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR
The following chapters are contained within this document:
Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes CEQA requirements and the contents of the Final EIR.
Chapter 2, Response to Comments. This chapter provides a list of agencies and organizations who commented on the Draft EIR, as well as copies of their comment letters received during and following the public review period, and individual responses to their comments.
Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions made to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received by agencies and organizations as described in Chapter 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review.
The City of Menifee has determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
The additional material clarifies existing information prepared in the Draft EIR and does not present any new substantive information. None of this new material indicates that the project would result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Chapter 4, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The MMRP was prepared based on the mitigation measures included in this Final EIR and the Draft EIR.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
1-1
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 59
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
767 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 1.0 Introduction
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible … CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies are being forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, with copies of this Final EIR document, which conforms to the legal standards established for response to comments on the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b), lead agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the Final EIR by the public or by commenting agencies before a project is approved but is not required to do so.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
1-2
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 60
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
768 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals who reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) and prepare written responses. This section includes copies of all written comment letters received on the DEIR and the City of Menifee’s responses to the comment letters. Comment letters and specific comments are numbered for reference purposes which correspond with the City’s response. A summary of each numbered comment in the commenter’s letter precedes the City’s response.
The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the DEIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the Project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. Where text changes in the DEIR are warranted based on comments received, updated Project information, or other information provided by City staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment and the reader is directed to Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
These changes to the analysis contained in the DEIR represent only minor clarifications/amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the DEIR is not required.
The following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals or interested parties that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review and comment period (May 24, 2024, through July 8, 2024).
All of the comment letters received on the DEIR and responses to those comments are provided on the following pages.
Table 2-1: Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
A1 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Airport Land Use Commission
July 3, 2024
May 28, 2024
July 8, 2024
July 3, 2024
May 24, 2024
June 24, 2024
A2
A3 City of Perris
A4 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
Southern California GasA5
A6 South Coast Air Quality Management District
Organizations
O1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
July 2, 2024
O2 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
July 8, 2024
July 3, 2024
July 5, 2024
O3
O4
Individuals
I1
I2
I3
Adrienne Vendor
Bob Powell
May 28, 2024
May 28, 2024
June 26, 2024Kimberly and Moo Tang
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-1
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 61
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
769 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.1 LETTER A1: AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS (1 PAGE) City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-2
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 62
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
770 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.2 RESPONSE TO LETTER A1: AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Comment A1.1: This comment requests a copy of the final monitoring report for the Project and appreciates the City’s interest in cultural heritage.
Response A1.1: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. As requested, the City will coordinate regarding the future final monitoring report for the Project. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-3
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 63
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
771 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.3 LETTER A2: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (1 PAGE)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-4
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 64
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
772 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.4 RESPONSE TO LETTER A2: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, DATED MAY 28, 2024
Comment A2.1: This comment states that the Riverside County ALUC has reviewed the proposed Project. The comment also states that the proposed Project is located within Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area and that ALUC review is only required if the proposed Project proposes a legislative action (i.e., zone change or amendment to a SP or GP).
Response A2.1: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided. However, it should be noted that the proposed Project does not include any legislative action that would require ALUC review.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-5
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 65
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
773 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.5 LETTER A3: CITY OF PERRIS (5 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-6
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 66
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
774 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-7
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 67
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
775 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-8
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 68
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
776 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-9
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 69
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
777 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-10
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 70
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
778 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.6 RESPONSE TO LETTER A3: CITY OF PERRIS, DATED JULY 8, 2024 The responses provided below reference the following technical studies which have either been revised or included as appendices to the FEIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Noise and Vibration Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., Revised July 15, 2024, Appendix A.
•
•
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), EPD Solutions, Inc., Revised September 2024, Appendix B.
CADO Menifee LLC vs City of Perris, Superior Court of California of the County of Riverside, 2023, Appendix C.
Comment A3.1: This comment includes introductory statements, a brief description of the Project, and a description of the Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) planning area. The comment states that Ethanac Road is not a truck route. Furthermore, the comment states that the City of Perris expressed concerns regarding the proposed Project during the NOP period, which they believe have not been adequately addressed.
Response A3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses general concerns regarding the DEIR’s evaluation of land use, noise, and transportation. However, the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to. Thus, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A3.2: The comment states that the proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residential development in the City of Menifee due to its proximity to residential development in the City of Perris across Ethanac Road to the north of the Project site. The comment states that the GVSP area, within the City of Perris, consists of residences with some commercial development, therefore, no industrial development in the City of Perris is allowed to utilize Ethanac Road as a truck route to avoid impacts to the sensitive receptors. The comment states that the proposed industrial development could generate truck traffic along Ethanac Road that would result in significant traffic safety impacts to existing and future residential development.
Response A3.2: As discussed throughout the DEIR, specifically Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project is consistent with the Menifee 2013 General Plan land use designation of Economic Development Corridor (EDC), consistent with the zoning designation of EDC Northern Gateway (NG), consistent with General Plan goals and policies, and consistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies. In addition, the surrounding land uses all share the same land use and zoning designation of EDC and EDC-NG. The proposed Project would comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. Therefore, the proposed Project would be compatible with surrounding land uses within the City of Menifee.
As described in the DEIR on page 5.12-3, Ethanac Road is classified as an Expressway according to the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Furthermore, as shown on Exhibit C-7 of the Menifee General Plan, Potential Truck Routes, Ethanac Road is designated as a truck route by the City of Menifee. As such, trucks utilizing Ethanac Road for access is appropriate. In addition, as explained by the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside: “(i) the portion of Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road and east of Goetz Road is within the jurisdictions of both the City of Menifee and City Perris; (ii) Vehicle Code section 35702 prohibits the City of Perris from unilaterally adopting an ordinance or resolution prohibiting vehicles in excess of five tons on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road without consent from the City of Menifee; (iii) any ordinance or resolution adopted by the City of Perris purporting to prohibit vehicles in excess of five tons on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road without consent from the City of Menifee, including Resolution No. 6008 and Ordinance No. 1418 adopted by the City of Council of the City of Perris in June and July of City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-11
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 71
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
779 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments 2022, is unlawful and void to the extent that it affects Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road as adopted in violation of Vehicle Code section 35702. (iv) properties located to the north and south of Ethanac Road and west of Barnett Road in the City of Penis and City of Menifee, including the properties owned by Plaintiffs, may continue to have ingress and egress access pursuant to Vehicle Code section 35703 in the event that vehicles in excess of five tons are later lawfully prohibited from travelling on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road pursuant to the Vehicle Code, including, without limitation, Vehicle Code sections 35701 and 35702.” (CADO Menifee, LLC, vs City of Perris. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case Number CVRI2203602. June 12, 2023.).
It should also be noted that a Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. The Project specific Traffic Impact Analysis, included as Appendix K of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis determined that intersections 4, 8, 9, and 10 would improve to a satisfactory LOS, based on the City of Menifee and City of Perris LOS Standards and Significance Criteria for Traffic Studies, with the recommended improvements.
As described in Section 5.12 of the DEIR, Transportation, trucks accessing and leaving from the Project site would be routed away from roadways with significant passenger vehicle usage and trucks would be required to utilize existing City-designated truck routes to access I-215 and SR-74 and I-15, which would limit potential safety conflicts between passenger vehicles and trucks. Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the Project.
Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts.
Also, as described in further detail in Response O3.7 and Response A6.4 below, the DEIR provides an evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. As described under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in non-attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
In addition, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Health Risk Assessment determined that the proposed Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity or operational activity. In summary, all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation and construction related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to sensitive receptors, within the City of Menifee or the GVSP. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-12
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 72
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
780 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Comment A3.3: The comment states that the DEIR utilized incorrect methodology to evaluate cumulative roadway noise impacts. The comment specifically states that the DEIR should include the future plus project noise levels compared to the existing (no project) roadway noise levels instead of the Project’s increase over future noise levels.
Response A3.3: Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity.
The cumulative impact analysis and determination provided in Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR would not change with the inclusion of the existing without Project noise levels compared to the opening year with Project noise levels, as detailed below. Only two impacted roadway segments would experience cumulative roadway noise impacts and both methodologies support the same determination. Therefore, the DEIR accurately disclosed cumulative offsite traffic noise levels and impacts. However, in response to this comment Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR has been revised. The following revisions (with additions in bold, double underlined text) are included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR to provide additional supporting analysis:
5.10.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area. A significant impact would result only if both the difference between existing and opening year with project (combined effects) and difference between opening year without project and opening year with project (incremental effects) thresholds have been exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise standard. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Therefore, cumulative traffic- generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the opening year cumulative traffic volumes on the roadways in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project were identified in DEIR Tables 5.10-20 and 5.10-21.
As shown, cumulative development along with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels above the threshold for those roadway segments, therefore cumulative impacts associated with traffic noise would also be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, consistent with the cumulative traffic noise impact identified by the 2013 General Plan EIR.
Additionally, Table 5.10-24 presents a summary of the cumulative and project incremental noise level increases for each of the study area roadway segments. The cumulative traffic noise analysis describes the future changes in noise levels in comparison to the existing baseline noise levels. As shown on Table 5.10-24 the overall increase in off-site traffic noise levels from the existing (baseline) to the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 conditions ranges from 0.5 to 17.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10-3, nine of the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant off-site traffic noise level increases due to cumulative traffic conditions. The Project increment shown in Table 5.10-24 represents the difference between the Opening Year without Project and the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 is shown to range from 0.0 to 17.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10-3, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant noise level impacts due to the Project-related traffic. Therefore, the Project contributions to the off-site cumulative traffic noise levels are cumulatively considerable for two of the impacted roadway segments, as identified above.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-13
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 73
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
781 of 1648
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 74
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
782 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Comment A3.4: The comment states that the DEIR does not adequately define “Project Scenario 1” and “Project Scenario 2” within the DEIR and that these terms are only fully defined in the Traffic Analysis and that it is unclear whether these definitions are intended to be consistent throughout the document. The comment states that Lack of clarity regarding these definitions misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts associated with noise impacts.
Response A3.4: This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact. However, in response to this comment the DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, has been revised to include the full definitions of Project Scenario 1 and Project Scenario 2. The definitions are consistent throughout the document and with those provided in Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis. Revisions have been included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR and include the following:
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The proposed Project would generate traffic-related noise from operation. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. To identify the potential of traffic from the proposed Project to generate noise impacts, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix K. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.
The proposed Project includes two Project Scenarios in order to analyze the proposed provision of a traffic signal at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the first scenario (Project Scenario 1 – No Signal), only right-in, right-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the second scenario (Project Scenario 2 – With Signal), right-in, right- out, and left-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. Under Project Scenario 2, the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road would be a signalized intersection upon activation.
Comment A3.5: The comment states that the site-specific traffic study for the proposed Project is premature given the that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area. The comment states that a more comprehensive review of the entire area along Ethanac Road needs to be completed before site-specific studies can be prepared for individual projects.
Response A3.5: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation, where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Comments A3.5 through A3.19 refer to the LOS analysis disclosed within the DEIR and therefore do not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA.
It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Since the global Traffic Study for the MEDC area has not been completed, the Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road. The analysis for this Project cannot speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be identified. Additionally, it is not premature to prepare a specific traffic study for City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-15
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 75
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
783 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments development of the site pursuant to the proposed Project. Conversely, it is beneficial as the Traffic Study for the MEDC area can include the specific trips from the Project specific Traffic Study and the related improvements; versus an estimation of what could potentially be developed on the site and potential future improvements. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic-related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. This information is available for use in evaluating build out of future projects in the area. Additionally, fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements and into an established RBBD would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project.
Comment A3.6: This comment states that the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Project identifies roadway segments within the City of Perris jurisdiction. The comment states that the City of Perris traffic impact criteria must be utilized for all intersections identified within the Traffic Impact Analysis and that the Project would be responsible for implementing mitigation.
Response A3.6: As noted in Response A3.5 above, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. As described in Section 2.4 of Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, the City of Perris LOS Standards and Traffic Criteria for Traffic Studies are as follows:
City of Perris
The City of Perris LOS Standards and Significance Criteria for Traffic Studies identifies LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions for intersections except at constrained intersections and roadway segments in close proximity to State Route (SR) 74, the Ramona-Cajalco Expressway, or at I-215 freeway ramps, where LOS E is accepted during peak hours.
As per the TIA guidelines, a project would not meet the LOS standard under the following conditions:
1. A project-related impact is considered direct and significant when a study intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing plus project conditions.
2. A project-related impact is considered direct and significant when a study intersection operates at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.
3. A cumulative impact is considered significant when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips.
Based on review of the study intersections, below are study intersections located within Caltrans right-of- way (ROW) or located entirely or a majority within the City of Perris:
•
•
•
•
•
Geary St/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
Murrieta Rd/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
Case Rd-Barnett Rd/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
I-215 SB Ramps/Ethanac Rd (CalTrans)
I-215 NB Ramps/Ethanac Rd (CalTrans)
Based on review of the City of Perris significance criteria and applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris, the recommended improvements noted in Appendix K at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS, City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-16
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 76
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
784 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments would more than offset the project-related effect, and would address the City of Perris significance criteria.
Therefore, the City’s criteria was utilized as appropriate and improvements have been included.
Comment A3.7: The comment states that the distribution and assignment of truck traffic would be using non- truck routes within the City of Perris. The comment states that no trucks are allowed along Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road, and therefore the DEIR misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts related to traffic safety and increased truck traffic.
Response A3.7: Please refer to Response A3.5. It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic-related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project.
Please refer to response A3.3. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.8: The comment states that the Master Plan for the MEDC will be providing roadway connections for trucks that will not impact City of Perris non-truck route roadways. This must be considered as part of the traffic study and the analysis should be revised accordingly.
Response A3.8: Please refer to Response A3.5 and A3.7 above. The DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The global Traffic Study for the MEDC area would analyze the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road and would include proposed improvements. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements, including the truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. As described in Response O3.11, the implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.9: The comment states that traffic study will need to clearly identify what improvements are necessary, whether they have a direct or indirect impact from the project, and how they will be implemented and states that the City of Perris traffic criteria should be used.
Response A3.9: Please refer to Response A3.6 above. The City of Perris significance criteria have been utilized for the applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris. The recommended improvements noted in Appendix K at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS and would more than offset the Project-related effect, pursuant to the City of Perris significance criteria.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-17
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 77
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
785 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Additionally,, fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements, through an established Road and Bridge Benefit District, would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the proposed Project.
Comment A3.10: The comment states that the Study Intersection #8 consists of two separate (offset) intersections (Barnett Road & Case Road) and should be analyzed separately (from a LOS and queuing standpoint), and the recommended improvements should involve realigning Barnett Road with Case Road (and other associated intersection improvements if necessary).
Response A3.10: The intersection of Barnett Road and Case Road at Ethanac Road, identified as Intersection #8 in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. Furthermore, once the Master Plan for the MEDC is completed and improvements and costs are identified for the intersection of Barnett Road and Case Road at Ethanac Road the proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share contribution into an established Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.11: The comment states that the traffic study will have to follow the latest City of Perris requirements for those intersections and roadway segments within the City of Perris. The comment states that for roadway segments and intersections in the City of Perris, the City of Perris criteria should be utilized.
Response A3.11: This comment has been previously responded to in Response A3.6 above. The recommended improvements noted in Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, at deficient roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS. Recommended improvements would more than offset the Project-related effect and would address the City of Perris roadway capacity criteria. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.12: The comment states that Intersection #8 should be shown and analyzed as two separate intersections, since they do not align with each other. The City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS for these intersections is LOS D.
Response A3.12: This comment has been previously addressed. Please refer to Responses A3.10 and A 3.7 above. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.13: The comment states that the City of Perris Planning Department will need to review and confirm the list of cumulative projects is accurate/comprehensive.
Response A3.13: Acknowledged. As specified in Section 5.11 of the DEIR, Transportation, since the proposed development is located in proximity to the boundary of the City of Perris, cumulative projects in the City of Perris were included in the cumulative analysis and within Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR. Data and information utilized to develop the list of cumulative projects within the City for Perris included a list of current development projects that are either approved or under construction as well as a list of development projects under review with the City, at the time the NOP for the proposed Project was released. These lists were accessed through the City of Perris website and included the webpages Environmental Documents for Public Review and Current Projects, and are referenced in the DEIR.
Comment A3.14: The comment states that per the City of Perris truck routes, no trucks are allowed on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-18
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 78
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
786 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Response A3.14: This comment has been preciously responded to. Please refer to Response A3.7 above.
This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.15: The comment states that Intersection #8 operates deficiently per City of Perris standards (i.e., LOS is the City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS). These tables need to be updated accordingly and determine whether the project directly or indirectly impacts this intersection.
Response A3.15: Tables 5.1 and 5.2 within Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, shows the Existing Plus Project Level of Service for Project Scenario 1 and Project Scenario 2. It was noted upon further review that in Scenario 1 (No Signal), the AM peak hour would add a delay of more than 2 secs to an already existing deficiency of LOS E at Intersection #8 per City of Perris Standards. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 have been updated accordingly in Appendix B of the FEIR, revised Traffic Impact Analysis. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.16: The comment asks for clarification as to why the LOS results are different at Intersection 8 between both scenarios.
Response A3.16: Both Table 5.5, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 1 – No Signal), and Table 5.6, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 2 – With Signal), of the Traffic Impact Analysis (DEIR Appendix K), would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour at Opening Year and at Opening Year Plus Project. However, the AM Peak Hour delay for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in the Opening Year are different, this was an error and has been updated within the revised Traffic Impact Analysis, included as Appendix B of the FEIR. The revision does not result in any changes in the analysis or determinations within Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.17: The comment states that the realignment of Barnett Avenue/Case Road at Ethanac Road needs to be considered as a recommendation for improving the Level of Service and queuing along Ethanac Road. The comment asks for clarification regarding roadway segments 2 & 5, stating that these improvements have not been identified.
Response A3.17: Please refer to Responses A3.9 and A3.10. Furthermore, as identified in Tables 5.7 and
5.8 of Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, roadway segments 2 and 5 would be overcapacity in the Opening Year without Project. The proposed Project’s fair share to these segments have been identified on page 61 of the traffic study document. Page 57 of the traffic study states that the ultimate planned configuration of Ethanac Road is that of a six-lane roadway. The roadway expansion would help reduce the delay experienced at the intersections of I-215 SB Ramps/NB Ramps and Ethanac Road.
Additionally, the proposed Project would add traffic to the already over-capacity segment of Ethanac Road between Case Road and I-215 SB Ramps and between Murrieta Road and Barnett Road. Widening Ethanac Road to its General Plan designation would result in satisfactory operations. Please note that the proposed Project would be widening the Project frontage on Murrieta Road per the City of Menifee General Plan designation.
Comment A3.18: The comment states that the traffic study does not include an analysis of queuing at the I- 215 freeway ramps. Additionally, the comment states a review of the storage lane requirements at the study area intersections is necessary, because of potential excess queuing. Furthermore, the comment states a simulation analysis should be conducted to identify any queuing deficiencies and if applicable, improvements should be identified.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-19
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 79
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
787 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Response A3.18: As described in Response A3.10 above, once the Master Plan for the MEDC is completed and improvements and costs are identified the proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share contribution into an established Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.19: The comment states that the proposed driveways are not analyzed with respect to truck turning templates, queuing analysis and driveway spacing requirements.
Response A3.19: As described previously, traffic congestion is no longer a significant impact for purposes of CEQA, and therefore queuing analysis are outside the scope of the EIR. Notwithstanding that further response to this comment is not required, Section 5.12 of the DEIR, Transportation, describes that sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, truck turning, and driveway spacing requirements would be reviewed during the permitting process and the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable rules and regulations. Furthermore, there is a minimum proposed distance of 214 feet between the proposed rolling gates and property line, allowing for adequate truck queuing into the Project site. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.20: The comment states that the City of Perris reserves the right to provide further comments on the proposed Project. The comment requests that future notices prepared for the Project and notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA be provided to the City of Perris.
Response A3.20: The City of Perris will be provided future notices for the proposed Project. This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the EIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted or provided.
Comment A3.21: The comment states that due to nearby sensitive uses, it is requested that property owner notification within 1,800 feet of the Project site is provided.
Comment A3.21: Comments regarding the property owner notification within 1,800 feet have been noted.
This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted or provided.
Comment A3.22: The comment states that the City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Project and related DEIR and provides contact information.
Response A3.22: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the DEIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-20
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 80
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
788 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.7 LETTER A4: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE RESOURCES (3 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-21
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 81
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
789 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-22
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 82
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
790 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-23
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 83
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
791 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.8 RESPONSE TO LETTER A4: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE RESOURCES, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Comment A4.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and a summary of the proposed Project.
Response A4.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A4.2: This comment lists the surrounding landfills to the Project site. The comment includes information on El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands Landfill average daily tonnages as well as their max daily permitted tonnage based on the 2023-2024 reports.
Response A4.2: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. In addition, the information provided within the DEIR in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, is consistent with the landfill information provided within the comment letter on the El Sobrante and the Badlands Landfill. The DEIR provides a conservative analysis by utilizing the peak daily disposal tonnage rather than the average daily disposal tonnage. Therefore, no revisions are required within the DEIR based on the information provided in the comment.
Comment A4.3: This comment suggests the inclusion of two different measures to reduce the Project’s anticipated soil waste impacts and enhance compliance with SB 1383 and AB 1826.
Response A4.3: The Project would be required to comply with Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 1826.
Chapter 9.225 Waste Storage Facilities of the Menifee Development Code would also require the proposed Project to provide a covered storage area, that is accessible for truck loading shall be incorporated into each waste enclosure for collection of recyclable and organic materials, consistent with California State Law (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act, Public Resources Code Sections 42900 through 42911). As the proposed Project would be in compliance with the suggested waste reduction measures no further response is required or provided.
Comment A4.4: This comment requests that the Department of Waste Resources be notified with future transmittals pertaining to the Project. In addition, the comment provides contact information if the City has any questions on the Department of Waste Resources comment letter.
Response A4.4: The Department of Waste Resources will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-24
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 84
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
792 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.9 LETTER A5: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS (2 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-25
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 85
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
793 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-26
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 86
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
794 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.10 RESPONSE TO LETTER A5: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS, DATED MAY 24, 2024
Comment A5.1: The comment states that the commenter has reviewed the Notice of Availability for the proposed Project and that SoCalGas Distribution does have facilities in the area. The comment states that the proposed Project would need to contact the specified contact information prior to any excavation or demolition activities so that SoCalGas can locate and mark out existing facilities. The comment also states that should new gas service be required; the Developer would have to contact the Builder Services group.
Response A5.1: The commentor’s statement of the existing facilities within the Project area has been noted.
Demolition would not occur within any existing facilities; however, the Project Applicant shall contact Southern California Gas Company at the time any excavation is needed locate and mark out existing facilities near the Project site. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would not include any natural gas and would not connect to any existing facilities, as stated throughout the DEIR and as conditioned through Mitigation Measure GHG-8. This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR.
Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-27
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 87
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
795 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.11 LETTER A6: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (5 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-28
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 88
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
796 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-29
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 89
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
797 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-30
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 90
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
798 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-31
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 91
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
799 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-32
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 92
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
800 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.12 RESPONSE TO LETTER A6: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, DATED JUNE 24, 2024
The responses provided below are based on the following technical memorandum included as Appendix D of this FEIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Response to Comments, Urban Crossroads, Inc., July 23, 2024, Appendix D.
Comment A6.1: This comment states that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has reviewed the DEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.
Response A6.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A6.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project location and Project description.
Response A6.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A6.3: This comment states that the Project site is 86.3 to 84.9 miles from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, respectively. Therefore, the comment states that the air quality analysis underestimated the emissions from trucks traveling from the Ports to the proposed Project site. The comment states that the proposed Project should utilize conservative trip lengths, such as designating 40 miles for local trips and 90 miles for Port-related trips.
Response A6.3: The comment states that the truck trip length is not appropriate given the proposed Project’s distance from the Ports of Los Angles. However, it should be noted that the analysis utilizes truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which recommends the use of a 14.2- mile trip length for class 4-7 trucks (light-heavy-duty truck 1/2 and medium-heavy-duty truck) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (heavy-heavy duty trucks). As described in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, 1.3 percent of vehicle trips would be 2-axle trucks, 2.5 percent would be 3-axle trucks, 3.8 percent would be 4- axle trucks, and 10.2 percent would be 5+ axle trucks, and the remaining vehicle trips would be passenger vehicles. As such, the majority of anticipated truck trips would be from heavy-heavy duty trucks and a weighted average truck trip distance of 34.51 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix.
Additionally, these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter. Furthermore, it should be noted that the DEIR provides a conservative analysis of the proposed Project as the DEIR includes a development buffer in order to account for final design changes. Therefore, the DEIR utilized a conservative approach and appropriately analyzed vehicle trip lengths based on SCAQMD guidance. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment A6.4: The comment states that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff is primarily concerned with the cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of air toxics in the Perris Valley Commerce Center Specific Plan (PVCCSP) region. The comment states that the SCAQMD staff recommends that, at minimum, the Lead Agency perform a qualitative analysis to provide the potential cumulative impacts from air toxics in consideration by listing all surrounding past, present, and probable future projects.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-33
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 93
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
801 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Response A6.4: The comment states that the DEIR’s analysis does not consider cumulative impacts resulting from increased concentrations of air toxics in the region associated with cumulative projects. Specifically, the comment mentions six current or future projects identified on the City of Menifee’s Planning webpage under Planning – Environmental Documents for Public Review. A review of this webpage has identified the following industrial projects:
1. Northern Gateway Logistics Center
2. CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
3. Freedom Business Park
4. McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses
5. Northern Gateway Commerce Center
6. Compass Northern Gateway Project
It should be noted that although SCAQMD has held several working groups aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impacts. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution 1, projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less than significant cumulative impact as well. As demonstrated in the DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and as described Response O3.5 below, the proposed Project does not exceed the SCAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million or the non-cancer risk threshold of 1.0. As such, under this guidance the proposed Project would be considered to have a less than significant health risk impact both at the individual Project and cumulative levels.
As discussed below, even if the potential health risk from the proposed Project as well as the six cumulative projects identified in the comment is evaluated, the proposed Project would still result in a less than significant cumulative health risk impact to the community.
The Northern Gateway Logistics Center is proposed to consist of approximately 398,252 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 2,700 feet east of the proposed Project site. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.13 per one million.
The CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project is proposed to consist of approximately 700,037 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet west of the proposed Project site.
Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 1.80 per one million.
The Freedom Business Park is proposed to consist of approximately 283,746 square feet of industrial and commercial uses and is located approximately 34,000 feet or 6.43 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project 1 Accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working- group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-34
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 94
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
802 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.
The McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses Project is proposed to consist of approximately 491,393 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 10,600 feet or 2 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.
The Northern Gateway Commerce Center Project is proposed to consist of approximately 1,316,741 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet east of the proposed Project site.
Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered. Because a health risk assessment for this project is not available, the project risk has been estimated based on the cancer risk per square footage of the proposed Project and other cumulative projects identified, as these land uses are similar in nature. Based on this, the estimated cancer risk for this project was estimated at 3.45 per one million.
The Compass Northern Gateway Project is proposed to consist of approximately 461,237 square feet of warehouse space spread across three separate sites, with Project Sites 1 and 2 located approximately 2,700 feet west of the proposed Project site and Project Site 3 located approximately 2,700 feet northeast of the proposed Project. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project. Therefore, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was identified. Per the Compass Northern Gateway Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.87 in one million.
Table 2-2: Cumulative Cancer Risk
Project Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (risk per million) Proposed Project 3.04
0.13 1.80
3.45 0.87
9.29 Northern Gateway Logistics Center
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
Northern Gateway Commerce Center
Compass Northern Gateway Project
Total Cancer Risk
The U.S. EPA rules generally consider a cancer risk of 100 in one million at the community level to be within the acceptable range, and this level is considered by many lead agencies in California as a cumulative cancer risk threshold.2
As shown above, even if the maximum cancer risk at the MEIR for each cumulative project in the vicinity of the proposed Project were totaled, the maximum risk would remain well below the EPA’s standard cumulative 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October 2009, p. 67 (noting that “the 100 in a million excess cancer cases is also consistent with the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area based on the District’s recent regional modeling analysis.” City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-35
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 95
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
803 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million. Additionally, the maximum incremental cancer risk shown above for each project represents the risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor for each project, and it should be noted that each of these receptors are in different locations. As such, the total cumulative cancer risk of 9.29 in one million shown above is highly conservative, and the actual risk contributions from each Project would be less than this combined value. A quantitative analysis has been provided in this response for the cumulative impacts from air toxics in the region. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.
Comment A6.5: The comment describes SCAQMD’s new Rule 2305 and Rule 316 that are intended to reduce regional and local emissions. The comment states that the proposed Project will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, the comment states that SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation.
Response A6.5: The comment erroneously refers to the Project as a 643,419 square foot warehouse, whereas earlier in the comment letter it is accurately referred to as a 517,720 square foot warehouse. The comment has been noted and the proposed Project would comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2305 and Rule 316. However, as described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact individually and cumulatively, therefore, additional Project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures are not required (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15126.4).
Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR has been revised to include SCAQMD Rule 2305 and Rule 316 as PPP AQ-5. Revisions have been included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and have also been included within Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as part of this FEIR. Revisions to the DEIR are shown below:
Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
•
•
All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. The Project is required to obtain a permit from SCAQMD for the proposed diesel fire pump and would be required to comply with Rule 1470, regulating the use of diesel-fueled internal combustion engines.
PPP AQ-4: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-36
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 96
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
804 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
PPP AQ-5: Rule 2305 - Rule 2305: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 2305 and Rule 316.
Comment A6.6: This comment states that if the Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, air permits from SCAQMD will be required and the role of SCAQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The comment continues by saying that if SCAQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, the Lead Agency must consult with SCAQMD and is included in deciding on the adequacy of the CEQA Document. The comment concludes by saying that the FEIR should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring SCAQMD permits and to identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency.
Response A6.6: As discussed in Appendix B of the DEIR and Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the proposed Project was conservatively assumed to include installation of a 300-horsepower diesel-powered fire pump. For analytical purposes, it is anticipated that the emergency diesel generator would result in a maximum operating time of up to one hour per day, 1 day per week for up to 50 hours per year. Emissions associated with the stationary diesel-powered emergency fire pump was calculated using CalEEMod. Thus, use of the fire pump was included in the analysis for operational emissions. Because the emergency engine is expected to exceed a rating of 50 horsepower, it is anticipated that the emergency engine would require an SCAQMD air permit. Furthermore, SCAQMD has been identified as a responsible agency in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR and states that the proposed Project would require “Permits to install and operate a diesel fire pump from the South Coast Air Quality Management District” (DEIR page 3-3).
Additionally, building occupants are assumed to be warehouse distribution and logistics operators and light manufacturers; however, specific tenants and uses are currently unknown. Future occupants would be processed through the City’s permitting system. Should any additional stationary equipment be required, the City of Menifee will inform SCAQMD as the responsible agency. However, at this time it is unknown what other types of equipment may be required, and as such it would be speculative to include stationary equipment beyond the anticipated fire pump. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.
Comment A6.7: This comment states that the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. If the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendation provided in the comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why comments are not accepted must be provided.
Response A6.7: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Written responses to comments provided throughout the public comment period will be provided at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A6.8: This comment states that SCAQMD has received the DEIR. The comment requests all technical documents related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment files (complete files, not summaries), that were used to quantify the air quality impacts from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project be sent to SCAQMD review.
Response A6.8: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. In response to the request for information, the technical documentation was compiled, and a Dropbox link was emailed from the City to South Coast AQMD staff on June 13, 2024. Because the comment City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-37
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 97
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
805 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-38
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 98
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
806 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.13 LETTER O1: ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, ON BEHALF
OF COALITION FOR CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A RESPONSIBLE
ECONOMY (5 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-39
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 99
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
807 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-40
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 100
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
808 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-41
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 101
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
809 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-42
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 102
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
810 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-43
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 103
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
811 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.14 RESPONSE TO LETTER O1: ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH &
CARDOZO, ON BEHALF OF COALITION FOR CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A RESPONSIBLE ECONOMY, DATED JULY 2, 2024, AND JULY 30, 2024.
Comment O1.1: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) requesting immediate access to any and all public records referring to or related to the proposed Project.
Response O1.1: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.
Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. On July 16, 2024, CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project description and site location.
Response O1.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.3: This comment states that the request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 7920.000, et seq.) and summarizes the legal requirements behind the request.
The comment also provides contact information for correspondence.
Response O1.3: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.
Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. On July 16, 2024, CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.4: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) regarding the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.
Response O1.4: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.5: The comment states that on July 2, 2024, CARE CA requested access to documents referenced in the DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and immediate access to any and all public records related to the Project pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
Response O1.5: Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project, or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.6: The comment states that on July 16, 2024, CARE contacted the City to request that the July 2 letter be withdrawn on the basis that CARE CA had the necessary information to review the Project’s DEIR.
The comment states that CARE CA is satisfied with the information found in its review of the DEIR and does not have any objections to the Project. The comment also provides contact information for correspondence.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-44
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 104
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
812 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Response O1.6: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.
Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-45
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 105
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
813 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.15 LETTER O2: CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (3 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-46
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 106
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
814 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-47
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 107
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
815 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-48
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 108
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
816 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.16 RESPONSE TO LETTER O2: CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, DATED JULY 8, 2024
Comment O2.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. The comment states that the commentor is eager to see some mitigation measures will be implemented; however, several of the measures identified have room for improvement to provide better future-proofing of the Project site to ensure that more robust measures can be undertaken in the future as they become available.
Response O2.1: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses a general concern regarding the DEIR’s proposed GHG mitigation measures. However, the comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O2.2: The comment states that the Project will provide 20 dedicated EV charging stalls and make room for 80 additional EV-capable stations which could be upgraded at a future date. The comment states that with EV sales in the state approaching 20%, the proposed Project should provide additional stations at opening such that it can exceed and help improve adoption which is critical for helping to reduce the mobile source emissions.
Response O2.2: The comment summarizes what is already proposed by the Project in terms of including 80 electric vehicle capable stalls and 20 electric vehicle charging stations as part of the Project’s design.
However, as stated on page 5.6-22 of the DEIR, MM GHG-5 would require that prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Project shall be required to (1) provide twenty percent (20%) of the employee parking stalls on-site as "EV ready", with all necessary conduit installed, and (2) provide five percent (5%) of the twenty percent (20%) of the employee parking stalls on-site equipped with working Level 2 Quickcharge EV charging stations installed and operational. Therefore, the proposed Project already exceeds what is stated in the comment.
As described in DEIR Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a large majority of the GHG emissions from the Project would be generated from vehicle and truck emissions. As a part of the environmental review for the proposed Project, the City reviewed and included feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the proposed Project. However, the emissions from vehicles cannot be regulated by either the City or the Project Applicant. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-49
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 109
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
817 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large-scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel-powered vehicles and long charging times.
Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.
While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline-burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. It is not possible to know the exact number of employee vehicles that would utilize such EV stalls, therefore the reduction in emissions from providing further EV charging stations is not estimated. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O2.3: The comment states that the plan to only have conduit installed for three heavy-duty charging stations is not enough. The comment states it would be preferable to see the installation of conduit for at least one charging station for every five dock doors to ensure that the Project is prepared for future milestones with CARB regulations that will come into effect during its life.
Response O2.3: The comment provides an assumption that three charging stations would not be enough and does not provide any evidence showing that more than three trucks would need charging at the same time on a regular basis and that additional charging stations would be needed and that they would substantively reduce additional GHG emissions. As described in Response O2.2, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
As stated in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large-scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel-powered vehicles and long charging times. Therefore, requiring an increased number of heavy-duty charging stations would not result in effective mitigation that would substantially lessen emissions.
The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O2.4: The comment states that effective bike parking should be included as part of the Project and emphasizes the importance of using guidance available from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Any areas which are building out road infrastructure need to ensure that they provide the proper design for bicyclists based on the latest guidance from Caltrans.
Response O2.4: The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The comment as well as the guidance sources provided for review have been noted.
As described in Section 5.2, Transportation, of the DEIR the City’s General Plan Circulation Element identifies Murrieta Road east of the Project site as a proposed Class II bike lane. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned bike lanes or bicycle transportation, including the City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-50
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 110
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
818 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments ultimate buildout of Murrieta Road as a Class II bike lane. The full buildout of Murrieta Road would include striping for on street bicycle lanes, which would be reviewed and approved by the City Menifee Engineering Department. Additionally, as detailed in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would include on-site long-term and short-term storage for bikes including bike racks. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O2.5: The comment also provides contact information for correspondence and thanks the City for their time and consideration.
Response O2.5: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-51
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 111
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
819 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.17 LETTER O3: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE (101 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-52
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 112
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
820 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-53
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 113
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
821 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-54
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 114
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
822 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-55
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 115
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
823 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-56
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 116
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
824 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-57
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 117
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
825 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-58
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 118
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
826 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-59
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 119
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
827 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-60
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 120
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
828 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-61
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 121
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
829 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-62
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 122
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
830 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-63
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 123
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
831 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-64
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 124
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
832 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-65
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 125
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
833 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-66
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 126
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
834 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-67
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 127
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
835 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-68
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 128
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
836 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-69
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 129
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
837 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-70
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 130
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
838 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-71
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 131
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
839 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-72
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 132
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
840 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-73
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 133
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
841 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-74
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 134
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
842 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-75
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 135
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
843 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-76
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 136
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
844 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-77
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 137
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
845 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-78
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 138
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
846 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-79
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 139
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
847 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-80
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 140
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
848 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-81
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 141
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
849 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-82
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 142
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
850 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-83
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 143
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
851 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-84
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 144
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
852 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-85
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 145
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
853 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-86
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 146
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
854 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-87
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 147
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
855 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-88
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 148
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
856 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-89
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 149
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
857 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-90
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 150
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
858 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-91
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 151
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
859 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-92
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 152
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
860 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-93
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 153
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
861 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-94
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 154
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
862 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-95
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 155
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
863 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-96
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 156
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
864 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-97
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 157
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
865 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-98
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 158
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
866 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-99
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 159
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
867 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-100
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 160
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
868 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-101
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 161
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
869 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-102
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 162
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
870 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-103
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 163
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
871 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-104
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 164
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
872 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-105
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 165
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
873 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-106
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 166
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
874 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-107
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 167
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
875 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-108
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 168
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
876 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-109
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 169
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
877 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-110
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 170
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
878 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-111
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 171
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
879 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-112
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 172
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
880 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-113
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 173
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
881 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-114
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 174
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
882 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-115
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 175
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
883 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-116
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 176
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
884 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-117
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 177
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
885 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-118
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 178
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
886 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-119
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 179
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
887 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-120
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 180
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
888 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-121
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 181
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
889 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-122
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 182
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
890 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-123
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 183
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
891 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-124
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 184
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
892 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-125
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 185
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
893 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-126
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 186
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
894 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-127
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 187
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
895 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-128
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 188
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
896 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-129
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 189
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
897 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-130
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 190
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
898 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-131
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 191
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
899 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-132
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 192
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
900 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-133
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 193
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
901 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-134
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 194
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
902 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-135
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 195
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
903 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-136
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 196
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
904 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-137
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 197
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
905 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-138
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 198
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
906 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-139
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 199
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
907 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-140
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 200
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
908 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-141
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 201
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
909 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-142
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 202
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
910 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-143
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 203
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
911 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-144
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 204
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
912 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-145
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 205
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
913 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-146
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 206
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
914 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-147
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 207
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
915 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-148
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 208
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
916 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-149
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 209
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
917 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-150
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 210
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
918 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-151
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 211
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
919 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-152
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 212
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
920 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.18 RESPONSE TO LETTER O3: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Several of the responses below are based on the following technical memorandum provided as Appendix E of this Final EIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Response to Comments (Golden State Letter), Urban Crossroads, Inc., August 1, 2024, Appendix E.
Comment O3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Additionally, it states that GSEJA requests to be notified regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings for the Project. This comment includes a project summary of the proposed Project.
Response O3.1 GSEJA will be added to the notification list and will be notified of any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings regarding the proposed Project. The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.2: The comment states that the DEIR does not accurately describe the proposed Project. This comment expresses concern that the proposed Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger project that includes TPM No 38469 (PLN22-018), which was approved as an NOE and included multiple right-of-way areas that were proposed to be vacated. The comment states that the TPM was a necessary precedent for the proposed Project and that the DEIR must be revised to comply with CEQA Section 15161 by preparing a project EIR which analyzes this prior action.
Response O3.2: As stated in the DEIR within Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), No. 38469 (PLN22-0180), to consolidate all the existing parcels within the site into one parcel was previously approved and was exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 through a NOE, Categorical Exemption (Class 15 – Section 15315, “Minor Land Divisions”).
However, the Final Tract Map has yet to consolidate all the existing parcels, therefore, the DEIR accurately described the Project site as currently being identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560-001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-005.
Generally, courts have considered distinct activities as one CEQA project and required them to be reviewed together: (1) when the project under review is designed to provide the necessary first step toward a larger development, and (2) when development of the project under review requires or presumes completion of another activity. The TPM, in and of itself, did not include any project features or entitlements that would result in physical effects on the environment. It should also be noted that the NOE that the TPM conformed to the City’s General Plan and zoning. Further, the courts have held that piecemealing occurs when such analysis is omitted where the reviewed project has as its purpose serving as a first step toward future development, or where it legally compels or practically presumes completion of another action; conversely, “specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in a planner’s eye” need not be analyzed. At the time the TPM was being processed by the City of Menifee, no industrial development had been proposed for the Project site. The TPM was processed to accommodate a hypothetical industrial facility that was not in the planning phase or proposed. Therefore, a future industrial facility (the Project) was unknown at the time and an analysis of such would have been speculative.
Furthermore, the TPM was processed and approved by the City of Menifee on May 19, 2023. Therefore, at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review (November 7, 2023), the City of Menifee had already approved the TPM through a Notice of Exemption.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-153
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 213
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
921 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(1) states that “Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the NOP is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective”.
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 describes that the existing setting constitutes the baseline conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. As the TPM was approved prior to the proposed Project being considered, the DEIR adequately discloses the environmental setting and describes the whole of the action proposed by the Project. The proposed Project did not rely on or require the completion of another activity, no piecemealing occurred, and the two actions are separate.
Further, the discretionary action for approval of the TPM was determined to have no physical impacts on the environment and would not cumulatively combine with the proposed Project to result in new or increased impacts. The TPM was adequately discussed as part of the Project Description and disclosed to the public.
The DEIR accurately analyzes all potential environmental impacts from the proposed Project and does not present unduly low environmental impacts. Conversely, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the DEIR’s analysis provides a conservative evaluation of total building square footage by considering a three percent buffer on the square footage of the building submitted to the City as part of the Project’s entitlements. Overall, the DEIR’s environmental analysis would not result in new or increased impacts from what is currently disclosed in the DEIR when considering the TPM. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of EDC, consistent with the zoning designation of EDC-NG. The TPM is not considered part of the environmental baseline, and the previously approved TPM did not result in any impacts.
Lastly, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project and are not required to be disclosed according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.3: The comment states the PD is inadequate as it does not provide entitlement history or ownership of the site. The comment describes the sites entitlement and history and states that all sections of the DEIR must be revised to note the Project site’s status as an approved residential development and the City’s ownership of Lot 78 with reservation and dedication for parkland.
Response O3.3: Please refer to Response O3.2 above. The DEIR accurately described that the Project site is currently identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560- 001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571- 005. The DEIR also adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE. Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis.
CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(3) states that “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline”. Thus, although Lot 78 may have been previously identified within Resolution No. 16- 500: Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, the DEIR is not required to include the hypothetical condition as part of the existing baseline. Furthermore, as shown in the City of Menifee Parks Master Plan, adopted July 2023, in Figure 5-2, Future and Existing Parks, Lot 78 is not identified as future parkland. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC- NG which allows for development of industrial warehouse land uses at a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.0.
Therefore, the proposed Project is an allowed land use under the Project site designations and would be consistent with the City’s development standards. Furthermore, the NOE for the TPM, approved by the City of Menifee on May 19, 2023, found that the proposed lot consolidation conformed to the City’s General Plan and zoning. Thus, the consolidation of the “77 lots subdivided for residential development and 1.96- acre parcel (lot 78)”, as stated by the commentor, was determined to comply with the General Plan Land City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-154
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 214
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
922 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments use and zoning designation for the site and would not lead to any conflicts with the General Plan. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.4: The comment states that the Project Description does not provide a floor plan, detailed site plan, conceptual grading plan, written narrative, or detailed elevations. The comment states that a few figures have been edited to remove meaningful information. The comment requests that the DEIR must be revised to include an unedited floor plan, grading plan, site plan, elevations, and project narrative for public review.
Response O3.4: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact”. As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Figure 3-8 of the DEIR provides conceptual building elevations for the proposed building and Figure 3-7 of the DEIR provides a conceptual site plan. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the Project’s final design. The proposed Project is thoroughly described within DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and includes information such as the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), grading quantities, elevations, architectural features, parking, landscaping, and more. As such, detailed plans and elevations are not required to be included in the DEIR’s Project description and a general description of the Project and conceptual plans are allowed. Additionally, the conceptual grading plan and conceptual floor plan is on file with the City of Menifee. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.5: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the Project site as exclusively residential development due to the entitlement history. Therefore, the comment states that the proposed Project was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD.
Response O3.5: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.3 and O3.4 above. Entitlement history is irrelevant to the description of a project under CEQA and are not included as part of the environmental baseline for analysis under CEQA.
As described in the City of Menifee General Plan and General Plan EIR, Exhibit LU-4 General Plan Future Buildout Summary is based on the theoretical buildout (dwelling units, population, nonresidential square footage, and employment) of each land use designation based on a range of allowable residential densities (expressed as units per acre) and nonresidential intensities (expressed as floor area ratio). A key assumption in understanding these projections is that they reflect a theoretical buildout of the entire City, rather than what is likely to appear on the ground over the 20-year planning cycle. Accordingly, the build-out estimates in the General Plan do not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity and instead are adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. Thus, the buildout summary identified in Exhibit LU- 4 of the General Plan is not site specific, and the Project site was not identified or analyzed within the General Plan or General Plan EIR as being developed as exclusively residential development. Therefore, the Project site was included for analysis as an employment generating use by the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD.
In addition, development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-155
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 215
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
923 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Furthermore, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (i)(2), “For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.” The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. As described throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan land use designation and the zoning designation for the Project site. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan, SCAG, and SCAQMD growth projections. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.6: This comment states that the DEIR does not include analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project to the surrounding community, such as SB 535 Disadvantage Communities. The comment states that according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 the Proposed Project’s census tract ranks in the 91 st percentile for ozone burden, the 51st percentile for particulate matter 2.5 burden, and the 74th percentile for solid waste facility impacts.
The comment also states that the census tract consists of a diverse community that is especially vulnerable to impacts of pollution.
Response O3.6: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, consistent with CEQA, the DEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice.
SB 535 established initial requirements for minimum funding levels to “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs).
The legislation also gives California EPA the responsibility for identifying those communities, stating that the designation of disadvantaged communities must be based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.” SB 535 does not include project specific requirements or prohibit developments in proximity to the designated communities. Furthermore, CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. However, the DEIR and Response O3.4 provide a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin. The DEIR also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality, hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project.
Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the Project area is described in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality. Table 5.2-2, Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2020-2022, of the DEIR provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (SRA 24 Perris Valley, SRA 25 Elsinore valley, and SRA 23 Metropolitan Riverside County). Data from the air quality monitoring stations indicates that the PM2.5 federal standard had 2 exceedances in 2020, 13 exceedances in 2021, and no exceedances in 2022. While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in development in the City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-156
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 216
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
924 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has generally improved over the last 30 years largely due to cleaner air vehicles and fuel requirements.
As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Also, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment activities from Project construction. The results of the health risk assessment determined that at the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is 0.77 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Additionally, the non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.
An operational diesel mobile source health risk (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was also prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM from heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the proposed Project. The DEIR details that the results of the operational health risk assessment identified that the maximum cancer risk would be 3.02 in one million under Scenario 1 and 3.04 in one million under Scenario 2 for the nearby residential land uses, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.
Additionally, the non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01 under both scenarios, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.11 in one million.
Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. In addition, the DEIR determined that because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than ¼ mile from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
The DEIR also included a long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis which determined Project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would not impact nearby sensitive receptors including residences, workers, or schools. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.7: This comment states that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved energy compliance modeling software. The comment states that since the DEIR did not accurately or adequately model impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made and a revised EIR with modeling in one of the three approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Response O3.7: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The commenter incorrectly assumes the purpose of Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs. The approved programs serve the purpose of being used under the performance approach (energy budget) method of compliance for Energy Standards. The programs mentioned are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-157
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 217
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
925 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Additionally, the proposed Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be verified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.8: The comment states that the Project did not analyze consistency with Exhibit LU Table LU-4 “Buildout Summary” and that industrial development within the EDC-NG analyzes a 0.40 FAR. In addition, the comment states that the EDC assumes buildout of 29 acres of residential which they claim is clearly meant for the Project site due to its entitlement history. The comment states that since the Project is inconsistent with the GP, it is also inconsistent with the RTP/SCS and AQMP.
Response O3.8: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.2, O3.3, and O3.5 above where this comment has been previously responded to.
As described in Response O3.5, the Project site was not analyzed as exclusively residential development by the City of Menifee General Plan or General Plan EIR and was accurately analyzed as an employment generating land use. Furthermore, the build-out estimate in the General Plan (Exhibit LU-4) does not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the EDC and instead is adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of
1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5.
Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC-NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build-out estimates provided in Exhibit LU-4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Buildout Scenario since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the growth generated by the proposed Project was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, and AQMP. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.9: This comment states that the EIR does not provide any meaningful evidence to support the Projects consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The comment also mentions that there are errors in modeling and states that the Project is inconsistent with Goal 5, Goal 6, and Goal 7 of Table 5.9-1 from the DEIR.
Furthermore, the comment states that the analysis excludes the EIR’s determination that the project will result in significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impacts. The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document.
Response O3.9: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As discussed in Responses O3.37 through O3.46 below, appropriate CalEEMod defaults were utilized and there are no errors in modeling. Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR. The consistency analysis within Table 5.9-1 of the DEIR provides justification for the Project’s consistency with each goal.
Additionally, as noted throughout the DEIR, the Project is also consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. Thus, the DEIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document. The RTP/SCS Goal Statements are regional goals and are not project-specific. The DEIR accurately analyzes consistency with these goals as the proposed Project would not impede in the regional attainment of them. Furthermore, as stated in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project would also be consistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and General Plan GHG policies. However, in response to this comment Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR has been revised in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, of the FEIR as follows:
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-158
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 218
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
926 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Table 2-2: SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve Consistent. While the Project would not improve air air quality. quality and would have a significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, it would not prevent SCAG
from implementing actions that would improve air quality within the region. Mitigation measures are specified to reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts to the
maximum extent feasible, and the Project would
incorporate various measures related to building design, landscaping, and energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy, pursuant to Title 24 CALGreen Code and
Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, as
discussed within Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds for
criteria air pollutants.
Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. Consistent. The Project would be constructed consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use
designation/zoning classification and associated
development standards. The Project would be
constructed to current building codes, and state and
federal requirements including Green Building
Standards. The development of the Project would also
increase employment for the City and its residents.
Furthermore, a Health Risk Assessment (Appendix G)
was prepared for the proposed Project and determined
all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation-related emissions of TACs
would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds
and impacts would be less than significant.
Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an Consistent. This policy would be implemented by cities integrated regional development pattern and and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the transportation network. overall planning and maintenance of the regional transportation system. Although the proposed Project
would have a significant and unavoidable GHG
emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, implementation of the
proposed Project would not conflict with this goal.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would implement
all feasible mitigation measures, including MM GHG-
1 through MM GHG-8, as described within Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Comment O3.10: The comment states that the DEIR includes consistency analysis that is erroneous and misleading to the public and decision makers regarding some of the General Plan goals and policies, and lists policies which the Project has potential to conflict with. The comment states that the Project has significant potential to conflict with many policies due to its significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.
Response O3.10: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-159
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 219
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
927 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).
Furthermore, as described in Response O3.5, the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
Goals and Policies that are not applicable to the proposed Project, including those identified in the comment, are not included under table 5.9-2 of the DEIR as they are City initiatives or do not include project specific criteria. In addition, it should be noted that while the proposed Project results in a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG emissions, it does not equate to the proposed Project impeding the implementation or achievement of these Goal and Policies at a regional or local level. For the purposes of this response, a consistency analysis between the proposed Project and the goals and policies listed by the comment is provided below in Table 2-2 of the FEIR.
Table 2-3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal S-7: A community that has protected its sensitive Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented structures, functions, and populations from the risks at a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal and associated with climate change. is therefore not applicable.
Policy EJ-3.6: Continue to collaborate with the South Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), City decisionmakers. This is not a project-specific goal, California Air Resources Board (CARB), utility providers, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
and nonprofit organizations, neighborhoods groups, and
other community organizations to improve air quality,
food availability, renewable energy systems,
sustainable land use and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs).
Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively at a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal and seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.1: Align the city's local GHG reduction Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG City decisionmakers. This is not a project-specific goal, reduction target of AB 32. but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.2: Align the city's long-term GHG Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG City decisionmakers. This is not a project-specific goal, reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and emission reduction initiatives. City decisionmakers. This is not a project-specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Goal 10: An environmentally aware community that is Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented responsive to changing climate conditions and actively on a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal, but seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.4 Consider impacts to climate change as Consistent. This goal is intended for City staff and City a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects. decisionmakers. As discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Analysis was prepared for the Project and found that
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would exceed the
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-160
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 220
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
928 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
recommended thresholds, thus the Project would
implement mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-8
to minimize impacts.
Policy C-5.13: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and negative environmental impacts of goods movement. City decisionmakers. This is not a project-specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Comment O3.11: This comment states that any improvements or in-lieu fees/fair share fees paid for City of Perris or Caltrans facilities are beyond the control/scope of the lead agency. The comment states that evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Perris or Caltrans has not been provided, thus a revised EIR must be prepared to include the level of service (LOS) analysis as cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold TRA-1 as well as Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold LU-2 because it is not consistent with the following General Plan Policy C-1.2.
Response O3.11: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As stated within Table 5.9-2 of the DEIR under Policy C-1.2, LOS is no longer a component of CEQA traffic analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the DEIR concerning these proposed improvements was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation, where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Further, the Project’s land use impacts are based in part upon determining compliance with the City’s General Plan. The Project Applicant is proposing to improve roadways along the Project’s frontage per the City of Menifee General Plan. All roadway improvements associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. Please refer to Responses to letter A3 above for a full description regarding City of Perris roadway improvements. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.12: The comment states that the DEIR has not utilized the best available data to calculate the project’s trip generation and must be revised to implement Fehr and Peers’ updated study of the data in WSP’s study.
Response 03.12: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Although the Fehr and Peer’s updated WSP Study has been received by the WRCOG, updates to the TUMF Fulfillment Center Rates have yet to be formally adopted. According to the WRCOG Planning Directors Committee meeting on December 14, 2023, “WRCOG will initiate work on including any necessary changes to how TUMF is calculated for high cube warehouses in the TUMF Handbook based on the reduced trips observed in this analysis. These changes will be brought forth to this Committee for review when a complete update is conducted at the conclusion of the TUMF Nexus Study update process.” Therefore, the TUMF High- Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019, is still the most up to date source for vehicle trip rate calculations and the DEIR utilized the best available data to calculate the proposed Project’s trip generation.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-161
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 221
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
929 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(1) states that the environmental baseline for a project is set at the time the NOP is published. The NOP for the proposed Project was published May 24, 2024, and set the environmental baseline for the DEIR analysis. Therefore, the Fehr and Peers updated WSP study was not received by WRCOG at the time the NOP was published. Furthermore, the Scoping Agreement form, which included the use of the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019, was approved by the City of Menifee prior to the Fehr and Peer’s updated WSP Study. The DEIR utilized the most up to date WSP at the time the NOP set the environmental baseline and at the time the Scoping Agreement was approved. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.13: The comment states that any improvements recommended or fees paid to mitigate impacts for City of Perris or Caltrans facilities are beyond the control of the lead agency and evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Perris or Caltrans has not been provided.
Response O3.13: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.11 above. Policy C-1.2 is not applicable as Level of Service is no longer a component of CEQA traffic analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. However, Response to Comment Letter A3, specifically Response A3.6, offers a detailed response to this comment. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.14: The comment states that Appendix L, VMT Analysis, excludes the City of Menifee VMT Scoping Form and modeling input parameters and output screens generated by the RIVCOM model to support the EIR’s claims that the project will have less than significant impacts.
Response O3.14: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and relies on speculation and opinion. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR.
While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed Project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
A scoping form is not required for preparation of a VMT Screening Analysis; however, a VMT Scoping Form was approved by the City of Menifee and is available upon request. Furthermore, the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study is included as Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix K of the DEIR. The VMT Analysis, Appendix L of the DEIR, provides an adequate description of the City’s guidelines and use of the RIVCOM model for preparation of the VMT analysis. The analysis is based on the requirements of The City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (January 2022) and was prepared by professional traffic engineers. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.15: The comment states that the Projects VMT analysis was underestimated as it did not include truck/trailer/delivery van activity. The comment concludes in saying a revised EIR must be prepared to with a revised VMT analysis to include truck/trailer/and delivery van activity.
Response O3.15: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Based on local and State guidance as well as the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT is an City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-162
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 222
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
930 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments evaluation of passenger cars, not truck trips. The VMT analysis conducted therefore, only analyzed VMT/Employee for home-based-work trips as per the County Guidelines. This is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) which states “For the purpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Hence the VMT analysis only includes and represents the impacts of automobile travel as a result of the proposed Project using RIVCOM and is not required to include truck trips as a part of the VMT analysis. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.16: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately analyze the Projects potential impacts regarding hazards due to a geometric design feature. The comment explains that there are areas of overlap between truck movements and an inadequate depiction of the onsite turning radius for truck moving through the site.
Response O3.16: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As stated in Section 3.0 Project Description of the DEIR, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet.
The Project would include a 26-foot-wide fire access road throughout the site. In addition, the Project would include a 32-foot-wide private driveway along the southern boundary of the Project site.
There are no unique bends or obstacles along Murrieta Road and Geary Street. The onsite circulation design provides truck accessibility and turning ability throughout the site. Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent trucks or result in impacts from trucks accessing the site. As described in Response O3.4 above, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are conceptual plans and including specific truck/trailer turning exhibits in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination. Furthermore, the conceptual site plan accurately shows that there is 214 feet between the proposed rolling gate and property line, allowing for adequate truck queuing.
Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Thus, no impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature would occur from implementation of the proposed Project and Murrieta Road and the northernmost driveway on Geary Street would not require additional maneuvering space. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.17: The comment states that several areas for potential conflicts between trucks/trailers and passenger cars exist throughout the Project site. The comment states that the DEIR has not provided any exhibits demonstrating that there is sufficient backup space and queuing space for trucks/trailers to utilize City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-163
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 223
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
931 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments these spaces. The comment states a revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance due to these significant and unavoidable impacts.
Response O3.17: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O3.4 and O3.16 above, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are conceptual plans and including specific exhibits demonstrating that there is sufficient backup space and queuing space for trucks/trailers to utilize these spaces in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.18: The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include specific information and analysis of any and all right-of-way vacations and/or City owned property that is involved in the proposed project.
Response O3.18: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment has previously been responded to in Responses O3.2 and O3.3. The DEIR adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE. Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.19: This comment states that the DEIR relied upon erroneous Energy modeling to determine the Project would meet sustainability requirements. Specifically, the comment states that the DEIR did not model its energy consumption in compliance with Title 24.
Response 03.19: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O3.7, the Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs are intended for the energy budget method of compliance for Energy Standards and are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Additionally, the Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be verified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.20: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the project site as exclusively residential development due to the entitlement history. Therefore, the comment states that the proposed Project was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD. Furthermore, the comment states that Exhibit LU-4 analyzed the site as a 0.4 FAR whereas the Project’s FAR is higher.
Response O3.20: Please refer above to Response O3.5 and Response O3.8 for a detailed response. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-164
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 224
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
932 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC- NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build-out estimates provided in Exhibit LU-4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Buildout Scenario since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the Project itself would not result in employment growth above what was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, and the AQMP as it is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.21: This comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis discussion to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Project in a cumulative setting, including the associated cumulative impacts of the project’s significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG impacts.
Response O3.21: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment has been addressed previously, please refer to Response O3.5 and O3.8. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, land use designation, and zoning designation for the site and was accurately analyzed as consistent with the RTP/SCS and AQMP.
The analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the Draft EIR effectively constitutes an analysis of the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) states that compliance with GHG-related plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. However, as described in Section 5.6 of the DEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated GHG emissions from development and operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-8, impacts would remain significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in cumulatively considerable GHG impacts and cumulative GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the DEIR fully analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project to GHG; including the significant and unavoidable impacts due to emissions of GHGs.
Comment O3.22: The comment states that the DEIR did not adequately analyze removing obstacles to growth, specifically the right-of-way vacations for the TPM. The comment states that the DEIR must be revised to include specific information and analysis of any and all right-of-way vacations and/or City owned property that is involved in the proposed project.
Response O3.22: Please refer to Responses O3.2 and O3.3 above. The DEIR adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE.
Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis of growth inducing impacts.
Further, as described in Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the proposed infrastructure improvements have been designed to serve only the demands of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not expand stormwater drainage services, as well as other offsite improvements, into unplanned areas and would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.23: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-165
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 225
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
933 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Response O3.23: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As previously discussed under Response O3.5 and O3.8, development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and its program-level EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout, but simply serve as a framework upon which future project-level environmental analyses may be based. Cumulative projects are properly included in Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR and accounted for throughout the analysis of the DEIR. All previously constructed projects (i.e., completed prior to issuance of the 2023 Notice of Preparation for the DEIR) are considered part of the environmental baseline and have therefore been accounted for as part of the existing conditions.
Growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies, such as SCAG. Although the Project would induce 652 employees within the City, the proposed industrial use is accounted for within the City of Menifee General Plan, as the Project would be consistent with the planned Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use. According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast for Menifee, between 2016 and 2045, SCAG anticipates an employment increase of 15,400 additional jobs (from 13,800 to 29,200), yielding a 111 percent growth rate. SCAG also anticipates a population increase of 40,200 between 2016 and 2045 (from 89,600 to 129,800). The proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 652 employees conservatively, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 4.2 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. Additionally, as detailed within the DEIR, the proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0.5 which is below the maximum FAR of 1.0 allowed by the EDC land use and related employment projections. Thus, although the Project would generate additional long-term employment in the Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City. Thus, while the Project would contribute to employment growth through the proposed development within the Project site, the projected increases in employment from the Project are within SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS increases.
Furthermore, employment growth from the Project would not induce population growth by 652 persons. As described in the Initial Study (included as Appendix A of the DEIR) and DEIR Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Menifee and the City of Perris are high (4.9 percent and 5.8 percent respectfully). Due to these levels of unemployment, employees would live in housing either already built or are planned for development in Menifee, Perris, and the surrounding Riverside County areas and the surrounding areas. Because it is anticipated that most of the future employees from implementation of the Project would already be living in the Inland Empire area, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities would not induce substantial growth in the area and cause the need for additional housing.
In addition, projects referenced by the commentor were either required to conduct their own analysis of population growth and employment or would be required to do so by CEQA prior to approval. The commenter provides no substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The Project would not result in cumulative citywide or countywide population and housing impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.24: The comment states that since the Project is analyzed as a speculative high-cube industrial warehouse and that the tenant is unknown for the proposed Project, there is no possible assurance that positions are available within the region to satisfy the anticipated workforce needs.
Response O3.24: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As detailed in the above comment, speculative refers to the tenant, not the type of activities that would be conducted. The proposed Project has been proposed as and would be developed as a new high cube industrial warehouse building. As such, the proposed Project has been consistently analyzed throughout the City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-166
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 226
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
934 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments DEIR as a high cube industrial warehouse. Therefore, operational characteristics, including the required workforce to operate the building, have been accurately analyzed for a high cube warehouse building and the workforce required to operate the building would not change substantially due to the tenant.
Furthermore, as described in Response O3.23 the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Menifee and the City of Perris are high (4.9 percent and 5.8 percent respectfully). Due to these levels of unemployment, it is anticipated that new employees at the Project site would already reside within commuting distance and would not generate needs for any housing.
However, the Initial Study provides further analysis, so that should the proposed Project require employees to relocate to the area for work (i.e., specialized workforce is not available in the region), there is sufficient vacant housing available within the region. Within the City of Menifee, 36,308 of 38,734 total housing units are occupied, resulting in a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent. In addition, as described above in Response O3.23, the proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 652 employees conservatively, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 4.2 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the city.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be within both the anticipated employment and population growth projections for the City of Menifee. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.25: This comment states that the DEIR does not provide an exhibit depicting which areas of the site are within the applicable Compatibility Zone for each respective Airport. The comment also states that the DEIR does not provide any analysis or information regarding regulations and requirements within influence area Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport or Zone E of the March. Therefore, the comment claims that the DEIR does not provide adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure to support its claims of consistency.
Response O3.25: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O3.4, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts does not require extensively detailed figures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). Thus, exhibits or graphics depicting the applicable ALUC Compatibility Zones are not required for a meaningful analysis. Furthermore, as described in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR) and Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR, the proposed Project is located over 10 miles southeast of the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base. Additionally, the entire Project site is located within Zone E and is not located in any existing noise contours for the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base. Review by the Riverside County ALUC is not required for the proposed Project as the City of Menifee is consistent with the Perris Valley Airport ALUCP and March Air Reserve Base ALUCP.
Since the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Menifee land use designation for the site, the proposed Project would also be consistent with the ALUCP for both the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base.
Since the proposed Project is fully consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use designation, as analyzed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is also fully consistent with the requirements and regulations within influence Zone E for both the Perris valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base. Overall, the proposed Project would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, and the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. As described above, meaningful disclosure to support the DEIR’s impact and consistency determination was provided. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-167
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 227
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
935 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Comment O3.26: The comment states that the proposed Project fails to comply with the Housing Crisis Act/ Senate Bill (SB) 330/SB 8 as the Project does not provide replacement capacity for the reduced residential development as a result of the proposed Project. The comment supports this by stating the EDC land use designation has a maximum density of 24 units per acres, and therefore the Project site can accommodate the development of up to 678 dwelling units. The comment concludes that the Project must provide 678 replacement units elsewhere in the city in accordance with SB 330 and the loss of residential capacity should be included as a finding of significance.
Response O3.26: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.2, O3.3, O3.5 and O3.7 above as this comment has been previously addressed. The commenter erroneously applies the requirements of SB 330 to the proposed Project. As discussed on page 3-13 of the DEIR, the Project site has a land use designation of EDC and zoning of EDC- NG. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning designation for the site, which allow for both industrial and residential development. Thus, there is no residential density specifically assigned to the Project site, nor would the Project remove the ability for a future residential development to occur onsite as the Project would not include a zone change.
As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65860 and is not required to upzone a different site or identify a replacement housing site pursuant to SB 330. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.27: The comment states that the Project site is located in a developed area of the City adjacent to existing roads and in close proximity to infrastructure and utilities. The comment states that Geary Street and Murrieta Road are undeveloped. Furthermore, the comment states that more than 50 percent of the land within the vicinity of the Project site is vacant, meaning that the project site is not located in a developed area of the City and is not located adjacent to existing roads.
Response O3.27: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The comment erroneously states that Murrieta Road and Geary Street are undeveloped and that the proposed Project is not located adjacent to existing roads and utilities. Murrieta Road is an existing paved roadway east of the Project site that currently provides access to Ethanac Road. Murrieta Road would be improved along the Project frontage. Geary Street is an existing dirt roadway west of the Project site.
Geary Street would be improved along the Project Frontage and extended from Floyd Avenue to Ethanac Road. Therefore, both Geary Street and Murrieta Road are existing roadways that currently provide circulation, and the DEIR accurately describes the existing roads adjacent to the Project site. Furthermore, the Project site is surrounded by existing infrastructure and utilities as described in Section 3.0, Project Description.
There is an existing 27-inch diameter water line in Murrieta Road, an existing 8-inch sewer line in Murrieta Road, existing overhead utility lines are located along Murrieta Road, and existing natural gas mainlines lie within Murrieta Road.
According to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15387 "Urbanized area" means a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. A lead agency shall determine whether a particular area meets the criteria in this section either by examining the area or by referring to a map prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census which designates the area as urbanized. According to the SCAG RTP/SCS 2020 the City of Menifee had a population of 89,600 in 2016. Therefore, the Project site meets the criteria for an urbanized area and is designated as such.
This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact and no changes to the analysis are necessary.
However, in order to provide clarity on the existing setting, Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, of the DEIR on page 7-12, has been revised in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, as part of the Final EIR to state that the Project site is located within an urbanizing area rather than a developed area:
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-168
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 228
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
936 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments The proposed Project would develop a new industrial warehouse on a vacant, previously developed site that would be consistent with the General Plan approved in 2013. The site is located in an urbanizing area a developed area of the City adjacent to existing roads and in close proximity to infrastructure and utilities.
Comment O3.28: The comment states that the DEIR does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the employees are expected to come from within the City or region. Additionally, the comment states that the DEIR does not provide evidence that the specific workforce listed is qualified for or interested in industrial work to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the comment claims that relying on the unemployed workforce population of the surrounding region will increase project related VMT and emissions and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. The comment states that the DEIR excludes from analysis the zoning capacity of 678 units.
Response O3.28: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As elaborated above and throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area beyond what is forecasted, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
As described throughout this response to comments, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of 678 units. As elaborated in Response O3.24, the proposed Project has been proposed as and would be developed as a new high cube industrial warehouse building which does not require a specialized workforce.
As such, the proposed Project has been consistently analyzed throughout the DEIR as a high cube industrial warehouse. Therefore, operational characteristics, including the required workforce to operate the building, have been accurately analyzed for a high cube warehouse building and the workforce required to operate the building would not change substantially due to the tenant.
Furthermore, the DEIR does not rely on the unemployed workforce population of the surrounding region to support the impact determination as vacant housing is available in the region. The DEIR accurately states that there is sufficient vacant housing available within the region as the City of Menifee has a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent (DEIR page 7-2). Therefore, there would be no increase to project related VMT or emissions to account for longer worker trip distances. Although employees are expected to come from within the City and the region, further evidence is provided to support the less than significant impact determination. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.29: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the Project site with exclusively residential development, meaning that it was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City or SCAG.
Response O3.29: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to refer to Response O3.8 above. The Project site was not analyzed as exclusively residential development by the City of Menifee General Plan or General Plan EIR and was accurately analyzed as an employment generating land use by the City and SCAG. The build-out estimate in the General Plan (Exhibit LU-4) does not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the EDC and instead is adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC-NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build-out estimates provided in Exhibit LU-4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and SCAG employment estimates since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the employment growth generated by the proposed Project was anticipated by the City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-169
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 229
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
937 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments General Plan and SCAG. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.30: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.
Response O3.30: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment is a duplicate of Comment O3.23, please refer to Response O3.23 above. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.31: The comment states that the EIR must be revised to note the Project site’s status as an approved residential development and the City’s ownership of Lot 78 with reservation and dedication for parkland. The comment also states that the EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance as Project implementation will result in a direct impact to City recreation facilities.
Response O3.31: Please refer to Response O3.2 and O3.3 above. CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(3) states that “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline”. Thus, although Lot 78 may have been previously identified within Resolution No. 16-500: Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, the DEIR is not required to include the hypothetical condition as part of the existing baseline. The Project site has never been developed as a city recreational facility and as shown in the City of Menifee Parks Master Plan, adopted July 2023, in Figure 5-2, Future and Existing Parks, Lot 78 is not identified as future parkland. Therefore, the DEIR accurately described the Project site’s environmental baseline and no impacts to recreational facilities would occur. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.32: The comment states that the DEIR is deferring analysis by stating that development plans would be reviewed by the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to approval. The comment states that the DEIR does not provide any information regarding the proposed onsite fire pump house that is depicted on the Site Plan. The comment also states that a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project with emergency access exhibits, information regarding the proposed onsite fire pump house, and associated analysis/requirements in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.
Response O3.32: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment was previously addressed under Response O3.16. As detailed under Response O3.16, Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, depicts the proposed emergency vehicle access to the site. The proposed Project would provide emergency access to the site via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks.
The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The Project would include a 26-foot-wide fire access road throughout the site. The onsite circulation design provides accessibility and turning ability throughout the site.
Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent emergency vehicle maneuverability or result in impacts from trucks or emergency vehicles accessing or circulating the Project site. Furthermore, as described in Response O3.4, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-170
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 230
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
938 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments conceptual plans and including exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access and maneuvering in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination.
The proposed onsite conceptual circulation design provides emergency vehicle accessibility and turning ability throughout the site and does not identify potential significant environmental impacts. Should the Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff and the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable emergency access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements, as included in the City’s Municipal Code. This is not a deferral of analysis, but the City’s standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met, including emergency access.
Furthermore, the proposed onsite fire pump that is depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan has been analyzed and described throughout the DEIR, notably in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The fire pump is also identified in Section 3.0, Project Description, and states that the proposed Project would require permits to install and operate a diesel fire pump from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This is not a deferral of analysis, but standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.33: The comment states that a revised DEIR must be completed that includes analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and to foster informed decision making. The comment states that the DEIR does not identify an alternative that meets the Projects objectives and eliminates all the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.
Response O3.33: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Additionally, an alternative is not required to meet all project objectives and eliminate all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as incorrectly stated by the Commenter.
DEIR page 8-1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this DEIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” As permitted by CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative are discussed in less detail than those of the proposed Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the proposed Project. As detailed in DEIR Section
8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning, a 30 percent Reduced Project Alternative, a 51 percent Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative were selected for further analysis. As such, the alternatives utilized by the DEIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
Table 8-4 of the DEIR provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the proposed Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8-5 provides a comparison of the ability of City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-171
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 231
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
939 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed Project, to a less than significant determination. Noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.34: This comment states that SWAPE has reviewed the DEIR and states that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts and suggests that a revised EIR be prepared.
Response O3.34: This comment is introductory in nature and introduces the inadequacies of the DEIR that will be further discussed within the comment. Because the comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue no further response is required.
Comment O3.35: This comment states that the CalEEMod default data was changed for modeling of the proposed Project and that CEQA requires such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that when default values in the program are changed, output files are produced which disclose to the reader which values within the program have been changed.
Response O3.35: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. It is typical that default CalEEMod data is revised, so that the modeling accurately depicts construction and/or operation of each proposed Project. No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.36: The comment that that CalEEMod version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate project emissions, which poses a problem as it is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files. The comment states that the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values. The comment states that the DEIR should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters.
Response O3.36: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.7 above. The commenter is incorrect that CalEEMod 2022.1 is a “soft release.” As indicated in the CalEEMod release notes, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was approved for full launch on 12/21/2022 and the “soft release” message was removed. As such, CalEEMod version 2022.1 is appropriate for use and the analysis is adequate as presented.
In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1, CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information when available. Thus, modifications to CalEEMod defaults are used when more detailed information is known about the project such as the construction timeline, the mix of equipment use, architectural coatings, and more. Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were done in order to provide an accurate snapshot of the Project’s construction and operational details. Modifications to defaults and the explanations are noted in the output report. Pages 35 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix
3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis) identifies the user changes that were made CalEEMod. The “.JSON” files are input files, not output files. As such, all output files were included in Appendix 3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis.
No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.37: The comment states that the commentor discovered inconsistencies between the model inputs and the information within the DEIR, thus a revised DEIR must be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-172
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 232
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
940 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Response O3.37: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The comment does specify any specific inconsistencies with information disclosed in the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. As discussed throughout these responses and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled and analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.38: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files for the proposed Project demonstrates that the model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths. The comment claims that the changes to the individual construction phase lengths are unsubstantiated for two reasons.
Response O3.38: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR.
Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.39: This comment states that the DEIR does not provide a source for the individual construction phase lengths and therefore underestimates the length of construction. The comment states that the model should have proportionately altered the individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 11 months.
Response O3.39: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
The Project’s construction duration in CalEEMod was based on the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, as provided by the Applicant, as specified on page 3-33 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR, which assumes that construction is expected to begin the first quarter of 2025 and last for 11 months. The CalEEMod output files accurately define the construction schedule as starting on 10/15/24 and ending on 9/30/25. As such, the Project's construction schedule in CalEEMod is consistent with the Project Description.
This is consistent with the instructions in the CalEEMod User’s Guide that directs the user to use site-specific phasing. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, pages 33 through 35, the construction tab contains default information obtained from a survey of construction sites with a range of project types and sizes and provides default construction equipment lists and phase length data based on the total lot acreage of a project. The User’s Guide states that if the user has more detailed site-specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values.
The analysis properly relied on Project-specific construction phases that accurately reflect the required construction activities necessary for Project buildout. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-173
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 233
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
941 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.40: The comment states that the total construction duration modeled in the CalEEMod is 12 months. As a result, the construction schedule included in the model is overestimated and not consistent with the 11-month duration proposed by the DEIR. The comment states that by altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases.
Response O3.40: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. Please refer to Response O3.39 above. It should be noted that the comment erroneously states “construction schedule begins 10/1/2024 and ends 9/30/2024, resulting in a total construction duration of 12 months”. Table 3-3 of the comment letter provides a snapshot of Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, of the DEIR, where it specifically shows construction would begin on 10/15/24, not 10/1/24. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.41: The comment states that review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates model changes to the default off-road construction equipment parameters, specifically the model assumes that all of the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Interim emissions standards. The comment states that the use of tier 4 interim emissions standards is not formally included as mitigation measures, and cannot guarantee that these standards would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.
Response O3.41: In response to this comment, Section 5.6 of the DEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, has been revised to include Tier 4 Interim construction equipment as a Project Design Feature (PDF). In compliance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. This revision has been included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, as part of the FEIR as follows:
5.6.9 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
PDF GHG-1: Tier 4 Interim Construction Equipment. In order to comply with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. Prior to grading permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project utilizes at minimum, Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment (or electric) as well as Tier 4 Interim compliant final engines. Offroad construction equipment shall be consistent with, and meet, at minimum, Tier 4 Interim standards as specified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 1039. The Project shall also be required to keep construction equipment maintenance records and data sheets, which includes equipment design specifications and equipment emission control tier classifications, as well as any other records necessary to verify compliance with items listed above.
Maintenance records shall be kept on-site and furnished to the City upon request.
The following exemption shall apply, where the Project Applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City if the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the Project Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not/would not be available. In order to meet this requirement to demonstrate that such equipment is not available, the Applicant must seek bids/proposals from contractors of large City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-174
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 234
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
942 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments fleets, defined by the CARB as, “A fleet with a total max hp (as defined below) greater than 5,000 hp.” In the event that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available, Tier 3 equipment shall be used.
Comment O3.42: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files include changes to the default construction architectural coating emission factor. The comment states that the model’s reductions to the architectural coating emission factors are unsubstantiated for two reasons.
Response O3.42: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.43: The comment states that the accuracy of the revised architectural coating emission factors cannot be verified based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 1113 alone.
The comment states that as the DEIR fails to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating which would adhere to a specific VOC limit, they cannot verify the model’s revised coating emission factors.
Response O3.43: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
All Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of VOCs. SCAQMD (the CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input and outputs, as detailed in Response A6.1. SCAQMD has not found the VOC modeling in CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner.
The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate.
Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air quality expert. The intent of the Project air quality modeling is to establish a likely maximum impact scenario available to decision-makers for their consideration when evaluating the Project and its potential environmental impacts. Further, the excerpt provided in the comment identifies the square footage of the existing baseline use from the operational run and is not representative of the proposed Project. This analysis is adequate as presented.
While the limits outlined in Rule 1113 do vary, the architectural coatings that would commonly be used as part of construction for this type of project would fall into the building envelope coatings, flat/nonflat coatings, floor coatings, concrete surface retarder, roof coatings, and "default" coating categories, all of which have a limit of 50 g/L. As such, the analysis assumed a VOC content of 50 g/L for interior and exterior architectural coatings for Project construction. This is further specified in the 5.2 of the DEIR, Air Quality, as PPP-AQ-2 states the following:
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
The analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.44: The comment states that since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate.
Response O3.44: Please refer to Response O3.43 above. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.45: The comment states that the Project’s models should accurately reflect operational daily vehicle trip rates. The comment states that review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-175
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 235
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
943 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments only includes a total of approximately 91 Saturday14 and 30 Sunday15 vehicle trips. The comment further states that the Saturday and Sunday trips are underestimated by a total of approximately 1,044 trips and 1,105 trips. As such, the comment states the trip rates input into the model are inconsistent with the information provided by the DEIR. The comment states by underestimated Saturday and Sunday operational vehicle trips, the model underestimates the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Response O3.45: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O3.43 above, all Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of daily vehicle trip rates. SCAQMD (the CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input and outputs, as detailed in Response A6.1. SCAQMD has not found the daily vehicle trip rates modeling in CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner. The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate. Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air quality expert.
For the Saturday/Sunday trip rates, trips were calculated based on the ratio of weekday to weekend truck trips in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. As such, this is based on actual data for similar facilities, and consistent with the data published in the DEIR Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis. This is to account for reduced operation at the facility that would occur on weekends vs. weekdays. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.46: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files show unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix, and they must be revised to show the percentages used to calculate the Project’s operational emissions.
Response O3.46: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
As discussed on page 49 of Appendix 3.2 of the Air Quality Analysis (Appendix B of the DEIR), trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the Project were based on the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix K of the DEIR), which identifies that the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,135 average daily trips, including 933 passenger vehicle trips, 15 two-axle truck trips, 28 three-axle truck trips, 43 four-axle truck trips, and 116 five+-axle truck trips.
Therefore, the modeling is conservative as it increases the percentage of medium duty truck trips from the default 1.73 percent to 2.5 percent and increases the percentage of heavy heavy duty (HHD) truck trips City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-176
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 236
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
944 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments from the default of 1.76 percent to assume 10.20 percent consistent with the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed Project. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the modeling included unsubstantiated changes that may underestimate the Project’s mobile source emissions. This analysis is adequate as presented.
Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.47: This comment states that the commenter prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR, omitting the changes to operational fleet mixes and states that NOx emissions would increase by approximately 370 percent and VOC emissions would increase by 449 percent, exceeding the applicable significance threshold resulting in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR.
Response O3.47: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled, analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. The modeling provided by the commenter included default operational fleet mix values that are not specific to the proposed Project as determined by the Lead Agency. In addition, the modeling provided by the commenter included additional import which does not reflect the Project grading plan. As these values do not represent the proposed Project, the increased emissions that result from them are also not applicable. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.48: This comment states that the less than significant health risk impact based on the Mobile Health Risk Assessment in Appendix D to the DEIR is incorrect based off two reasons.
Response O3.48: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.49: This comment states that the first reason the Health Risk Assessment is flawed is that it relies upon a flawed air model based on the comments mentioned above (in Comments O3.37 through O3.46) and thus should not be relied upon.
Response O3.49: Refer to Response O3.37 through O3.46. As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled and analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.50: This comment states that the DEIR underestimates the exposure assumptions for fraction of time at home.
Response O3.50: As detailed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the HRA that was completed for the proposed Project provides the appropriate conservative analysis pursuant to SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology. Per OEHHA methodology, the HRA included refinements to identify potential effects to smaller human body weights and breathing rates to assess risk to children, which was done as detailed in the methodology provided on page 19 and 20 of the HRA (Appendix G of the DEIR). In addition, the HRA provides a conservative analysis by evaluating the closest receptors with the maximum potential emissions and continuous exposure (24-hours per day). Thus, stringent significance thresholds and methodology that is consistent with resource agency direction was utilized in the DEIR to determine potential impacts to residents and school children, which determined that impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. The thresholds utilized were based on the City’s discretion (as Lead Agency) and are supported by substantial evidence from SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-177
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 237
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
945 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Comment O3.51: This comment states that an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. The comment states that while the DEIR implements MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-8, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures.
Response O3.51: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify any feasible mitigation measures. Please refer to Response O3.52 below, the DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.
While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline-burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.52: This comment states that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures related to the Projects significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions and provides a list of mitigation measures from the CA Department of Justice (DOJ) and CARB. Additionally, the comment also states that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures related to VOC emissions and NOx emissions and provides a list of mitigation measures found in the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS Program EIR and the Department of Justice that incorporate feasible ways to include lower-emitting design features into the Project.
Response O3.52: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the proposed Project was properly modeled and analyzed as part of the DEIR and the proposed Project would not result in significant air quality or health risk impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts related to VOC, NOx, or any other criteria pollutant would not occur and there is no nexus related to the inclusion of mitigation for VOC or NOx. No mitigation is required.
GHG impacts would remain significant despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. The commenter provides a list of various suggested mitigation measures, many of which are already included in the DEIR and would be implemented by the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure.
CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-178
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 238
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
946 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large-scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel-powered vehicles and long charging times.
Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.
While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline-burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required.
Comment O3.53: This comment states that the commenter has received limited discovery regarding the Project, additional information may become available in the future; and the commentor retains the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available.
Response O3.53: This comment is advisory in nature and discloses that the commenter has the right to revise the report as additional information becomes available. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-179
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 239
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
947 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.19 LETTER O4: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE (1 PAGE)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-180
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 240
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
948 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.20 RESPONSE TO LETTER O4: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED JULY 5, 2024
Comment O4.1: This comment states that Golden State Justice Alliance would like to be added to the notification list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for the Project. The comment included eight email addresses and one mailing address.
Response O4.1: Golden State Justice Alliance will be added to the notification list and provided future notices for the proposed Project and Hearings. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-181
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 241
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
949 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.21 LETTER I1: ADRIENNE VENDOR (1 PAGE)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-182
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 242
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
950 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.22 RESPONSE TO LETTER I1: ADRIENNE VENDOR, DATED MAY 27, 2024
Comment I1.1: This comment states that the residents on Floyd Avenue and Mclaughlin held a meeting and delivered a follow up letter to the City. The comment further states that the neighbors have not received any information on the Project in seven months and nearby residences have viewed trucks on the property preparing to put in sewer lines. The comment concludes in asking about the Menifee Good Neighbor Policy.
Response I1.1: The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. On May 24, 2024, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. The NOA contained information regarding the DEIR document related to the Project as well as information on where to obtain the document and how to comment on the Project. Prior to the NOA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was mailed to property owners within the 500- foot radius of the Project site on November 7, 2023, giving notice that a DEIR was being prepared for the proposed Project. The NOP similarly provided details for how the public could comment on the proposed Project as well as notified residents of the Scoping Meeting on November 28, 2023, which provided another opportunity for residents to hear about the Project as well as comment on the proposed Project. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit early comments from public agencies with expertise in subjects that are discussed in the DEIR and to solicit comments from the public regarding potential Project environmental impacts. In addition, construction activities would not begin on the Project site until after approval of the Project and Certification of the FEIR document. Any construction activity near the site that is currently ongoing is not associated with the proposed Project. The Project’s consistency with the City of Menifee’s Good Neighbor Policies are shown in Table 5.9-3 of the DEIR. Thus, no further response is warranted.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-183
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 243
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
951 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.23 LETTER I2: BOB POWELL (1 PAGE)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-184
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 244
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
952 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.24 RESPONSE TO LETTER I2: BOB POWELL, DATED MAY 28, 2024 Comment I2.1: This Comment states that the commenter has concerns regarding noise, traffic, flooding, and air pollution in the Project area. The comment also states that they live on a dirt road which is maintained by residents on Floyd Avenue and suggests that a dead end at Floyd Avenue and the east side of Geary Road to help with traffic congestion.
Response I2.1: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Impacts related to noise, traffic, flooding, and air pollution are discussed in Section 5.10, 5,12, 5.8, and 5.2 of the DEIR, respectively. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.2, Air Quality, impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with PPP AQ-1 through PPP AQ-4, including compliance with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and would be required to prepare a WQMP that shall identify all Post-Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.10, Noise, the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts due to offsite traffic noise increases, and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.12, Transportation, impacts would be less than significant.
No improvements are proposed on Floyd Avenue and no extension of Floyd Avenue beyond what is existing in proposed. Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road, including through the intersection with Floyd Avenue. Trucks accessing the site via the driveways on Geary Street and Murrieta Road Ethanac Road north of the Project site, no vehicles related to the proposed Project would utilize Floyd Avenue.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-185
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 245
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
953 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.25 LETTER I3: KIMBERLY AND MOO TANG (2 PAGES)
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-186
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 246
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
954 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-187
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 247
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
955 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments
2.26 RESPONSE TO LETTER I3: KIMBERLY AND MOO TANG, DATED JUNE 26, 2024
Comment I3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the Project will be located along the commenters back side of their property.
Response I3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment I3.2: This comment states that the commenter reached out to the city previously regarding the Project and was not made aware of the improvement related to Geary Street. The comment expresses concern for safety at the intersection of Floyd Avenue and Geary Street due to the increase in trucks accessing the site via Geary Street.
Response I3.2: As discussed in Section 5.12, Transportation, of the DEIR, the Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road. This portion of the roadway improvement not abutting the Project site boundary would include paving at a width of 36-feet and would not include the construction of sidewalks or curbs. All road improvements would be subject to a street improvement plan review by the City, which would ensure that road improvements are design and constructed according to City standards. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound. Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound. All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access to the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other driveways. Truck circulation would not access the site via Ethanac Road southbound on Geary Street. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.
Comment I3.3: This comment states that they would like noise and air quality issues addressed due to the proximity of the warehouse and the truck routes to the nearby residences. The comment further states that the additional noise and unhealthy air quality impacts imposed from the Project should mitigated thoroughly.
Response I3.3: Impacts related to air quality and noise are discussed in Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR. Impacts related to regional air quality as well as for localized significance thresholds were found to be less than significant with the implementation of SCAQMD rules and guidelines. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment was also conducted and included as Appendix G to the DEIR found that cancer and non-cancer health risks would be below thresholds through both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR and found that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI-1 and PPP NOI-2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant, however noise generated from offsite traffic would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Geary Road. Section 5.10 of the DEIR explores potential mitigation measures such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt and came to the conclusion that these measures are not feasible to reduce impacts, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-188
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 248
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
956 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments actually or substantially reduce the Project’s noise and air quality impacts. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.). As disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR discusses all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s noise impacts and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.
Comment I3.5: This comment further states that while there is a proposed retaining wall along the northern property line, residences along Floyd Avenue are still greatly exposed to potential air and noise impacts from trucks utilizing Geary Street.
Response I3.5: Please see Response L3.4 above. Impacts related to regional air quality as well as for localized significance thresholds were found to be less than significant with the implementation of SCAQMD rules and guidelines. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment was also conducted and included as Appendix G to the DEIR found that cancer and non-cancer health risks would be below thresholds through both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR and found that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI-1 and 2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant, however noise generated from offsite traffic would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Geary Road. Section
5.10 of the DEIR explores potential mitigation measures such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt and came to the conclusion that these measures are not feasible to reduce impacts, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s noise and air quality impacts.
Comment I3.6: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately analyze the impacts from the proposed Project on the residences on Floyd Avenue and the improvement along Geary Street.
Response I3.6: As discussed in Section 5.12, Transportation, of the DEIR, the Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road. This portion of the roadway improvement not abutting the Project site boundary would include paving at a width of 36-feet and would not include the construction of sidewalks or curbs. All road improvements would be subject to a street improvement plan review by the City, which would ensure that road improvements are design and constructed according to City standards. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound. Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound. All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other driveways. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-189
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 249
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
957 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 2.0 Response to Comments Comment I3.7: This comment expresses concern for the longer wait times at the entrance of Floyd Avenue on Murrieta Road due to the increase in traffic from trucks and workers accessing the site.
Response I3.7: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation, where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Furthermore, it should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic- related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment I3.8: This comment states that the greatest concern for the commenter is the Project size and the use of Geary Street to operate “off-site.” The commenter further states that the Project is poorly cited for its proposed warehouses use and should be downsized to only operate within the Project site or to buy the nearby residences out of their property.
Response I3.8: The commenter incorrectly states that the Project proposes “off-site” operational activity on Geary Street. Geary Street would be improved and paved which would result in construction activities and would be utilized for outbound truck circulation exiting the Project site northbound. Once operational, trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound.
Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound.
All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other driveways. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.
Comment I3.9: This comment concludes the letter by stating that the negative impact on the commenters’ daily lives should be taken into consideration.
Response I3.9: This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
City of Menifee
Final EIR
2-190
September 2024
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 250
Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
958 of 1648
Murrie ta Road Warehous e Project 3.0 Revisions to the Dra ft EIR Revisions to the Draft EIR
This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The revisions do not alter any of the significance conclusions that were previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold double underlined text (i.e., bold double underlined) to signify additions. These changes are meant to provide clarification, corrections, or minor revisions made to the Draft EIR initiated by the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, and reviewing agencies, the public, and/or consultants based on their review. Text changes are presented in the section and page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR. None of the corrections or additions constitute significant new information or substantial project changes that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR.
3.1 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS AND CITY
CHANGES TO TEXT
The following text, organized by Draft EIR Sections, has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and corrections identified by the City.
Section 1.0, Executive Summary