Menifee City Council
December 4, 2024

80.Offsite Improvements – The following offsite improvements are required in order for the proposed project to function adequately:
a. Geary Street Offsite Improvements – The developer / property owner shall construct Geary Street beyond the northern frontage of the project to Ethanac road to an interim condition of two 12’ lanes, with 6’ paved shoulders, as detailed in the tentative site plans
i. Note, that for ROW for the for Geary Street exists from the project boundary to Ethanac road, with a minimum width of 40’. In the instance where the 36’ pavement section provided is unable to adequately be constructed within said ROW, the section width may be adjusted to insure adequate room for drainage, grading, water quality requirements, at the discretion/approval of the Public Works Director / City Engineer. ii. If the roadway is unable to be constructed within the existing ROW, the developer / property owner may be required to obtain right of way from the adjacent property owners consistent with the “Off-Site Dedications” condition.
b. Murrieta and Ethanac Road – The developer / property owner shall improve the intersection of Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road to a condition that allows for adequate turning movements for ingress and egress. This includes:
i. Extension of the Westbound Left Turn Pocket to 350’
ii. Widening at the southwest corner to allow for adequate turning movements southbound and widening at the southeast corner if a traffic signal is installed at the northern driveway for northbound truck traffic on Murrieta Road
iii. Any ROW acquisition with these improvements

81.Murrieta and Ethanac Road RBBD Reimbursement – In the event where an RBBD (Road Bridge and Benefit District) is established that includes improvements constructed by this project at Murrieta and Ethanac Road, the developer / property owner may enter into an RBBD Agreement with the City of Menifee providing reimbursement for applicable improvements in the form of credit to required RBBD payments. a. In the event where the constructed improvements exceed the project’s RBBD obligations, the project shall received reimbursement for said improvements upon receipt of RBBD fees from applicable adjacent projects.

82.Fair Share Contributions – In addition to the required physical improvements listed in the previous conditions, the developer / property owner shall provide the following fair share contributions prior to any certificates of occupancy.
a. Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 4.17% for the following improvements.
i. Widening and restriping of northbound Murrieta Road to provide exclusive left turn, through and right turn lanes.
ii. Traffic Signal Modification associated with these improvements b. Case/Barnett Road and Ethanac Road – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 2.72% for the following improvements.
i. Widening and restriping of the northbound Case/Barnett Road to provide exclusive right turn and shared thru-left turn lane.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 421

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1129 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 ii. Implement recommended signage and striping for safety purposes. iii. Traffic Signal modification associated with these improvements

83.RBBD replacement of Fair Share Contributions – In the event where a RBBD (Road Bridge and Benefit District) is established prior to the fair share contribution requirements, the project’s RBBD obligation shall supersede any applicable fair share requirement.

84.Drainage Facilities for Ownership by the Flood Control District. Some of the proposed drainage facilities may be requested for ownership and maintenance by the Flood Control District. For such drainage facilities, applicable Flood Control District Standards and guidelines shall be compiled with, including conditions of approval required for said drainage facilities. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the developer / property owner shall enter into a three-party cooperative agreement with the City and the Flood Control District.

Both the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the City Council shall approve the agreement.

85.ADP Fees - This project is located within the Homeland/Romoland Line A Area Drainage Plan. As such, this project is subject to Riverside County Flood Control’s ADP fees associated with this area.

General Conditions:

86. All required public improvements must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to issuance of the first and any subsequent certificate of occupancy, unless approved by City Engineer/Public Works Director.

87. Engineering Design exceptions to City design standards and policies must be specifically requested in writing and approved by City Engineer/PW Director. Any design exceptions shown on the tentative map and associated engineering documents that are not specifically requested are not approved.

88. The developer is responsible to furnish & install one 2” and one 3” conduit for traffic signal interconnect and broadband purposes, per City of Menifee Standard Detail 1005, along all circulation element roads and intersections along project frontage.

89.Subdivision Map Act – The developer / property owner shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and all other laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the subdivision of land.

90.Mylars – All improvement plans and grading plans shall be drawn on twenty-four (24) inch by thirty-six (36) inch Mylar and signed by a licensed civil engineer and/or other registered/licensed professional as authorized by State law.

91.Guarantee for Required Improvements. Prior to grading permit issuance, construction permit issuance, and/or Final Map recordation, financial security or bonds shall be provided to guarantee the construction of all required improvements associated with each phase of construction, per the City’s municipal code.

92.Bond Replacement, Reduction, and Releases - All requests for bond replacements (such as in changes of property ownerships), reductions (such as in partial completion of improvements), releases (such as in completion of improvements), shall conform to City Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 422

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1130 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 policies, standards, and applicable City ordinances. It shall be the responsibility of the developer / property owner to notify the City in time when any of these bond changes are necessary. The City shall review all changes in Bond Agreements and the accompanying bonds or security.

93.Existing and Proposed Easements - The final grading plan and improvement plans shall correctly show all existing easements, traveled ways, drainage courses, and encumbrances.

Any omission or misrepresentation of these documents may require said plan to be resubmitted for further consideration.

94.Engineered Plans - All improvement plans, and grading plans shall be drawn on twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inch Mylar and signed by a licensed civil engineer or other registered/licensed professional as required.

95.Plan Check Submittals – Appropriate plan check submittal forms shall be completed and submittal check list provided that includes required plan copies, necessary studies / reports, references, fees, deposits, etc. Prior to final approval of improvement plans by the Public Works / Engineering Department, the developer / property owner shall submit to the Public Works / Engineering Department CAD layers of all improvements to be maintained by the City (pavement, sidewalk, streetlights, etc.). A scanned image of all final approved grading and improvement plans on a Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive, also known as a “flash” drive or “thumb” drive, shall be submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department, in one of the following formats: (a) Auto CAD DXF, (b) GIS shapefile (made up of ESRI extensions .shp, .shx and .dbf) or (c) Geodatabase (made up of ESRI extension .gdb). CAD files created with the latest version shall only be accepted if approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. GIS and ACAD files 2004 or later are required for all final maps upon approval.

96.Final Map Submittal Process – Appropriate final map plan check submittal forms shall be completed and appropriate fees or deposits paid. Prior to approval of the final map by the City Council, the developer / property owner shall provide along with the final map mylars, electronic files of the final map on Compact Disc (CD), in one of the following formats: (a) Auto CAD DXF, (b) GIS shapefile (made up of ESRI extensions .shp, .shx and .dbf) and (c) Geodatabase (made up of ESRI extension .gdb). CAD files created with the latest version shall only be accepted if approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

97.Plan Approvals – Improvement plans and grading plans shall be submitted with necessary supporting documentation and technical studies (hydrology, hydraulics, traffic impact analysis, geotechnical studies, etc.) to the Public Works / Engineering Department for review and approval. All submittals shall be signed and date stamped by the Engineer of Record.

The plans must receive Public Works / Engineering Department approval prior to issuance of any construction permit, grading permit, or building permits as applicable and as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. All submittals shall include a completed City Fee or Deposit Based Worksheet and the appropriate plan check. For improvements proposed to be owned and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, improvement plans must receive district approval prior to Building permit issuance or as determined by the District.

All required improvement plans and grading plans must be approved by the Public Works Engineering Department prior to recordation of a final map for which the improvements are required, or prior to issuance of any construction and/or grading permit, whichever comes first and as determined by the PW Director. Supporting City approved studies including, but Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 423

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1131 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 not limited to, hydrologic and hydraulic studies and traffic studies must be provided prior to approval of plans. All required CFD landscape plans must be approved prior to building permit issuance.

98.As-Built Plans – Upon completion of all required improvements, the developer/property owner shall cause the civil engineer of record to as-built all project plans, and submit project base line of work for all layers on a USB drive to the Public Works / Engineering Department, in one of the following formats: (a) Auto CAD DXF, (b) GIS shapefile (made up of ESRI extensions .shp, .shx and .dbf) or (c) Geodatabase (made up of ESRI extension .gdb). The timing for submitting the as-built plans shall be as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

99.Construction Times of Operation. The developer / property owner shall monitor, supervise, and control all construction and construction related activities to prevent them from causing a public nuisance including, but not limited to, strict adherence to the following:
a. Construction activities shall comply with City of Menifee ordinances relating to construction noise. Any construction within the City limits located 1/4 of a mile from an occupied residence shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except on nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in accordance with Municipal Code Section

8.01.020. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless prior approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
b. Removal of spoils, debris, or other construction materials deposited on any public street no later than the end of each working day.
c. The construction site shall accommodate the parking of all motor vehicles used by persons working at or providing deliveries to the site. Violation of any condition or restriction or prohibition set forth in these conditions shall subject the owner, applicant to remedies as set forth in the City Municipal Code. In addition, the Public Works Director / City Engineer or the Building Official may suspend all construction related activities for violation of any condition, restriction or prohibition set forth in these conditions until such a time it has been determined that all operations and activities are in conformance with these conditions.
d. A Pre-Construction meeting is mandatory with the City’s Public Works Inspection team prior to permit issuance and the start of any construction activities for this site. 100.Dry Utility Installations - Electrical power, telephone, communication, traffic signal, street lighting, and cable television conduits and lines shall be placed underground in accordance with current City Ordinances, and as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. This applies also to existing overhead lines which are 33.6 kilovolts or below along the project frontage and within the project boundaries. In cases where 33.6kV or below lines are collocated with high voltage lines (for example, 115kV), the low voltage lines shall be placed underground even when the high voltage lines are exempt from relocation or undergrounding in accordance with City standards and ordinances. Exemption from undergrounding low voltage lines shall only be by the Public Works Director / City Engineer or as directed by the City Council.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 424

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1132 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 101. All grading activities shall conform to the latest adopted edition of the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 8.26, applicable City design standards and specifications, City ordinances, policies, rules and regulations governing grading in the City. 102.Regulations and Ordinance on Grading Within the City – In addition to compliance with City Chapter 8.26, grading activities shall also conform to the latest edition of the California Building Code, City General Plan, other City Ordinances, City design standards and specifications and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee. Prior to commencing any grading, clearing, grubbing or any topsoil disturbances, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works / Engineering Department. Grading activities that are exempt from a grading permit as outlined by the City ordinance may still require a grading permit by the Public Works Director / City Engineer when deemed necessary to prevent the potential for adverse impacts upon drainage, sensitive environmental features, or to protect property, health safety, and welfare. 103.Dust Control – All necessary measures to control dust shall be implemented by the developer during grading. Fugitive dust shall be controlled in accordance with Rule 403 of the California Air Quality Control Board.
104.2:1 Maximum Slope - Graded slopes shall be limited to a maximum steepness ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless otherwise approved by the Public Works / Engineering Department.
105.Slope Setbacks – Observe slope setbacks from buildings and property lines per the California Building Code and City ordinance on grading. 106.Slope Landscaping and Irrigation – All slopes greater than or equal to 3 feet in vertical height shall be irrigated and landscaped with grass or ground cover. All manufactured slopes shall be irrigated and landscaped with grass or approved ground cover, and shall have some type of drainage swale at the toe of the slope to collect runoff. Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall be irrigated and planted with shrubs and/or trees per City Grading Ordinance Chapter 8.26. Drip irrigation shall be used for all irrigated slopes. 107.Slope Erosion Control Plan - Erosion control and/or landscape plans are required for manufactured slopes greater than 3 feet in vertical height. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed landscape architect and bonded per applicable City ordinances. 108.Erosion Control Plans – All grading plans shall require erosion control plans prior to approval. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Plans showing erosion control measures may be included as part of the grading plans or submitted as a separate set of plans for city review and approval. Graded but undeveloped land shall provide, in addition to erosion control planting, any drainage facilities deemed necessary to control or prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control BMPs are required year-round in compliance with all applicable City of Menifee Standards and Ordinances and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Additional Erosion protection may be required during the rainy season.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 425

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1133 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 109.Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) - All grading plans shall require an approved copy of the Water Quality Management Plan sheet per the approved WQMP, executed report. The developer / property owner shall comply with the requirements of the WQMP report, the NPDES municipal permit in force, and City standards and specifications. 110.Design Grade Criteria – Onsite parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the current version of City of Menifee Standards and Specifications. Non-compliance may require a redesign of the project. Significant redesigns may require a revised Plot Plan.

Design Grade Criteria:
a. On-Site Parking – Where onsite parking is designed, such as in common areas, parking stalls and driveways shall not have grade breaks exceeding 4%. A 50’ minimum vertical curve shall be provided where grade breaks exceed 4%. Five percent grade is the maximum slope for any parking area. Where ADA requirement applies, ADA requirement shall prevail.
b. Down Drains - Concrete down drains that outlet onto parking lot areas are not allowed. Drainage that has been collected in concrete ditches or swales should be collected into receiving underground drainage system, or should outlet with acceptable velocity reducers into BMP devises.
c. Pavement - Permeable pavement requires the layers of filter material to be installed relatively flat. As such, the permeable pavement areas should have a maximum surface gradient of 2%,or approved by the PW Director/City Engineer.
111.Drainage Grade - Minimum drainage design grade shall be 1% except on Portland cement concrete surfaces where 0.35% shall be the minimum. The engineer of record must submit a variance request for design grades less than 1% with a justification for a lesser grade.
112.Finish Grade – Shall be sloped to provide proper drainage away from all exterior foundation walls in accordance California Building Code. 113.Use of Maximum and Minimum Grade Criteria – Actual field construction grades shall not exceed the minimum and maximum grades for ADA and approved project grading design, to allow for construction tolerances. Any improvement that is out of the minimum and maximum values will not be accepted by the City Inspector and will need to be removed and replaced at developer’s or owner’s expense.
114.Licensed Geotechnical Engineer - A California licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall perform final determination of the foundation characteristics of soils within on-site development areas, and per the approved geotechnical report reviewed and approved by the City.
115.Retaining Walls – Sections, which propose retaining walls, will require separate permits.

They shall be obtained prior to issuance of any other building permits – unless otherwise approved by the Building Official and/or the Public Works Director / City Engineer. The walls shall be designed by a licensed civil engineer and conform to City Standards. The plans shall include plan and profiles sheets.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 426

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1134 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 116.Trash Racks: Trash Racks shall be installed at all inlet structures that collect runoff from open areas with potential for large, floatable debris.
117.Drainage Runoff Emergency Escape. An emergency escape path shall be provided for the stormwater runoff at all inlets for the proposed underground facilities in the event that the inlets become blocked in any way. To prevent flood damage to the proposed structures, all proposed structures in the vicinity of the inlets and along the emergency escape path shall be protected from flooding by either properly elevating the finished floor in relation to the inlets and flow path or by making sure the structures are set back from the inlets to provide adequate flow through area in the event the emergency escape of the stormwater runoff is necessary.
118.Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Encroachment Permit Required. An Encroachment Permit Is required for any work within District right of way or any connection to District facilities. The Encroachment Permit application shall be processed and approved concurrently with the improvement plans. 119.RCFCWCD Submittal of Plans. A copy of the project specific WQMP, improvement plans, grading plans, BMP improvement plans and any other necessary documentation along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations (drainage report) shall be submitted to the District as reference material for the review and approval of the final drainage report and storm drain plans that propose construction of storm drain facilities that will be owned and maintained by the District.
120.Grading Permit for Clearing and Grubbing – City ordinance on grading requires a grading permit prior to clearing, grubbing, or any topsoil disturbances related to construction grading activities.
121.Compliance with NPDES General Construction Permit – The developer/property owner shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit (GCP) from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB).

This is in addition to the Municipal permit governing design, WQMPs, and permanent BMPs.

Prior to approval of the grading plans or issuance of any grading permit, the developer/property owner shall obtain a GCP from the SWRCB. Proof of filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City; and the WDID number issued by the SWRCB shall be reflected on all grading plans prior to approval of the plans. For additional information on how to obtain a GCP, contact the SWRCB. 122.SWPPP - Prior to approval of the grading plans, the developer/property owner shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the development. The developer/property owner shall be responsible for uploading the SWPPP into the State’s SMARTS database system and shall ensure that the SWPPP is updated to constantly reflect the actual construction status of the site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be made available at the construction site at all times until construction is completed. The SWRCB considers a construction project complete once a Notice of Termination has been issued by SWRCB.

The City will require submittal of NOTs for requests to fully release associated grading bonds. 123.SWPPP for Inactive Sites – The developer/property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that any graded area that is left inactive for a long period of time has appropriate SWPPP BMPs in place and in good working conditions at all times until construction is Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 427

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1135 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 completed and the Regional Board has issued a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the development.
124.Import/Export – In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the developer/property owner shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Public Works / Engineering Department. If an Environmental Assessment did not previously approve either location, a Grading Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and comment and to the Public Works Director / City Engineer for approval. Additionally, if the movement of import/export occurs using City roads, review, and approval of the haul routes by the Public Works / Engineering Department will be required. Import or export materials shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 8.26.
125.Offsite Grading Easements - Prior to recordation of a final map phase, or the issuance of a grading permit within a phased map whichever occurs first, the developer/property owner shall obtain all required easements and/or permissions to perform offsite grading, from affected land owners. Notarized and recorded agreement or documents authorizing the offsite grading shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department. 126.Offsite Property and Right of Way – The developer / property owner shall be responsible for acquiring any offsite real property interests that may be required in connection with the development project. Prior to recordation of a final map, or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall obtain all required ROW, easements and / or permissions to perform offsite grading, from all affected landowners. 127.Acquisition of Property – If the developer / property owner is unable to obtain necessary property and right of way, where needed the City will assist in processing eminent domain to obtain right of way, in accordance with all laws in regulations and only after good faith efforts have been undertaken in negotiating the acquisition of property. It shall be the responsibility of the developer / property owner to coordinate their project timing with the eminent domain process as right of way acquisition is required prior to plan approval. 128.Increased Runoff Criteria. The development of this site would increase peak flow rates on downstream properties. Mitigation shall be required to offset such impacts. An increased runoff basin should be shown on the exhibit and calculations supporting the size of the basin shall be submitted to the District and the City for review. The entire area of proposed development will be routed through a detention facility(s) to mitigate increased runoff. All basins must have positive drainage; dead storage basins shall not be acceptable.

A complete drainage study including, but not limited to, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for the proposed detention basin shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. For design purposes, the proposed detention basin shall be sized using the 1-hour/100-year frequency storm event. Detention basin(s) and outlet(s) sizing will ensure that this storm event does not produce higher peak discharge in the "after" condition than in the "before" condition. For the 100-year event, an AMC II shall be used together with a constant loss rate.

Low Loss rates will be determined using the following:
i. Undeveloped Condition --> LOW LOSS = 90%
ii. Developed Condition --> LOW LOSS = .9 - (.8x%IMPERVIOUS) iii. Basin Site --> LOW LOSS = 10%
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 428

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1136 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Where possible and feasible the onsite flows should be mitigated before combining with offsite flows to minimize the size of the detention facility required. If it is necessary to combine offsite and onsite flows into a detention facility two separate conditions should be evaluated for each duration/return period/before-after development combination studied; the first for the total tributary area (offsite plus onsite), and the second for the area to be developed alone (onsite). It must be clearly demonstrated that there is no increase in peak flow rates under either condition (total tributary area or onsite alone), for each of the return period/duration combinations required to be evaluated. A single plot showing the pre-developed, post- developed and routed hydrographs for each storm considered, shall be included with the submittal of the hydrology study.

No outlet pipe(s) will be less than 18" in diameter. Where necessary an orifice plate may be used to restrict outflow rates. Appropriate trash racks shall be provided for all outlets less than 48" in diameter.

The basin(s) and outlet structure(s) must be capable of passing the 100-year storm without damage to the facility. Mitigation basins should be designed for joint use and be incorporated into open space or park areas. Side slopes should be no steeper than 4: 1 and depths should be minimized where public access is uncontrolled.

Mitigation basins should be designed for joint use and maybe incorporated into open space or park areas. Side slopes should be not steeper than 4: I and depths should be minimized where public access is uncontrolled.

A viable maintenance mechanism, acceptable to the City should be provided for any flood control facilities to be owned and maintained by the City. Any facilities proposed to be owned by the District, should be provided with a viable maintenance mechanism acceptable to the City and the District. For the City this would be the citywide CFD. Facilities to remain private shall be maintained by commercial property owners association or homeowners associations.
129.Site Drainage - Positive drainage of the site shall be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over cut and fill slopes. Where water is collected and discharged in a common area, protection of the native soils shall be provided by planting erosion resistant vegetation, as the native soils are susceptible to erosion by running water.

All cut and fill slopes shall have a maximum 2:1 (H:V) grade, 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. 130.Alteration of Drainage Patterns – Prior to grading permit issuance or approval of improvement plans, the final engineering plans submitted by the applicant shall address the following: The project drainage system shall be designed to accept and properly convey all on- and off-site drainage flowing on or through the site. The project drainage system design shall protect downstream properties from any damage caused by alteration of drainage patterns such as concentration or diversion of flow. Concentrated drainage on commercial lots shall be diverted through parkway drains under sidewalks. 131.100 Year Storm - The 100-year storm flow shall be contained within the street top of curb. 132.100 Year Drainage Facilities - All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100-year storm flows as approved by the City of Menifee Public Works / Engineering Department.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 429

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1137 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 133.100 Year Design Criteria - In final engineering and prior to grading permit issuance, subsurface storage systems shall be designed with emergency overflow inlets to mitigate flows in excess of the 100-year storm event in a controlled manner to the satisfaction of the Public Works / Engineering Department.
134.100 Year Sump Outlet - Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. Additional emergency escape shall also be provided.
135.Coordinate Drainage Design: Development of this property shall be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed, and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows if needed. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the PW Engineering Department for review.
136.Comingling of Flows. Site restrictions may require the comingling of onsite and offsite flows. A treatment device approved by the City of Menifee Public Works Director shall be utilized to pretreat the flows before entering HOA facilities. The WQMP will need to show these catch basin inserts. This comingling of flows and the easement shall also be clarified in the CC&Rs for the project. If site restrains and existing conditions require said comingling, it will be the obligation of the HOA to accept this water and maintain the system, as well as performing maintenance on the associated filter inserts. The developer shall provide a storm drain and flowage easement, or other applicable document approved by the city of Menifee, providing the right of the city to drain onto the private property. 137.Interceptor Drain Criteria/Guidelines: The criteria for maintenance access of terrace/interceptor is as follows: flows between 1-5 cfs shall have a 5-foot wide access road, flows between 6-10 cfs shall be a minimum 6-foot rectangular channel. Terrace/interceptor drains are unacceptable for flows greater than 10 cfs. Flows greater than 10 cfs shall be brought to the street. These guidelines may be modified by the City Engineer/PW Director. 138.BMP – Energy Dissipators: Energy Dissipators, such as rip-rap, shall be installed at the outlet of a storm drain system that discharges runoff flows into a natural channel or an unmaintained facility. The dissipators shall be designed to minimize the amount of erosion downstream of the storm drain outlet.
139.Trash Racks – Trash Racks shall be installed at all inlet structures that collect runoff from open areas with potential for large, floatable debris.
140.Perpetuate Drainage Patterns. The property's street and lot grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage areas, outlet points and outlet conditions. Otherwise, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
141.Perpetual Drainage Patterns (Easements) - Grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns and conditions with respect to tributary Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 430

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1138 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 drainage areas and outlet points. Where these conditions are not preserved, necessary drainage easements shall be obtained from all affected property owners for the release onto their properties of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the PW Engineering Department for review. 142.Protection of Downstream Properties - The developer/property owner shall protect downstream properties from damages that can be caused by alteration of natural drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and securing necessary drainage easements.
143. Storm Drain Lines 36” and larger - All proposed storm drain lines greater than 36" in diameter may be considered for ownership and maintenance by the Flood Control District. The applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the Flood Control District regarding the terms of the design, construction and operation of facilities proposed for ownership by the Flood Control District. 144.No Building Permit without Legal Lot – Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer / property owner shall ensure that the underlying parcels for such buildings are complying with City Ordinances, Codes, and the Subdivision Map Act. 145.No Building Permit Prior to Subdivision Map Recordation – Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer / property owner shall record the Subdivision Map. Model Homes are exempt from this requirement.
146.No Building Permit without Grading Permit - Prior to issuance of any building permit for any new structure or appurtenance, the developer/property owner shall obtain a grading permit and/or approval to construct from the Public Works Engineering Department. 147.Final Rough Grading Conditions – Prior to issuance of each building permit, the developer/property owner shall cause the Civil Engineer of Record and Soils Engineer of Record for the approved grading plans, to submit signed and wet stamped rough grade certification and compaction test reports with 90% or better compaction. The certifications shall use City approved forms and shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department for verification and acceptance.
148.Conformance to Elevations/Geotechnical Compaction - Rough grade elevations for all building pads and structure pads submitted for grading plan check approval shall be in substantial conformance with the elevations shown on approved grading plans. Compaction test certification shall be in compliance with the approved project geotechnical/soils report.

149.Final Grade Certification – The developer/property owner shall cause the Civil Engineer of Record for approved grading plans, to submit signed and wet stamped final grade certification on City-approved form, for each building requesting a certificate of occupancy.

The certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department for verification and acceptance.
150.Conform to Elevations - Final grade elevations of all building or structure finish floors submitted for grading plan check approval shall be in substantial conformance with the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 431

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1139 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 elevations shown on the approved grading plans. Compaction test certification shall be in compliance with the approved project geotechnical/soils report. 151.Plant & Irrigate Slopes – All manufactured slopes shall be irrigated and landscaped with grass or approved ground cover and shall have some type of drainage swale at the toe of the slope to collect runoff. Slopes greater than or equal to 3’ in vertical height shall have erosion control measures provided. Slopes that exceed 15’ in vertical height are to be planted with additional shrubs and trees as approved by the Public Works / Engineering Department.

Drip irrigation shall be provided for all irrigated slopes. 152.Common Area Maintenance – Any common areas identified on the tentative map shall be owned and maintained through a permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for the project, to assume maintenance responsibility for all common areas. The organization may be public (City CFD, or another agency) or private (e.g., property owners’ association). Merger with an area-wide or regional organization shall satisfy this condition provided that such organization is legally and financially capable of assuming the responsibilities for maintenance. When necessary, property dedication or easement dedications shall be granted to the maintenance organization through map dedication, or separate recordable instrument, and shall be in a form acceptable to the city. 153.Maintenance Exhibit – Prior to final map recordation, the developer / property owner shall prepare an exhibit that shows all open space lots within the project development tract and the maintenance entity for each lot. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the Public Works / Engineering Department. 154.Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (Private Common Areas) – In the event that the Community Facilities District will not maintain all common areas, the establishment of a property owner association (POA or HOA) shall be the mechanism to maintain such common areas.
155.CC&R Content, Submittal Process and Timing – If necessary, the developer/property owner shall submit to the Public Works / Engineering Department for review and approval CC&R documents consisting of the following:
a. One hard copy and an electronic version of the CC&R’s. A completed application form to review the CC&Rs, available at the Public Works / Engineering front counter. There is a fee associated with the application and required backup documents to review. The declaration of CC&R’s shall:
i. provide for the establishment of a property owner's association, ii. provide for the ownership of the common area by the property owner's association,
iii. contain provisions approved by the Public Works / Engineering Department, Community Development Department, and the City Attorney, iv. Contain provisions with regards to the implementation of post development Water Quality Best Management Practices identified in the project’s approved WQMP.
v. Contain provisions notifying initial occupants, or tenants of the project of their receipt of educational materials on good housekeeping practices which contribute to the protection of storm water quality. These educational Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 432

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1140 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 materials shall be distributed by the property owners' association and/or the developer.
vi. Contain provisions for allowing the City a Right of Entry to maintain BMPs that are otherwise not maintained by responsible property owners. If a separate Right of Entry Agreement has been executed, this provision is not necessary to be in the CC&Rs.
b. As part of the CC&R document submittal, exhibit(s) identifying the areas or improvements that will be maintained by the POA, the CFD or other entities shall be provided. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the City. c. Once approved, the developer / property owner shall provide a hard copy of the CC&R’s wet-signed and notarized to the Public Works / Engineering Department.

The Public Works / Engineering Department shall record the original declaration of CC&R’s prior to…… the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building permit issuance.
d. A deposit to pay for the review of the CC&Rs pursuant to the City’s current fee schedule at the time the above-referenced documents are submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department.
156.Street Design Standards – Street improvements shall conform to all applicable City Design Standards and Specifications, the City General Plan, Ordinances, and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing street construction in the City. 157.Concrete Work – All concrete work including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, catch basins, manholes, vaults, etc. shall be constructed to meet a 28-day minimum concrete strength of 3,250 psi.
158.Intersection Geometrics – All final intersection geometrics may be modified in final engineering as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. 159.Street Improvements – Street improvements shall conform to all applicable City Design Standards and Specifications, the City General Plan, and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing street construction in the City.
160.Soils and Pavement Report - Street pavement structural designs shall comply with the recommendations in the City approved project soils and pavement investigation report, and must meet minimum City standards and specifications, as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. R-Values shall be provided in said report and the Engineer of Record shall provide pavement calculations to the City.
161.Driveways - Final driveway geometrics may be modified in final engineering as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. Driveways shall meet current standard radii on all existing and proposed commercial drive approaches used as access to the proposed development. The developer shall adhere to all City standards and regulations for access and ADA guidelines.
162.Acceptance of Public Roadway Dedication and Improvements – Easements and right- of way for public roadways required by this project shall be granted to the City through acceptable recordable instrument. Onsite easements and right-of way for public roadways Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 433

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1141 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 shall be granted to the City of Menifee through the final map, or other acceptable recordable instrument. Any off-site rights-of-way required for access road(s) shall be accepted to vest title in the name of the public if not already accepted. Any shared access roads necessary for the adequate circulation of the proposed project, shall be dedicated for reciprocal access by acceptable recordable instrument prior to any permit issuance. 163.ADA Compliance – ADA path of travel shall be designed at the most convenient accesses and the shortest distance to the buildings in accordance with ADA design standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director / City Engineer and the City Building Official. 164.Paving or Paving Repairs – The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the paving inspections required by City of Menifee standards and ordinances. Paving and/or paving repairs for utility street cuts shall be per City of Menifee Standards and Specifications and as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.
165.Street Light Plan – Street lights requiring relocations, or any required new streetlights shall be designed in accordance with current City Standards for LS-3 type streetlights. Street light construction plans shall be prepared as separate plans or combined with the public street improvement plans as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. 166.Public Streetlights Service Points – All proposed public streetlights shall be provided with necessary appurtenances and service points for power, separate from privately owned streetlights. The developer/property owner shall coordinate with the PW Department and with Southern California Edison the assignment of addresses to streetlight service points. Service points for proposed public streetlights shall become public and shall be located within public right of way or within duly dedicated public easements. 167.CFD Maintenance - The property owner shall file for annexation or inclusion into the Citywide Community Facilities Maintenance District, CFD for street sweeping services, street pavement maintenance, landscaping, street lighting, etc. 168.Offsite Grading – If necessary, a notarized and recorded agreement, or City-approved documents authorizing the offsite grading shall be submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department.
169.Sight Distance Analysis – Sight distance analysis shall be conducted at all project roadway entrances for conformance with City sight distance standards. The analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer, and shall be incorporated in the final grading plans, street improvement plans, and landscape improvement plans.
170.Street Name Sign - The developer/property owner shall install street name sign(s) in accordance with applicable City Standards, or as directed by the PW Engineering Department.
171.Driveway Geometrics- Final driveway geometrics may be modified in Final Engineering as approved by the Public Works Director. Driveways shall meet current standard radii on all existing and proposed commercial drive approaches used as access to the proposed development. The developer shall adhere to all City standards and regulations for access and ADA guidelines.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 434

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1142 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 172.Construction Traffic Control Plan - Prior to start of any project related construction, the developer/property owner shall submit to the Public Works Engineering Department for review and approval, a Construction Traffic Control Plan in compliance with all applicable City ordinances, standards and specifications, and the latest edition of the CAMUTCD. This traffic control plan shall address impacts from construction vehicular traffic, noise, and dust and shall propose measures to mitigate these effects. The traffic control plan shall include a Traffic Safety Plan for safe use of public roads right-of-way during construction. 173.Traffic Signal Control Devices – All new traffic signals and traffic signal modifications required for construction by this development project shall include traffic signal communication infrastructure, network equipment, and Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) license software. Said traffic signal control devices shall be submitted with the traffic signal design plans and shall be approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer, prior to testing of a new traffic signal. Traffic signal poles shall be placed at the ultimate locations when appropriate.
174.Cost participation through Payment of TUMF and DIF for Improvements- The developer/property owner’s TUMF and DIF payment obligations shall be considered as cost participation for Project’s required offsite improvements only when the offsite improvements for which credits are claimed, are eligible TUMF and/or DIF facilities at time of TUMF and DIF payments. Determination for TUMF credits shall be at the discretion of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the governing authority, which shall include entering a three party TUMF Credit Agreement with the developer, WRCOG and the City of Menifee.
175.Improvement Bonds – Prior to improvement plan approval and issuance of any construction permit for all required onsite and offsite public improvements, the developer/project owner shall enter into a bond agreement and post acceptable bonds or security, to guarantee the completion of all required improvements. The bonds shall be in accordance with all applicable City ordinances, resolutions, and municipal codes. 176.Encroachment Permits – The developer/property owner shall obtain all required encroachment permits and clearances prior to start of any work within City, State, or local agency right-of-way.
177.Stormwater Management - All City of Menifee requirements for NPDES and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) shall be met per City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.01 for Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management Program unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. This project is required to submit a project specific WQMP prepared in accordance with the latest WQMP guidelines approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
178.Trash Enclosures Standards and Specifications – Storm runoff resulting in direct contact with trash enclosure, or wastewater runoff from trash enclosure are prohibited from running off a site onto the City MS4 without proper treatment. Trash enclosures in new developments and redevelopment projects shall meet new storm water quality standards including:
a) Provision of a solid impermeable roof with a minimum clearance height to allow the bin lid to completely open.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 435

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1143 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 b) Constructed of reinforced masonry without wooden gates. Walls shall be at least 6 feet high.
c) Provision of concrete slab floor, graded to collect any spill within the enclosure. d) All trash bins in the trash enclosure shall be leak proof with lids that are continuously kept closed.
e) The enclosure area shall be protected from receiving direct rainfall or run-on from collateral surfaces.
f) The trash enclosure shall be lockable and locked when not in use with a 2-inch or larger brass resettable combination lock. Only employees and staff authorized by the enclosure property owner shall be given access.

Any standing liquids within the trash enclosures without floor drain must be cleaned up and disposed of properly using a mop and a bucket or a wet/dry vacuum machine. All non- hazardous liquids without solid trash may be put in the sanitary sewer as an option, in accordance with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) criteria.

An alternate floor drain from the interior of the enclosure that discharges to the sanitary sewer may be constructed only after obtaining approval from EMWD. This option requires the following:
a) The trash enclosure shall be lockable and locked when not in use with a 2-inch or larger brass resettable combination lock. Only employees and staff authorized by the enclosure property owner shall be given access. This requirement may not be applicable to commercial complexes with multiple tenants.
b) A waterless trap primer shall be provided to prevent escape of gasses from the sewer line and save water.
c) Hot and cold running water shall be provided with a connection nearby with an approved backflow preventer. The spigot shall be protected and located at the rear of the enclosure to prevent damage from bins.
179.SWRCB, Trash Amendments - The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California and the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries – collectively referred to as the “Trash Amendments.” Applicable requirements per these amendments shall be adhered to with implementation measures, prior to building permit issuance. Projects determined to be within Priority Land Uses as defined in the Trash Amendments, shall provide trash full capture devices in all new and existing catch basins to which this development will be tributary to or receiving from all Priority Land Use areas that will contribute storm water runoff to the City of Menifee’s MS4. All trash full capture devices shall be listed on the State Board’s current list of certified full capture devices posted on their website
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementation. shtml), or otherwise approved by State or Regional Water Quality Control Board staff. Storm water runoff from privately owned Priority Land Use areas shall be treated by full capture devices located within privately owned storm drain structures or otherwise located on the privately owned property, whenever possible. Runoff from Priority Land Use areas created or modified by the project, and which are proposed to be City owned, shall be treated by full capture devices located within city-owned storm drains or otherwise located within the public right of way.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 436

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1144 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Existing and proposed catch basins shall be retrofitted with a catch basin insert device selected from the list of approved devices by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, and compliant with the State-wide Trash TMDL.

The State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution adopted an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for ocean waters of California to control trash, and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries of California. Applicable requirements per these amendments shall be adhered to with implementation measures, prior to building permit issuance. Projects determined as within Priority Land Uses as defined in the amendment, shall provide full trash capture devices in all new catch basins and existing catch basins to which this development will be tributary to. Devices shall meet the requirement of the new Trash Amendment. 180. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a FINAL project specific WQMP in substantial conformance with the approved PRELIMINARY WQMP, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Department. Final construction plans shall incorporate all the structural BMPs identified in the approved FINAL WQMP. The final developed project shall implement all structural and non-structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL WQMP.

One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department. The FINAL WQMP submittal shall include at the minimum the following reports/studies:
a) Hydrology/hydraulics report
b) Soils Report that includes soil infiltration capacity c) Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, as may be required by an approved Phase I ESA Report
Final construction plans shall incorporate all the structural BMPs identified in the approved FINAL WQMP. The final developed project shall implement all structural and non-structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL WQMP. One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department. 181.Revising The Final WQMP - In the event the Final WQMP requires design revisions that will substantially deviate from the approved Prelim WQMP, a revised or new WQMP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works / Engineering Department. The cost of reviewing the revised/new WQMP shall be charged on a time and material basis. The fixed fee to review a Final WQMP shall not apply, and a deposit shall be collected from the applicant to pay for reviewing the substantially revised WQMP. 182.WQMP Maintenance Agreement - All water quality features or BMPs shall be located within the property limits, and the maintenance shall be the full responsibility of the developer / project owner. Prior to, or concurrent with the approval of the FINAL WQMP, the developer / property owner shall record Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) that addresses the implementation and maintenance of proposed WQMP BMPs, or enter into an acceptable maintenance agreement with the City to inform future property owners of the requirement to perpetually implement the approved FINAL WQMP. 183.Implement Project Specific WQMP - All structural BMPs described in the project-specific WQMP shall be constructed or installed and operational in conformance with approved plans and specifications. It shall be demonstrated that the applicant is prepared to implement all BMPs described in the approved project specific WQMP and that copies of the approved Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 437

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1145 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 project-specific WQMP are available for the future owners/occupants. The City will not release occupancy permits for any portion of the project or subdivision map phase until all proposed BMPs described in the approved project specific WQMPs, to which the portion of the project is tributary to, are completed and operational.

The City will not release occupancy permits for any portion of the project, or any proposed map phase prior to the completion of the construction of all required structural BMPs, and implementation of non-structural BMPs.
184.Inspection of BMP Installation – Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, all structural BMPs included in the approved FINAL WQMP shall be inspected for completion of installation in accordance with approved plans and specifications, and the FINAL WQMP.

The Public Works Stormwater Inspection team shall verify that all proposed structural BMPs are in working conditions, and that a hard copy and / or digital copy of the approved FINAL WQMP are available at the site for use and reference by future owners/occupants. The inspection shall ensure that the FINAL WQMP at the site includes the BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan, and shall include the site in a City maintained database for future periodic inspection.
185.WQMP/BMP Education - Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the developer / project owner shall provide the City proof of notification to future occupants of all BMP’s and educational and training requirements for said BMP’s as directed in the approved WQMP.

Proof of notification shall be provided to the Public Works / Engineering Department in forms determined acceptable by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. Public Education Program materials may be obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s NPDES Section through their website at www.rcwatershed.org. The developer must provide to the Public Works / Engineering Department a notarized affidavit, or other notification forms acceptable to the Public Works Director / City Engineer, stating that the distribution of educational materials to future homebuyers has been completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

A copy of the notarized affidavit must be placed in the final WQMP report. The Public Works / Engineering Department MUST also receive the original notarized affidavit with the plan check submittal to clear the appropriate condition. Placing a copy of the affidavit without submitting the original will not guarantee clearance of the condition. 186.EMWD Minimum Standards – All public water, sewer and recycled water improvements shall be designed per the City adopted Ordinances; Eastern Municipal Water Districts (EMWD) standards and specifications, including required auxiliaries and appurtenances. The final design, including pipe sizes and alignments, shall be subject to the approval of EMWD and the City of Menifee.
187.Utility Improvement Plans – Public Water, Sewer and Recycled Water improvements shall be drawn on City title block for review and approval by the Public Works / Engineering Department and EMWD.
188.Onsite and Offsite Sewer, Water and Recycled Water Improvements – All public onsite and offsite sewer, water and recycled water improvements shall be guaranteed for construction prior to approval of improvement plans and final map approval.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 438

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1146 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 189.Sewer Lines – Any new public sewer line alignments or realignments shall be designed such that the manholes are aligned with the center of lanes or on the lane line and in accordance with City Ordinances and Eastern Municipal Water District standards. 190.Water Mains and Hydrants - All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with City Ordinances, and subject to the approval of the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Riverside County Fire Department. 191.Annexation to the Citywide Community Facilities District (CFD) - Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit Issuance the developer/property owner shall complete the annexation of the proposed development, into the boundaries of the City of Menifee citywide Community Facilities Maintenance District (Services) CFD. The citywide CFD shall be responsible for:

The maintenance of public improvements or facilities that benefit this development, including but not limited to, public landscaping, streetlights, traffic signals, streets, pavement maintenance, drainage facilities, street sweeping, water quality basins, graffiti abatement, and other public improvements or facilities as approved by the Public Works Director.

The developer/property owner shall be responsible for all cost associated with the annexation of the proposed development in the citywide CFD.
192.Landscape Improvement Plans for CFD Maintenance – Landscape improvements within public ROW and/or areas dedicated to the City for the citywide CFD to maintain shall be prepared on a separate City CFD plans for review and approval by the PW Engineering Department. The plans may be prepared as one plan for the entire development as determined by the PW Director. When necessary, as determined by the PW Director, a separate WQMP construction plan on City title block maybe required for review and approval by the PW Engineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 193.Parkway Landscaping Design Standards - The parkway areas behind the street curb within the public’s right-of-way, shall be landscaped and irrigated per City standards and guidelines.
194.CFD Landscape Guidelines and Improvement Plans – All landscape improvements for maintenance by the CFD shall be designed and installed in accordance with City CFD Landscape Guidelines, and shall be drawn on a separate improvement plan on City title block. The landscape improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the PW Engineering Department prior to issuance of a construction permit. 195. Maintenance of CFD Accepted Facilities – All landscaping and appurtenant facilities to be maintained by the citywide CFD shall be built to City standards. The developer shall be responsible for ensuring that landscaping areas to be maintained by the CFD have its own controller and meter system, separate from any private controller/meter system. 196.AB 341. AB 341 focuses on increased commercial waste recycling as a method to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The regulation requires businesses and organizations that generate four or more cubic yards of waste per week and multifamily units of 5 or more, to recycle. A business shall take at least one of the following actions to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal:

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 439

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1147 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 a) Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities. b) Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler. c) Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multi-family complex).
d) Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.

For more information please visit:
www.rivcowm.org/opencms/recyclying/recycling_and_compost_business.html#mandatory

197.AB 1826. AB 1826 (effective April 1, 2016) requires businesses that generate eight (8) cubic yards or more or organic waste per week to arrange for organic waste recycling services. The threshold amount of organic waste generated requiring compliance by businesses is reduced in subsequent years. Businesses subject to AB 1826 shall take at least one of the following actions in order to divert organic waste from disposal:

Source separate organic material from all other recyclables and donate or self-haul to a permitted organic waste processing facility.

Enter into a contract or work agreement with gardening or landscaping service provider or refuse hauler to ensure the waste generated from those services meet the requirements of AB 1826.

Consider xeriscaping and using drought tolerant/low maintenance vegetation in all landscaped areas of the project.

As of January 1, 2019, the above requirements are now applicable to businesses that generate four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and one (1) or more cubic yards of organic waste per week. Additionally, as of January 1, 2019, a third trash bin is now required for organics recycling, which will require a larger trash enclosure to accommodate three (3) trash bins. This development is subject to this requirement. 198.Recyclables Collection and Loading Area Plot Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a Recyclables Collection and Loading Area plot plan to the City of Menifee Engineering/Public Works Department for review and approval. The plot plan shall show the location of and access to the collection area for recyclable materials, along with its dimensions and construction detail, including elevation/façade, construction materials and signage. The plot plan shall clearly indicate how the trash and recycling enclosures shall be accessed by the hauler.

The applicant shall provide documentation to the Community Development Department to verify that Engineering and Public Works has approved the plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
199.Waste Recycling Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building, a Waste Recycling Plan (WRP shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Engineering/Public Works Department for approval. Completion of Form B “Waste Reporting Form” of the Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Program may be sufficient proof of WRP compliance, as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. At minimum, the WRP must identify the materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) that will be generated by Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 440

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1148 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 construction and development, the projected amounts, the measures/methods that will be taken to recycle, reuse, and/or reduce the amounts of materials, the facilities and/or haulers that will be utilized, and the targeted recycling or reduction rate. During project construction, the project site shall have, at a minimum, two (2) bins; one for waste disposal and the other for recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials. Additional bins are encouraged to be used to further source separation of C&D recyclable materials. Accurate record keeping (receipts) for recycling of C&D recyclable materials and solid waste disposal must be kept.

Arrangements can be made through the franchise hauler.
200.Waste Management Clearance. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for each building, evidence (i.e., receipts or other type of verification) shall be submitted to demonstrate project compliance with the approved WRP to the Engineering and Public Works Department in order to clear the project for occupancy permits. Receipts must clearly identify the amount of waste disposed and Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials recycled. Completion of Form C, “Waste Reporting Form” of the Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Program along with the receipts may be sufficient proof of WRP compliance, as determined by the PW Director / City Engineer.
201.Fees and Deposits – Prior to approval of final maps, grading plans, improvement plans, issuance of building permits, and/or issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer/property owner shall pay all fees, deposits as applicable. These shall include the regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), , Development Impact Fees (DIF), and any applicable Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) Fee. Said fees and deposits shall be collected at the rate in effect at the time of collection as specified in current City resolutions and ordinances.
202.Road Bridge Benefit District –The city is in the process of creating a Road and Bridge Benefit District in the Area. The applicant shall pay the RBBD fees based on the designated land use and areas, prior to the issuance of a building permit, or enter into an RBBD credit Agreement with the City for qualifying improvements. Should the project proponent choose to defer the time of payment, a written request shall be submitted to the City, deferring said payment from the time of issuance of a building permit to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fees which are deferred shall be based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of the permit of each parcel. If the owner / developer constructs RBBD eligible improvements through another project that exceed its RBBD obligation, those credits, at the approval of the Public Works Director / City Engineer, could be applied to other projects that the owner / developer is constructing via agreement. 203.TUMF Fees - Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer/property owner shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of (building permit or certificate of occupancy) issuance, pursuant to adopted City Ordinance governing the TUMF program, unless otherwise stated where a three party agreement is executed between WRCOG, the City of Menifee, and the developer / property owner precluding property owner from paying TUMF Fees. 204.Area Drainage Plan (ADP) Fees. The proposed development is located within the bounds of the Homeland / Romoland ADP of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control District), for which drainage fees have been established by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Applicable ADP fees will be due (in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans) prior Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 441

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1149 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 to building permits for this project. The fee due will be based on the fee in effect at the time of payment. The developer acknowledges that if the estimated cost for required MDP / ADP facilities exceeds the required ADP fees and the developer wishes to receive credit for reimbursement in excess of his fees, the facilities will be constructed as a public works contract.
205.Fees and Deposits – Prior to approval of final maps, grading plans, improvement plans, issuance of building permits, and/or issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer/property owner shall pay all fees, deposits as applicable. These shall include the regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), any applicable Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees, Development Impact Fees (DIF), and any applicable Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) Fee. Said fees and deposits shall be collected at the rate in effect at the time of collection as specified in current City resolutions and ordinances.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 442

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1150 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Section III:

Building and Safety Department
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 443

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1151 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 General Requirements
206. Final Building & Safety Conditions. Final Building & Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building & Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 207. Compliance with Code. All Design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2022 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2022 California Energy Codes, 2022 California Green Building Standards, and City of Menifee Municipal Code, 2022 California Fire Code.
208. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include:
a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible and standard accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building.
c. Accessible path-of-travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Accessible path-of-travel from public right-of-way to the main entrance of the structure.
e. Interior and Exterior disabled access requirements and details as required by California Building Code Chapter 11B.
209. California Green Building Code Requirements. Electric Vehicle (EV) a. Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code. b. EV capable spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table 5.106.5.3.1 c. The plans shall clearly indicate the location and total amount of future medium and heavy-duty electric vehicle (EV) parking stalls within the site if the building site includes one or more of the following uses: Warehousing, grocery store, retail store with off- street loading areas.
210. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at the time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan with a “photometric study” showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building & Safety Department. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin and below.
211. Street Name Addressing. Applicant must obtain street name addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street name addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial, residential/tract, or multi-family residential projects. 212. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 444

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1152 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 213. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Temporary construction/sales trailers, temporary power poles/generators, trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, building and monument signage, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits.

Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 214. Sanitary Sewer and Domestic Water Plan Approvals. On-site sanitary sewer and domestic water plans will require separate approvals and permits from Building and Safety. A total of 6 sets shall be submitted.
215. Demolition. (If applicable) Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits.

AQMD notification and approval may be required.
216. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance of the project indicating the hours or construction, as allowed by the City of Menifee Municipal Ordinance

8.01.010, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday 6:30am to 7:00pm. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
217. House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site.

Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed.

At Plan Review Submittal
218. Submit one (1) digital complete set of fully dimensioned Structural, Architectural, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Plans, along with one (1) digital set of geotechnical reports and one (1) digital set of precise grade plans. Hard copy plans will not be accepted.

All plans shall be submitted at a digital equivalent minimum 24” x 36” General Requirements
All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. (Business & Professions Code 5802), (Business & Professions Code 5536.1, 5802, & 6735) Cover Sheet

1. Vicinity Map

2. Parcel number and Site Address

3. Business Name

4. Occupancy Type

5. Occupant Load

6. Type of Construction

7. Number of stories

8. Building Height

9. Floor Area in sq. ft.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 445

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1153 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 10. Building data: Building Type of Construction, Square Feet of leased area intended use/occupancy, occupant loads, Building Code Data: 2022 California Building Code, 2022 California Electrical Code, 2022 California Mechanical Code, 2022 California Plumbing Code, 2022 California Green Building Code, 2022 California Energy Code, and 2022 California Fire Code.

11. List any flammable/combustible materials, chemicals, toxic, or hazardous materials used or stored and total quantities or each, including MSDS reports.

12. Indicate if the building has a fire sprinkler system.

13. Sheet Index
Plot Plans

14. North Arrow

15. Property Lines/Easements

16. Street/Alleys

17. Clearly dimension building setbacks from property lines, street centerlines, and from all adjacent buildings and structures on the site plan.

18. Accessible parking/unload areas, curb ramps, exterior route of travel to the leased area entry door and at least one route to the public right-of-way.

19. Precise grading plans indicating surface grades, locations and details for all accessible walkways, parking stalls, access aisles, ramps, etc…
Floor Plans

20. All wall lines to be indicated by double line.

21. Fully dimensioned and to scale (3/16 inch per foot minimum)

22. Exit door locations, widths, and direction of door swing.

23. Wall legend. Show walls as existing or new, with references to wall construction details indicating heights, framing member size, spacing and material type, connections at top and bottom and top of wall lateral bracing method.

24. Show all fixed elements of construction e.g., bathroom facilities, fixtures, cabinets, storage racks and/or shelves.

25. Accessible features e.g., fixed customer service counters, including kitchen, dining, or drinking bar counters, new bathroom facilities, access to new areas, features and elements.

Reflected Ceiling Plans

26. Indicate the ceiling treatment, ceiling grid, and the placement of all light fixtures.

Section Views

27. Walls and roof/ceiling finishes, complete occupancy separation and fire resistive construction if required, demising walls etc. For new conditioned spaces, section views shall indicate wall heights and insulation locations for walls and roof/ceilings.

Plumbing/Mechanical Plans

28. System material types and sizes, waste/vent and potable water layouts or isometrics, plumbing fixture schedule, etc.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 446

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1154 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 29. HVAC equipment location, distribution layout, material type and sizes fire/smoke control devices and activation.

30. Include a line of site detail showing new roof top equipment shielding.

31. Gas line diagram, material type, sizes, and load demand.

Electrical Plans

32. Interior Main Distribution single line diagram, panel location/schedule, and load calculations, etc.

33. Electric power and lighting plans, interior fixture schedule, illuminated exit signs and emergency illumination.

34. Title 24 Energy Electrical requirements including multi-level switching arrangements and automatic electrical lighting shut-off system.

Structural Plan/Foundation/Floor/Ceiling/Roof Plan and Details

35. Structural design justification of the existing roof framing for new mechanical equipment exceeding 300lbs.

36. Foundation supporting elements and connections, reinforcement, slab, and footing details, etc.

37. Structural frame plan(s).

38. T-Bar ceiling standard details and seismic restraints.

Supplemental Information

39. Submittal to include one (1) digital set of original shell building Title 24 Energy Calculations or new Title 24 Energy calculations or Energy calculations as for newly constructed conditioned space.

40. Envelope or Mechanical for conditioned space as new construction or, as for an addition including, LTG (lighting) Energy calculations for new lighting with required forms copied to the full-size plan sheets.

41. Separate submittals and permits are required for signs. Planning approval required prior to submittal to Building & Safety.

42. Fees are based on the City of Menifee Adopted Fee Schedule.

43. Restaurant/Food establishments must obtain approval from the County Health Department/Food Division, and the local water/sewer purveyor for grease waste interceptors.

44. All contractors/sub-contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and shall comply with SEC. 3800 of the Labor Code regarding Workers Compensation.

45. Applicant shall obtain all required clearances and/or approvals from Planning, Engineering, Fire, and the appropriate water district(s) prior to issuance of any building permits.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
219. All associated Building Fees to be paid.
220. Each Department is required to Approve, with a signature.

Prior to Final Inspection
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 447

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1155 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Each department that has conditions shall have completed and approved their final inspection prior to requesting the final inspection by the Building and Safety Department.

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
221. The Business shall obtain a final inspection from all city departments and any other outside agency final inspections.
222. Each department is required to review and approve with a signature on the request for Commercial Occupancy form once ALL Conditions of Approval have been Met/Approved.

The Request for Commercial Occupancy form is available on the City of Menifee website at https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14362/Request-for-Commercial- Permit-Issuance
You will be required to obtain the signatures in person at the City of Menifee City Hall. 223. The business shall obtain a City of Menifee business license after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Information about the city business license may be found here https://www.cityofmenifee.us/309/Business-License
A business shall not be open to the public or operate without a city business license or a Certificate of Occupancy.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 448

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1156 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Section IV:

Office of the Fire Marshal
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 449

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1157 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 It is the responsibility of the recipient of these Fire Department conditions to forward then to all interested parties. The permit number (as it is noted above) is required on all correspondence.

Additional information is available at our website: www.rvcfire.org Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal at City of Menifee 29714 Haun Rd., Menifee, CA 92586. Phone (951)723-3767

CONDITIONS
224.Surface Load and Capabilities - Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed to support the impose loads of fire apparatus [80,000 pound live load (gross vehicular weight) distributed over two axles] and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities [rear wheel drive apparatus] for the length and grade(s) of the fire apparatus access road.
225.Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads - Where the vertical distance between grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof, with an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 226.Gates - Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lanes serving the gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38 feet turning radius shall be used. 227.Auto Gates - Gates shall be automatic minimum 24 feet in width. Gate access shall be equipped with a rapid entry system to include OPTICOM and Knox Electric switches. Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic/manual gate pins shall be rated with shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Automatic gates shall be equipped with emergency backup power. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system.
228.Fire Department Access - Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 229.Sprinkler System - Buildings or structures exceeding 3600 sq. ft are required to have approved CFC and NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler systems installed. 230.Building Access - Shall comply per Table 3206.2 California Fire Code, fir-e apparatus access roads in accordance with Section 503 shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of buildings used for high pile storage. 231.Access Doors - Where building access is required by Table 3206.2, fire department access doors shall be provided in accordance with this section. Access doors shall be accessible without the use of a ladder.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 450

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1158 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 232.Number of Doors Required - The required access doors shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent fire department access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center.
233.Smoke and Heat Removal - Where smoke and heat removal is required by Table 3206.2 it shall be in accordance with Section 910.
234.Additional Required Hydrants - Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of structures or similar fire problems, fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1,000 feet to provide for transportation hazards. (TRANSPORTATION HYDRANTS OFF SITE)
235.Minimum Required Fire Flow - The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings in accordance with Ordinance 787 and the California Fire Code
236.Blue Dot Reflectors - Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placements of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 237.Minimum Required Fire Flow - The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings in accordance with Ordinance 787 and the California Fire Code. A fire flow of 8000 gpm for a 4 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A minimum number of 8 Super fire hydrant(s) (6”x4”x2½”x2½”) shall be provided for this project. Additional fire hydrants may be required to meet the spacing requirements of the California Fire Code.
238.On/Off Looped FHA - Combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6”x4”x2½”x2½”) on a looped system shall be provided spaced an average of 200 feet between fire hydrants and in no case shall fire hydrants be further than120 feet from any portion of on a street or road frontage as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.

Fire hydrant(s) shall be located so that no portion of the building is farther than 250 feet from any hydrant(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 451

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1159 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Section V:

Riverside County Environmental Health
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 452

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1160 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 453

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1161 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 454

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1162 of 1648

4 9
4 4
4 The undersigned warrants that he/she is an authorized representative of the project referenced above, that I am specifically authorized to consent to all of the foregoing conditions, and that I so consent as of the date set out below. _______________________________________________ ___________________ Signed Date
_______________________________________________ ___________________ Name (please print) Title (please print)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 455

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1163 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 456

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1164 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Allen Matkins
Paige H. Gosney
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 949.851.5444 File Number: 119600.02528/4870-4166-7315.1 Via Email ([email protected])
October 31, 2024
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Attn: Stephanie Roseen, Acting City Clerk
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Re: Notice of Appeal of October 23, 2024, Planning Commission Denial of Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:

This firm represents IPT Menifee CC LLC (“Applicant”), the Applicant for the proposed Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (“Project”) which involves the entitlement and construction of an approximately 517,720 square-foot (“SF”) speculative warehouse building comprised of 20,320 SF of ground floor office space, 7,000 SF of mezzanine office space and 505,932 SF of warehouse space located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (“City”) (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) (the “Property”).

On October 23, 2024, the City Planning Commission considered the Project entitlements, which include Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 and Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110162) and the associated Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, at a noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission, which freely acknowledged that the Project was consistent and compliant with all applicable development and design standards governing development on the Property as well as being among the express types of development contemplated for the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (“EDC-NG”) area, improperly transformed the public hearing on the Project entitlements into a referendum on the EDC-NG’s allowance of warehouse uses as a whole and impact of warehouse projects on nearby, legal nonconforming residential uses.

Ultimately, the Planning Commission rejected Staff’s recommendation for approval and the Project’s clear compliance and consistency with all applicable zoning and development standards and the City’s recently-adopted Good Neighbor Policies and voted 2-3 to deny the Project.

Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 457

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1165 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

In accordance with Municipal Code section 2.20.150, the purpose of this letter is to set forth the grounds upon which the Applicant appeals the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project. A check in the amount $3,879.99 was previously delivered to the City to cover the requisite appeal fee. We respectfully request that this letter and the attachments hereto be included as part of the administrative record for this matter.

As outlined more fully below, and subject to such additional grounds, information and evidence as may be presented to the City Council prior to and during the public hearing on this Appeal, the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project entitlements, including Plot Plan No.

PLN22-0179 and Project EIR, should be vacated and overturned for the following reasons: (i) the Planning Commission failed to make adequate (or any) findings in support of its denial, as required by longstanding California law; and (ii) the Planning Commission improperly conflated the Project with the greater issue of warehouse development in the EDC-NG thereby depriving Applicant of the right to a fair hearing on the merits of the Project itself. Each of the foregoing, standing alone, in addition to any other that may be raised prior to or during the forthcoming City Council hearing on the Appeal, constitutes grounds for vacating and overturning the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project entitlements.

The Planning Commission’s Action Must be Vacated and Set Aside Because it Failed to Make Adequate – or Any – Written Findings to Support its Denial of the Project Where an administrative agency is required to make findings to support a quasi-judicial decision, the findings must “bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision.” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515; see also Healing v. California Coastal Com. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1167.) The findings must be “sufficient both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [Commission’s] action.” (Id., at p. 514.) The granting or denial of an application for a Plot Plan, like a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit/entitlement, is a quasi-judicial action that must be supported by valid findings.

In this instance, the Planning Commission made no findings and adopted no resolution setting forth the justification for its decision to deny the Project approvals. Absent such findings and explanation for its denial, the “analytical gap” cannot be bridged in this instance and therefore, on this basis alone, the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project must be overturned.

Further, to the extent that the City takes the position that the “general discussion” by Planning Commission of the Project’s perceived impacts of warehouses to the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood, disagreement with the existing, City-approved zoning for the site that expressly contemplates and allows for the exact uses proposed by the project and alleged impacts to residential property values, that is not sufficient to justify the denial of the Project. (See Pacifica Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 458

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1166 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168, 179 [“Council debate … is not the equivalent of Topanga findings.”].) Thus, “the evidence [does not] support the [proposed] findings” (Healing, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at 1167), and the Planning Commission failed to provide any – much less adequate – facts to “bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision.” (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515).

Even assuming the denial was supported by a resolution, which it was not, the Planning Commission could not – and cannot – identify facts to support denial of the Project because the Project is unquestionably consistent with both the underlying General Plan and Zoning designations and applicable development standards and there is no basis to find that the Project would be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and/or the City in general. (Dev. Code, § 9.80.70.) For example, as set forth in the resolution to approve the Project entitlements prepared by Staff in support of their recommendation of approval:

General Plan and Zoning Consistency: The Property’s General Plan land use designation of EDC-NG is intended to provide economic vitality and flexibility in land use options to promote economic development along the City’s major corridors. The Project is consistent with the EDC- NG and City Development Code’s development and design standards and a multitude of General Plan policies, including (among others) the following:
• LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options.
o The Project site is located close to Ethanac Road (a City-designated truck route) with direct access to the Interstate 215 freeway. The location is well suited for industrial development to promote easily accessible routes for employees and delivery personnel and the location helps concentrate activity and development near the major transit corridors of the City as opposed to the rural areas or traveling through residential areas. • LU-1.5: Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate, that reduce reliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal transportation opportunities. o The Project’s infrastructure improvements include new roadways, roadway widening, intersection improvements, and sidewalks. All of these improvements will help promote multimodal transportation opportunities for employees and residents surrounding the Project site. Furthermore, the Applicant is at the forefront of the Global Traffic Analysis currently being prepared to analyze traffic impacts associated with current and pending industrial development in the EDC-NG and propose solutions to enhance Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 459

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1167 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

and improve traffic flow, including through the use of alternative and multimodal transportation methods.
• CD-3.5: Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually integrated and connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street scene. o Consistent with the City’s Development Code, Design Guidelines and Good Neighbor Policies, perimeter landscaping improvements that are eleven percent (11%) greater than the City’s requirements are provided in order to visually screen the parking lots, truck court, and drive aisles from surrounding roadways. In addition, over 73,000 SF of the Property is being utilized for the development of new roadways for the benefit of the surrounding properties and greater EDC-NG area.
•
•
CD-3.9: Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety. o The Project is conditioned to include extensive lighting and security cameras at all entrances and exits is specifically designed to limit concealed areas for greater visibility and security.

CD-3.12: Utilize differing but complementary forms of architectural styles and designs that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area. o The Project building is designed to meet the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, as well as City of Menifee Design Guidelines such as building form, roof form, massing and articulation, materials and colors, windows, doors, and entries.
• CD-3.14: Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences. o The Project’s architecture and design incorporates varied colors, recesses, varied roof lines, wall plane changes, glazing, and other architectural treatments that break up wall areas to avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls and the Project will provide extensive landscaping and screening improvements to minimize and mitigate visual impacts.

Compliance with Applicable Development Standards and Requirements: Per Section

9.80.020 of the Development Code, the new construction of non-residential projects of more than 2,500 square feet of floor area requires the processing of a Plot Plan. The Project’s application and design for Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 was analyzed and evaluated in light of the City’s Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 460

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1168 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

Development Code, Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and Industrial Design Guidelines and determined by Staff to be consistent with all applicable development and design standards.

Most significantly, the City’s recently-adopted Good Neighbor Policies were created to address the exact scenario presented by the Project – the mitigation of impacts of industrial projects located near residential and other sensitive receptors. In this case, of course, the residential properties to the north are inconsistent with the current EDC-NG zoning regulations and are therefore considered legal nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding this fact, the Project meets and/or exceeds all of the applicable Good Neighbor Policies, including with respect to screening, building design, community outreach, increased building and loading dock setbacks, on-site truck queuing, on-site signage, and environmental mitigation measures as set forth in and enforceable via the Project EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

No Adverse Impacts to Community Health, Safety and Welfare: The Project EIR included a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the potential impacts of the Project to the surrounding community, including with respect to traffic, air quality, noise and Greenhouse Gas (GHG). The Project EIR concluded that the Project, with applicable mitigation, would not result in any adverse environmental or other impacts and, to the extent that such impacts would occur, the immense benefits the Project would provide to City residents (infrastructure improvements, jobs, impact fee contributions, increased property taxes and other revenue) far outweighed the alleged potential impacts. In addition, the Project was designed with aesthetically pleasing architectural features and landscaping which will enhance the surrounding area and, as noted above, complies fully with all applicable development standards and other regulations.

Further to the above, the Planning Commission provided some questions and commentary about the Project EIR and the finding that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts regarding GHG emissions and would reduce property values for the nearby legal nonconforming residential properties.

First, as noted by Staff, the vast majority of GHG emissions (86 percent) would be caused by non-construction-related mobile sources (vehicle and truck traffic) that are subject to rigorous State and Federal standards and mitigation measures. The imposition and enforcement of these measures in conjunction with the completion of construction and occupancy of the Project will result in significant reductions to the Project’s vehicle-related GHG emissions. For example, the Advanced Clean Cars II rule approved by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) establishes a year-by-year roadmap so that by the year 2035 one-hundred percent (100%) of new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles. The rule anticipates that from 2026 through 2040, vehicle-related climate warming pollution will be reduced a cumulative total of 395 million metric tons, which is equivalent to avoiding the greenhouse gases produced from the combustion of 915 million barrels of petroleum. (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves- accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035.)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 461

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1169 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

In addition, from a GHG standpoint, the Project’s potential impacts are significantly lower than those that would result from alternative projects, including a 643,730 square foot business park project, a 375,509 square foot of commercial retail project and a 591 multifamily housing (low-rise) dwelling unit residential project. (See Exhibit A [GHG Comparative Analysis Table].) In any event, it bears noting that the City has recently approved a number of other warehouse/distribution projects whose anticipated GHG emissions would, like the Project, exceed the applicable threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year for non-residential development (e.g., , the Menifee Commerce Center (9/28/2022), Motte Business Center (2/22/2024) and CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (8/16/2024).

With respect to the Project’s noise impacts, it bears noting that any development on the Property or within the surrounding area will result in a significant increase in noise levels over and above existing ambient levels, particularly given that development of any kind would require conversion of the existing, lightly-used dirt roadways, such as Geary Street, into new paved streets thereby causing a corresponding increase in traffic and traffic-related noise. Thus, although the Project would result in a significant noise impact as compared to the existing undeveloped conditions, this impact must be evaluated in context with the practical reality of the Property.

Finally, as regards the impact of warehouse development on property values, empirical data related to warehouse/distribution uses in the Inland Empire shows unequivocally that industrial development actually enhances and increases property values for surrounding neighborhoods. (See Exhibit B [South Bloomington / Fontana | 10-Year Resales Overview].) In any event, the impacts to property values in the area would generally have been realized at the time the EDC-NG was originally established and the scope of permitted future non-residential uses defined for residents and property owners – not on a project-by-project basis as the EDC-NG area is developed in accordance with the approved land use regulations and development standards. Thus, any claims that the proposed Project and other warehouse development would adversely affect property values for the handful of legal nonconforming residential properties situated to the north of the Property are completely unfounded and are unsupported by any defensible data or evidence.

The Planning Commission Improperly Conflated its Consideration of the Project With the Permissibility and Scope of Warehouse Development in the EDC-NG Under the City’s Development Code, warehouse and distribution uses are permitted by right in the EDC-NG subject only to approval of a plot plan and confirmation of the findings set forth in Section 9.80.70 of the City’s Development Code. As noted above, there is and was no dispute among the Planning Commission that the proposed Project is consistent and compliant with all applicable zoning and development standards and regulations, including the City’s 2022 Good Neighbor Policies intended to address the impacts of warehouse development near residential and other sensitive receptors, and that the Project itself would not result in adverse impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 462

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1170 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

Acknowledging the above and that the Project is in the “right place” for this type of development in the City, the Planning Commission nonetheless took issue with the number of proposed warehouse developments in the EDC-NG and expressed a desire that the City Council take action to amend the EDC-NG zoning regulations to prohibit future warehouse development. In doing so, the Planning Commission transformed the hearing on the merits of this Project on this Property and its compliance with the applicable zoning and other land development standards and regulations into a greater referendum and discussion of the allowance of warehouse development in the EDC-NG as a whole.
“‘[Q]uasi-judicial’ or ‘administrative’ hearings are subject to the fair process requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(b) and, when a vested property or liberty interest is implicated, to the due process requirements of both the federal and state constitutions.” (The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cal. CEB 2023) § 2.56 citing Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212.) The Plot Plan application is a discretionary City permit and the October 23, 2024, Planning Commission hearing was a quasi- judicial hearing pursuant to which Applicant was entitled to due process. The Planning Commission’s decision to disregard the clear and objective development standards and design criteria that were intended to govern their consideration of the Project in favor of an emotional colloquy on the influx of industrial warehouse development in the EDC-NG (and greater Inland Empire region as a whole) and the “other” uses that they would prefer to see be developed in the EDC-NG was wholly improper and violated Applicant’s fundamental due process rights to a fair hearing on the merits of the Project.

Therefore, in addition to the reasons set forth above related to the City’s failure to adopt written findings supported by facts explaining the basis for its decision to deny the Project entitlements, the Planning Commission’s conflation of the Project’s specific merits with the greater issue of warehouse development in the EDC-NG as a whole is grounds for reversal of its decision.

Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, and the additional documents, information and evidence that may be further presented at or before the City Council hearing on this Appeal, the Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council: (i) schedule the City Council hearing on the Appeal for the earliest available date but no later than December 4, 2024; and (ii) vacate and overturn the Planning Commission’s October 23, 2024, denial of the Project entitlements and adopt a resolution approving the Project entitlements and certifying the Project EIR.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 463

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1171 of 1648

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
October 31, 2024

Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in further detail.

Very truly yours,
Paige H. Gosney
PHG
Enclosures
cc: Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director
Orlando Hernandez, Deputy Community Development Director Ryan Fowler, Principal Planner
Armando G. Villa, City Manager
Jeff Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 464

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1172 of 1648

EXHIBIT A
(GHG Comparative Analysis Table)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 465

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1173 of 1648

•
•
•
•
•
The Proposed Project consists of an approximately 533,252 square foot warehouse building on 24.63 acres Scenario 1: 536,441 square foot manufacturing use (0.50 floor-to-area ratio of FAR) on 24.63 acres.

Scenario 2: 643,730 square foot business park use (0.60 floor-to-area ratio of FAR) on 24.63 acres.

Scenario 3: 375,509 square foot of commercial retail (0.35 floor-to-area ratio of FAR) on 24.63 acres.

Scenario 4: 591 multifamily housing (low-rise) dwelling units (24 dwelling units per acre of FAR) on 24.63 acres.

TABLE 1: ALL SCENARIOS REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS TABLE 2: ALL SCENARIOS GHGS EMISSIONS TOTAL Emissions (lbs/day) Source
Proposed Project
Total CO2e
4,805.13
8,793.93
32,248.90
16,160.70
6,716.81
Source
VOC

21.95 28.79

55.45 88.33

36.25 NOX

27.85 36.48
179.15

70.70 29.51
CO SOX

0.64 0.55

2.24 1.32

0.44 PM10

19.18 38.71
132.48
110.08

30.91 PM2.5

5.32Proposed Project
Scenario 1
104.1
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
188.56
526.27
599.80
192.18

10.30 36.27

28.77 8.73
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 466

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1174 of 1648

EXHIBIT B
(South Bloomington / Fontana | 10-Year Resales Overview) Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 467

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1175 of 1648

South Bloomington / Fontana | 10-Year Resales Overview
The subject area includes the residential communities generally located south of Slover Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue, east of Sierra Avenue, and west of Likac Avenue within the Bloomington and Fontana submarkets. 18025 SLOVER AVE.

BUILT 2021
SLOVER AVENUE10586 TAMARIND AVE.

BUILT 2013
10644 TAMARIND AVE.

BUILT 2021
10760 TAMARIND AVE.

BUILT 2013 11260 CEDAR AVE.

BUILT 2018
Source: LandVision / Digital Map Products (LightBox)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 468

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1176 of 1648

South Bloomington / Fontana | 10-Year Resales Overview
From January 2013 until December 2022, a total of 570 residences were sold in the subject area (outlined on the following page). This data includes only single-family detached residences larger than 1,200 square feet situated on lots smaller than two acres. During this time, the average price of a home increased 127.04% and the average price per square foot increased 132.76%. $800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
$400.00
$350.00
$300.00
$250.00
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00

SALES PRICE PRICE/SF
10586 TAMARIND AVE.
10760 TAMARIND AVE.

BUILT 2013
10825 SLOVER AVE.
10644 TAMARIND AVE.

BUILT 2021
11260 CEDAR AVE.

BUILT 2018
$0.00
YEAR
# OF SALES/YEAR
2013
71 2014 2015
56 2016
65 2017
47 2018
54 2019
48 2020
56 2021
65 2022
3969

AVERAGE HOME SIZE (SF)

AVERAGE LOT SIZE (SF)

AVERAGE SALE PRICE
2,000
13,602
$278,817
$141.06
2,024 2,045 2,026
14,373
$372,838
$188.81
1,899 1,918 1,894 1,835 1,870 1,990
12,865
$310,333
$157.51
13,737
$350,589
$173.62
12,785
$375,606
$203.15
11,739
$381,444
$204.49
13,158 16,517 12,859
$546,123
$299.09
13,432
$633,038
$328.34
$424,396
$230.39
$463,455
$258.07AVERAGE PRICE/SF
ANNUAL SALES PRICE ▲
ANNUAL PRICE/PSF ▲
↑11.30%
↑11.66%
↑12.97%
↑10.23%
↑6.35%
↑8.75%
↑0.74%
↑7.59%
↑1.55%
↑0.66%
↑11.26%
↑12.66%
↑9.20% ↑17.84%
↑15.89%
↑15.91%
↑9.78%N/A ↑12.02%
Source: LandVision / Digital Map Products (LightBox)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 469

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1177 of 1648

CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024MEETING DATE:

TO: Planning Commission
PREPARED BY:

REVIEWED BY:

Ryan Fowler, Principal Planner
Orlando Hernandez, Deputy Community Development
Director
APPROVED BY:

APPLICANT:

Cheryl Kitzerow, Community Development Director
RPD Development, Inc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110162), adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

2. Adopt a resolution approving Plot Plan No. PLN 22-0179 generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plot Plan (PP) No. No. PLN22-0179 includes development of an approximately 517,720 square- foot (SF) speculative warehouse building. The environmental analysis, however, includes a development buffer in order 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 Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 470

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1178 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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.

BACKGROUND
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.

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
Ethanac Rd
Floyd Ave
McLaughlin Rd
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 471

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1179 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

GENERAL PLAN/ZONE
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (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
Table 1 – Surrounding Land Uses
General Plan Land
UseLocation Existing Land Use Zoning Classification
Approx. ½-acre to 1-
acre single-family
residential
Vacant undeveloped
land and a modular
office building dealer
Southern California
Edison (SCE) utility
corridor
North EDC-NG
EDC-NG
EDC-NG
East EDC-NG
Public Utility Corridor
(PUC)
Public Utility Corridor
(PUC)South
West Vacant undeveloped
land EDC-NG EDC-NG
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 472

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1180 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

DISCUSSION
The Project Applicant (RPD Development, Inc ) is proposing the development of an approximately 517,720 SF speculative warehouse building.

Proposed Site Plan
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.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 473

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1181 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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)
Warehouse (100K – 500K SF): 1/1,500 SF (397,400)
Required
Required (with 10% reduction per Section

9.215.070)
100
265
433
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-site 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.

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 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 474

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1182 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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), 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.

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 southeast and southwest corners 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 square feet (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. 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.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 475

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1183 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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.

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.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 476

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1184 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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 glazing with clear aluminum mullions. Visual interest is maintained throughout the Project by enhancing architectural detailing and facade articulation along all building elevations.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 477

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1185 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
On November 7, 2023, the City of Menifee publicly noticed its decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (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 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 478

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1186 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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, Greenhouse Gas (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 MTCO2e/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
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.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 479

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1187 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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
o Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
o Airport Land Use Commission
o City of Perris
o Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
o Southern California Gas
o South Coast Air Quality Management District
Organizations
o Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
o Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice o Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
o Adrienne Vendor
o Bob Powell
o Kimberly 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. 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.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 480

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1188 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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 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. PLN21-0370 are included in the attached Resolutions.

PUBLIC NOTICE
The proposed Project was noticed on October 13, 2024 for the October 23, 2024 Planning Commission public hearing. A public notice was published in The Press Enterprise and notices Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 481

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1189 of 1648

City of Menifee Planning Commission
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024

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.

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. Public Hearing Notice
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 482

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1190 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 483

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1191 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 484

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1192 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 485

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1193 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 486

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1194 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 487

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1195 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 488

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1196 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 489

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1197 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 490

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1198 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 491

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1199 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 492

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1200 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 493

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1201 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 494

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1202 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 495

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1203 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 496

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1204 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 497

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1205 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 498

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1206 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 499

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1207 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 500

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1208 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 501

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1209 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 502

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1210 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 503

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1211 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 504

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1212 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 505

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1213 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 506

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1214 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 507

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1215 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 508

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1216 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 509

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1217 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 510

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1218 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 511

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1219 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 512

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1220 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 513

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1221 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 514

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1222 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 515

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1223 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 516

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1224 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 517

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1225 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 518

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1226 of 1648

RESOLUTION NO. PC24-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA 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, RPD Development, Inc. (“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:

Agencies
o Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
o Airport Land Use Commission
o City of Perris
o Riverside County Department of Waste Resources
o Southern California Gas
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 519

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1227 of 1648

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024
o South Coast Air Quality Management District
Organizations
o Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
o Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice o Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
o Adrienne Vendor
o Bob Powell
o Kimberly 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 Planning Commission’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, the Planning Commission 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 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 Planning Commission 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 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 520

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1228 of 1648

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024
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 Planning Commission has reviewed the CEQA Findings and SOOC attached as Exhibit “C”; and
WHEREAS, prior to recommending action on the Project, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission certifies that the FEIR has been completed and is in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the FEIR reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency under CEQA, and adopt and certify the FEIR as complete and adequate. The Planning Commission further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project.

Section 3: CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 521

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1229 of 1648

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
October 23, 2024
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 Planning Commission adopts and approves the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit "B," which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The Planning Commission 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.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 23rd day of October 2024. _________________________
Jeff LaDue, Chairman
Attest:

Rachel Valencia, Administrative Assistant
Approved as to form:

Thai Phan, Assistant City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 522

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1230 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: 523

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1231 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: 524

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1232 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: 525

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1233 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: 526

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1234 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: 527

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1235 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: 528

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1236 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: 529

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1237 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: 530

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1238 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: 531

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1239 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: 532

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1240 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: 533

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1241 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: 534

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1242 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: 535

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1243 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: 536

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1244 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: 537

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1245 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: 538

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1246 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: 539

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1247 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: 540

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1248 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: 541

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1249 of 1648

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 542

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1250 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: 543

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1251 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: 544

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1252 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: 545

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1253 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: 546

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1254 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: 547

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1255 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: 548

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1256 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: 549

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1257 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: 550

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1258 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: 551

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1259 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: 552

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1260 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: 553

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1261 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: 554

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1262 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: 555

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1263 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: 556

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1264 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: 557

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1265 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: 558

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1266 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: 559

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1267 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: 560

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1268 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: 561

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1269 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: 562

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1270 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: 563

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1271 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: 564

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1272 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: 565

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1273 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: 566

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1274 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: 567

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1275 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: 568

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1276 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: 569

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1277 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: 570

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1278 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: 571

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1279 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: 572

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1280 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: 573

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1281 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: 574

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1282 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: 575

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1283 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: 576

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1284 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: 577

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1285 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: 578

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1286 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: 579

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1287 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: 580

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1288 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: 581

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1289 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: 582

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1290 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: 583

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1291 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: 584

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1292 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: 585

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1293 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: 586

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1294 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: 587

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1295 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: 588

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1296 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: 589

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1297 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: 590

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1298 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: 591

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1299 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: 592

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1300 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: 593

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1301 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: 594

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1302 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: 595

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1303 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: 596

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1304 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: 597

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1305 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: 598

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1306 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: 599

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1307 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: 600

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1308 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: 601

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1309 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: 602

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1310 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: 603

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1311 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: 604

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1312 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: 605

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1313 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: 606

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1314 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: 607

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1315 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: 608

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1316 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: 609

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1317 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: 610

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1318 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: 611

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1319 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: 612

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1320 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: 613

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1321 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: 614

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1322 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: 615

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1323 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: 616

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1324 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: 617

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1325 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: 618

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1326 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: 619

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1327 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: 620

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1328 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: 621

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1329 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: 622

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1330 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: 623

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1331 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: 624

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1332 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: 625

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1333 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: 626

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1334 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: 627

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1335 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: 628

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1336 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: 629

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1337 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: 630

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1338 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: 631

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1339 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: 632

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1340 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: 633

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1341 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: 634

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1342 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: 635

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1343 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: 636

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1344 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: 637

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1345 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: 638

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1346 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: 639

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1347 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: 640

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1348 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: 641

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1349 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: 642

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1350 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: 643

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1351 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: 644

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1352 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: 645

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1353 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: 646

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1354 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: 647

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1355 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: 648

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1356 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: 649

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1357 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: 650

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1358 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: 651

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1359 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: 652

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1360 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: 653

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1361 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: 654

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1362 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: 655

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1363 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: 656

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1364 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: 657

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1365 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: 658

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1366 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: 659

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1367 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: 660

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1368 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: 661

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1369 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: 662

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1370 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: 663

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1371 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: 664

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1372 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: 665

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1373 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: 666

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1374 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: 667

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1375 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: 668

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1376 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: 669

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1377 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: 670

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1378 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: 671

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1379 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: 672

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1380 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: 673

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1381 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: 674

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1382 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: 675

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1383 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: 676

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1384 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: 677

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1385 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: 678

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1386 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: 679

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1387 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: 680

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1388 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: 681

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1389 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: 682

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1390 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: 683

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1391 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: 684

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1392 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: 685

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1393 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: 686

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1394 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: 687

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1395 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: 688

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1396 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: 689

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1397 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: 690

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1398 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: 691

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1399 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: 692

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1400 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: 693

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1401 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: 694

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1402 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: 695

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1403 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: 696

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1404 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: 697

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1405 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: 698

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1406 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: 699

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1407 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: 700

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1408 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: 701

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1409 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: 702

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1410 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: 703

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1411 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: 704

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1412 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: 705

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1413 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: 706

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1414 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: 707

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1415 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: 708

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1416 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: 709

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1417 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: 710

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1418 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: 711

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1419 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: 712

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1420 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: 713

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1421 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: 714

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1422 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: 715

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1423 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: 716

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1424 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: 717

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1425 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: 718

Menifee Mayor and City Council
December 4, 2024
Page
1426 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