Menifee City Council
July 16, 2025

information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July 2025. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Jeffery T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 187

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
793 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 10
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
Appeal Letter B: Aleshire & Wynder in c/o City of Perris B-1: Our firm serves as the City Attorney for the City of Perris ("Perris"). On behalf of Perris this letter is submitted to explain the basis for Perris' Appeal of the Menifee Planning Commission's May 14, 2025 decision to approve Planning Case PLN23-0040 to permit the construction and operation of the Northern Gateway Logistics Center in the City of Menifee ("Menifee") totaling approximately 398,041 square feet on 20.17 acres located south of Ethanac Road between Evans Road and Barnett Road ("Project") and certify the Final Environment Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Project.

Response B-1: Comment noted.

B-2: The City of Perris ("Perris") submits this appeal following the Planning Commission's improper approval of the Project due to non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") regarding the environmental impacts of the Project. The Project square footage will include Building 1 (northern building), 45 feet -I inch in height and approximately 99,326 square feet of warehousing space with 6,000 square feet of office space for a total of 105,326 square feet and Building 2, 45 feet - 7 inches in height and approximately 277,715 of warehousing space, 8,000 square feet of office space and a 7,000 square -foot mezzanine for a total of 292,715 square feet. Both warehouses have a combined total of approximately 398,041 square feet. The Project proposes to include 52 dock -high doors (Building 1- 15 and Building 2-37) and four grade-level truck doors (two per building). It also proposes 15 trailer stalls (including dock spaces) on the truck court on Building 1, 78 trailer stalls on Building 2, 108 p assenger car spaces on Building l's site, and 244 passenger car spaces on Building 2's site.

The Project is located south of the Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) in the City of Perris. The GVSP is a master-planned community totaling, 1,269 acres of land envisioned to be developed with 3,460 single-family detached homes, 750 multi-family residential units, 42 .3 acres of business and professional office space, 72. 7 acres of commercial retail, 108. 7 acres of industrial, 24 acres for three school sites, and 51.1 acres of public parks.

Response B-2: Comment noted.

Exhibit A
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 188

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
794 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 11
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
B-3: Although there are some industrial zones in the GVSP, they are located adjacent to the Perris Valley Airport north of the San Jacinto River, which has land use density limitations. All the development in the GVSP south of the San Jacinto River to Ethanac Road is residential, with some commercial development towards the 1-215 Freeway. Due to the proximity of residential uses to Ethanac Road, industrial development in the City of Perris is not allowed to utilize Ethanac Road as a truck route.

Response B-3: Comment noted.

B-4: On July 22, 2024, Perris submitted to Menifee an initial comment letter identifying many of the same concerns at issue in this appeal. On May 14, 2025, Perris submitted to Menifee another comment letter, also identifying many of the same concerns at issue in this appeal that were not addressed in the letter dated July 22, 2024. Menifee provided responses to Perris' letter dated July 22, 2024, as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Menifee Response"); however, the concerns raised by Perris in the July 22, 2024, letter were not adequately addressed by the Menifee Response. The July 22, 2024 letter and May 14, 2025 letter are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Response B-4: The City of Perris states that the City of Menifee did not adequately address the City of Perris’ concerns expressed in the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping process, Draft EIR public review period, and following the Final EIR, but does not provide further detailed information why their concerns were not adequate ly addressed. No further response is warranted. Additionally, the City of Menifee believes all previous responses to Perris’s Draft EIR comment letter were thorough and adequate.

B-5: Therefore, City of Perris submits this appeal due to the Project's unaddressed impacts on I the City of Perris' residential neighborhoods, public safety concerns, inadequacy of the Final EIR, and increased truck traffic on Ethanac Road. Specifically, the City of Perris appeals as set forth below.

Response B -5: This comment reiterates that the City of Perris’ letter constitutes an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project but does not raise any specific deficiencies. Please refer to the following Responses to Comments B-7 through A-22 prepared in response to the City of Perris’ comments.

B-6: The following are the basis for the City of Perris' appeal of the Planning Commission's May 14, 2025, approval of Plot Plan No. PLN23-0040.

Response B-6: Comment noted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 189

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
795 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 12
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
B-7: Pursuant to Senate Bill 330, local jurisdictions are prohibited from downzoning unless they upzone an equivalent amount elsewhere. Although no downzoning is technically proposed, the Project site is located in the Economic Development Corridor (EDC) Northern Gateway, where 5% of the land is intended to be preserved for residential development, while the remaining land is designated for industrial development (Refer to Menifee's General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit LU-B2B: Northern Gateway below).

Response B -7: The appeal letter asserts the Project and EIR does not comply with Senate Bill 330 or the Economic Development Corridor General Plan and Zoning designation where 5% of the land is intended to be preserved for residential development while the remaining land is designated for industrial development. Senate Bill 330 requires that jurisdictions must replace lost units due to downzoning. The units can be replaced by either upzoning or rezoning a different property by the same amount as the lost units.

This Project does not include a change in zone nor contributes to the loss of residential units as the Project site is vacant, therefore the Project is not subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 330. Additionally, the 5% intended for residential in the Economic Development Corridor Northern Gateway is intended for the preservation of existing residential in the area which exceeds the 5% required by the General Plan. This Project is proposed on vacant land and will not result in the loss of units and therefore is consistent with the Economic Development Corridor General Plan and Zoning Designation.

B-8: As there are projects in process or have been recently approved in the Economic Development Corridor that will remove existing residential tracts or remove homes, the zoning designation has no implementation program to monitor and ensure the loss of residential capacity does not drop below 5%.

Response B-8: Refer to Response B-7, above.

B-9: Therefore, the EIR would need to analyze and discuss how the City intends to preserve or monitor that 5% of the land use will be retained for future residential uses. Without an implementation plan /monitoring program in place, the Project, in combina tion with other projects in the pipeline, would have the potential net effect of eliminating housing without providing for a provision in place to ensure that 5 percent of the land is preserved for future residential development as envisioned EDC Northern Response B-9: Refer to Response B -7, above. The EIR fully analyzed all impacts of the proposed Project. As stated above, the Project does not include the removal of residential uses for non -residential uses, nor does it propose a Zone Change and/or General Plan Amendment to allow for non-residential uses. The Project would not eliminate housing of any kind nor would it downzone any property within the Project boundaries.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 190

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
796 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 13
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
Gateway identified in Menifee's General Plan. Therefore, the Project would effectively downzone the property.

B-10:

Response B-10: Refer to Response B-7, above.

B-11: B. Transportation Impacts
This project is located within "Island 7" of the Economic Development Corridor-Northern Gateway (EDC -NG) area. As part of the study, several deficiencies in roadway facilities were identified (within both the City of Menifee & City of Perris), and corresponding improvements were identified to offset these deficiencies. Since this Project is part of the EDC -NG and will Response B-11: The Project's effect on the surrounding roadway network was analyzed as part of the approved Traffic Study. As part of the Traffic Study scoping process, it was determined that the impacts at Ethanac Rd & Evans Rd, Ethanac Rd & Barnett Rd/Case Rd, Ethanac Rd & I -215 SB ramps, and Ethanac Rd & I-215 NB ramps be analyzed, as well as segments of Ethanac Rd within the Project vicinity. Per City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020), the Traffic Study study area shall include Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 191

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
797 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 14
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
contribute to the overall degradation of these roadway facilities, the Project shall be responsible for its fair share contribution towards all of these improvements.
streets where 50 or more peak hour trips are added. In the highest trip - generating peak hour (PM) the Project is estimated to generate 101 total trips. The proposed trip distribution encompassed just 30% of passenger car trips west of Evans Rd, and 10% of passenger trips east of I -215; all truck trips approached and departed the site via I -215. Accordingly, the number of trips outside of the limits of the studied intersections/roadway segments was far below the threshold for analysis, and impacts outside of the study area would be minimal. Furthermore, the remaining trips outside of the study area would be westboun d and eastbound through movements only. Therefore, the fair share costs to be paid for by the Project shall be contained to those specified in the approved Traffic Study.

B-12: Allowing the proposed industrial development would generate truck traffic along Ethanac Road, as trucks are anticipated to access the site via Evans Road. The existing westbound left tum pocket on Ethanac Road at Evans Road was not designed for queuing of trucks to minimize impacts to existing and future residential development. To avoid land use impacts, it is recommended that trucks be required to access the site via Barnett Road only, as access via Evans Road would place queuing of trucks directly across the already entitled residential development in the GVSP area in the City of Perris.

Response B -12: Anticipated westbound left -turn truck queues at the intersection of Evans Rd and Ethanac Rd were evaluated as part of the Traffic Study to assess potential impacts. On page 42 of the approved Traffic Study, it is recommended that the existin g westbound left -turn pocket be extended to 475 feet, to ensure typical worst -case queues can be accommodated, and thereby westbound through traffic along Ethanac Rd is unaffected. Furthermore, the Traffic Study recommends a traffic signal be installed at this intersection. Accordingly, these improvements would mitigate impacts for westbound left-turning trucks from Ethanac Rd to Evans Rd.

B-13: Specifically, the traffic study and FEIR fail to properly (or entirely) assess the following critical issues:

Response B-13: B-13 introduces questions B -14 through B-19. Please see respective responses below.

B-14: a. The traffic study incorrectly utilizes Ethanac Road as a two-way truck access route to/from the project from Evans Road.

Response B-14: Ethanac Rd is currently designated as a truck route by the City of Menifee, and is designated as a truck route east of Barnett Rd by the City of Perris. The Project proposes truck driveway access along Evans Rd. In order to safely and efficiently access the Evans Rd driveway, truck access is required via Evans Rd from Ethanac Rd. As mentioned previously, improvements are recommended to mitigate deficiencies on the bas is of queueing and Level of Service (LOS), which would provide for safe and efficient truck ingress and egress. Furthermore, the City of Perris alluded to the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) in Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 192

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
798 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 15
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
comment B -11; this development is zoned for 95% residential development spanning along the southern limits of Ethanac Rd, terminating at Goetz Rd to the west. If trucks are not permitted to use Ethanac Rd to access the future industrial uses, they would need to utilize McLaughlin Rd via Barnett Rd. McLaughlin Rd provides primary access to residential developments, has a maximum of one travel lane in each direction, and is not designated as a truck route at any point. It is not advisable to intentionally sen d truck trips on a road with these characteristics, as opposed to a road such as Ethanac, which is already a majority truck route, has far greater capacity, and would provide more direct access to the industrial projects. Therefore, two-way truck access is essential to the efficient and safe operation of the proposed Project, as well as future EDC-NG developments.

B-15: b. The traffic study fails to consider the findings of the EDC-NG Master Circulation Plan a traffic study for alternative truck routes and cumulative deficiencies.

Response B -15: The EDC -NG Master Circulation Plan is currently in progress and is not yet complete, meaning findings from the study are not yet available as of June 2025. As the approved Traffic Study was drafted in October 2023, the study did not encompass findings from the EDC -NG Master Circulation Plan, and still cannot assess findings at the present time. It should also be noted that the approved traffic study analysis included projected traffic for several developments within the EDC -NG limits.

B-16: c. The analysis methodology utilized for the Case Road/Barnett Road at Ethanac Road offset intersections fails to fully analyze the unique characteristics of these offset intersections and ultimately understates how the project will contribute to the degradation of traffic safety at this location.

Response B-16: The intersection of Ethanac Rd and Case Rd/Barnett Rd operates as a single offset intersection. There is one signal controller at the intersection, which manages timing for Ethanac Rd, Case Rd and Barnett Rd simultaneously as part of a standard 8 -phase NEMA system.

The northbound (Barnett Rd) and southbound (Case Rd) approaches operate under split phasing, meaning only one approach will be given the green light at a time. These operations were modeled consistently using Vistro traffic modeling software. The City of Menifee and the City of Perris require evaluation of intersection LOS using the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which evaluates intersections on the basis of delay. The Vistro model was run, and results were genera ted using HCM methodology. Both the City of Menifee and the City of Perris define an Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 193

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
799 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 16
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
acceptable intersection LOS to be LOS D or better for intersections, and LOS E or better for I -215 ramp intersections. Furthermore, both cities define a project impact to be significant if a project adding 50 or more peak hour trips to an intersection incr eases intersection delay by 2 seconds or more, and causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS. The traffic study showed that with addition of project traffic, the delay added to the Ethanac Rd at Case Rd/Barnett Rd intersection was less than 2 seconds, and LOS was D or better in all “Plus Project” scenarios. Therefore, the Ethanac Rd at Case Rd/Barnett Rd and potential project impacts at the intersection were correctly analyzed by both City of Menifee and City of Perris standards.

B-17: d. The FEIR states that LOS/queuing is no longer considered under CEQA, but it is still ultimately required with respect to General Plan consistency/Menifee's traffic study guidelines. Additionally, several traffic safety issues are not properly analyzed, which is a CEQA requirement.

Response B -17: The approved traffic study encompassed both LOS and queueing analyses at Ethanac Rd & Evans Rd, Ethanac Rd & Barnett Rd/Case Rd, Ethanac Rd & I -215 SB ramps, and Ethanac Rd & I -215 NB ramps, as well as the proposed project driveways. These analyses were conducted consistent with modeling and methodology guidelines set forth in the City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020), which were reviewed and approved by City staff. While the City of Perris’ comment does not elaborate on the context of the “several traffic safety issues” that were not properly analyzed, the analysis was completed in accordance with City of Menifee guidelines. Furthermore, and as previously mentioned, the LOS performance and project impact criteria defined by the City of Menifee are consistent with the criteria utilized by the City of Perris for similar traffic studies. The approved traffic study sufficiently assesses deficiencies and impacts per City standards.

B-18: e. The traffic study does not properly analyze/address the excessive queuing along Ethanac Road.

Response B -18: The approved traffic study encompassed queueing analyses for left -turns at Ethanac Rd & Evans Rd, Ethanac Rd & Barnett Rd/Case Rd, and Ethanac Rd & I -215 NB ramps. These analyses were conducted consistent with modeling and methodology guidelines set forth in the City of Menifee LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020), which were reviewed and approved by City staff. While the City of Perris’ comment does not elaborate on how “the traffic study does not properly analyze” excessive queueing on Ethanac Rd, the analysis was completed in Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 194

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
800 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 17
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
accordance with City of Menifee guidelines. The study provided recommendations for increasing turn pocket storage to alleviate queueing deficiencies and proposed improvements on the basis of LOS to further improve operations along Ethanac Rd. Furthermore, the queues studied were determined by City staff and were analyzed for all scenarios.

B-19: f. The traffic study limits the recommended roadway improvements to site-adjacent roadways only. The project shall contribute to all improvements identified in the EDC-NG Master Circulation Plan traffic study.

Response B -19: Please refer to response to comment B -11 regarding reasoning for the studied limits. Furthermore, refer to response to comment B-15 regarding the EDC -NG Master Circulation Plan. As project impacts of significance were only deemed to be within the traffic study roadway network, th e fact estimated trips for several EDC -NG developments were included in the approved traffic study, and the fact that the EDC -NG Master Circulation Plan is still in development, the improvements recommended in the approved traffic study sufficiently address the proposed impacts of the project.

B-20: C. Previously Approved Surrounding Industrial Development The proximity of this project, in conjunction with the previously approved Menifee's I Phelan project, located northeast of the project site, exacerbates a public safety and traffic issue without fair share funding for the 1 -215 Interchange and fixing the Barnett/Ethanac realignment.

Response B -20: The approved traffic study demonstrated that the intersection of Ethanac Rd and Case Rd/Barnett Rd operates at an acceptable LOS both with and without the proposed project, in accordance with City of Menifee guidelines. Additionally, the traffic study does include a fair share calculation for improvements at both the I -215 NB and SB ramps – please refer to page 41 of the approved traffic study.

B-21: The City of Perris asks that the Menifee City Council reverse the Planning Commission decision and deny the Project Plan in light of the significant deficiencies in the Project and Final EIR described above. The City of Perris looks forward to working with Menifee to facilitate the preparation and consideration of a Project and proper Final EIR that meets the requirements of applicable state housing laws and the California Environmental Quality Act.

Response B-21: Comment noted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 195

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
801 of 2087

6/25/2025 Page 18
City of Menifee
Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project
Comments and Responses
B-22: Refer to Bracketed Appeal Letter B for the entire comment. Response B-22: Comment noted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 196

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
802 of 2087

RESOLUTION NO. PC25-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE,

CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021110379) FOR THE NORTHERN

GATEWAY LOGISTICS CENTER WAREHOUSE PROJECT, MAKING

CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the applicant, Lovett Industrial (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Plot Plan (PP) No.

PLN23-0040 for the construction of two speculative warehouses totaling 398,041 square feet on approximately 18.74 acres. Building 1 (northern building) is 45 feet 1 inch in height and includes 99,326 square feet of warehousing space with 6,000 square feet of office space for a total of 105,326 square feet. Building 2 is 45 feet 7 inches in height and includes 277,715 square feet of warehousing space, 8,000 square feet of office space and a 7,000 square-foot mezzanine for a total of 292,715 square feet. The Project site is generally located south of Ethanac Road, east of Evans Road, West of Barnett Road and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California, (APN’s: 331-060-007, 331-060-008, 331-060-030, 331- 060-023, and 331-060-020); and
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Northern Gateway Logistics Center”; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 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 500-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 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 June 6, 2024 and July 22, 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. 2021110379), and a copy of the Draft EIR was placed at the City Hall public counter, Menifee Library, and Sun City Library; and
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 197

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
803 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center - EIR
July 16, 2025
WHEREAS, during the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Agencies
oAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
oAirport Land Use Commission
oCity of Perris
oRiverside County Department of Waste Resources
oSouth Coast Air Quality Management District
oRiverside County Flood Control District
oRiverside Transit Agency (RTA)
Organizations
oRadical Research, LLC
oSupporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
oBreanna Harwood
oJose Marquez
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), 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 October 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 May 14, 2025, 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, on May 20, 2025, an application to appeal Planning Commission certification of the EIR for the Project and approval of PP No. PLN23-0040 was submitted by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance; and Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 198

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
804 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center - EIR
July 16, 2025
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2025, an application to appeal Planning Commission certification of the EIR for the Project and approval of PP No. PLN23-0040 was submitted by the City of Perris; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2025, the City Council of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project including the consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (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 City Council of the City of Menifee has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of Menifee, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the City shall not approve a project that has significant effects on the environment unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects and that the benefits of approving the project outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts, such that the impacts are acceptable based on CEQA Guideline Section 15093; and
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the CEQA Findings attached as Exhibit “C”; and
WHEREAS, prior to recommending action on the Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives identified in the EIR, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b), the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee resolves as follows:

Section 1: Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct, based on substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR attached as “Exhibit A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2: Certification of EIR. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the proposed Project which have been submitted to, and received by the City, the City Council certifies that the FEIR Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 199

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
805 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center - EIR
July 16, 2025
has been completed and is in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the FEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency under CEQA, and adopt and certify the FEIR as complete and adequate. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project.

Section 3: CEQA Findings of Fact. The City Council adopts the CEQA Findings attached as “Exhibit C”, which exhibit is incorporated herein as though set forth in full.

Section 4: Significant Impacts. The EIR did not determine any significant and unavoidable impacts with the development of this Project.

Section 5: Alternatives. The FEIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of Project objectives and might be more costly.

Section 6: Good Faith. A good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the FEIR as indicated by the public record for the Project and the FEIR.

Section 7: Mitigation Plan Approval. Although the FEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would result from approval of the Project, certain environmental effects can feasibly be avoided or mitigated and will be avoided or mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures included in the FEIR and the MMRP.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the City Council adopts and approves the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit "B," which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further finds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible.

Section 8: No Significant New Information Added to Draft EIR. The information provided in the various reports submitted in connection with the proposed Project and in the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, the information added to the FEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

Section 9: Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development Department of the City of Menifee, located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council'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 §§ 7920.000 et seq.) during normal business hours.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 200

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
806 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center - EIR
July 16, 2025
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 16th day of July 2025. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:

Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Jefferey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 201

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
807 of 2087

Northern Gateway
Logistics Center Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2021110379
Prepared for:

City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
(951) 769-8520
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Kari Cano, Project Manager
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
May 2025
EXHIBIT "A"
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 202

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
808 of 2087

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 203

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
809 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Menifee May 2025
i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1.0-1

1.2 Organization of EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1.0-2

1.3 CEQA Process Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......1.0-2

1.4 Changes to the Draft EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ......1.0-4

Section 2: Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

2.1 Introduction to Comments and Responses ................................ ................................ ...........2.0-1 Comment Letter A1 – South Coast Air Quality Management District ................................ ....2.0-3 Responses to Comment Letter A1 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-5 Comment Letter A2 – Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ......2.0-7 Response to Comment Letter A2 ................................ ................................ ....................... 2.0-11 Comment Letter A3 – Riverside County Department of Waste Resources ............................. 2.0-15 Responses to Comment Letter A3 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-23 Comment Letter A4 – South Coast Air Quality Management District ................................ ....2.0-25 Responses to Comment Letter A4 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-33 Comment Letter A5 – City of Perris ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-41 Responses to Comment Letter A5 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-49 Comment Letter O1 – Radical Research, LLC ................................ ................................ ........2.0-59 Responses to Comment Letter O1 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-61 Comment Letter O2 – Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), c/o Lozeau Drury, LLP ................................ ................................ ......2.0-63 Responses to Comment Letter O2 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-65 Comment Letter O3 – Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, c/o Blum, Collins & Ho LLP ................................ ................................ ................................ .........2.0-67 Responses to Comment Letter O3 ................................ ................................ ..................... 2.0-211 Comment Letter T1 – Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ................................ ............... 2.0-225 Responses to Comment Letter T1 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-229 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 204

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
810 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Menifee May 2025
ii
Comment Letter P1 – Breanna Harwood ................................ ................................ .............. 2.0-231 Responses to Comment Letter P1 ................................ ................................ ...................... 2.0-233 Comment Letter P2 – Jose Marquez ................................ ................................ ..................... 2.0-235 Response to Comment Letter P2 ................................ ................................ ........................ 2.0-237

Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft EIR

3.1 Introduction to the Errata ................................ ................................ ................................ ....3.0-1

3.2 Changes to the Draft EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ......3.0-1

List of Tables
Table 2.0-1: Comments from Public Agencies, Organizations and Individuals ................................ .2.0-1

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 205

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
811 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction

City of Menifee May 2025

1.0-1
Section 1.0 Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Menifee (City) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Northern Gateway Logistics Cente r project (Project). The City is required, after completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021110379), to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. This FEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the DEIR, which was circulated for public review from June 6, 2024, through July 22, 2024. The preceding Table of Contents provides a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies who commented on the DEIR.

The City will evaluate comments on environmental issues from persons who reviewed the DEIR and will prepare a written response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(a). The written response must address any significant environmental issues raised. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines §15204, §15088).

Those comments are responded to in Section 2.0, Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments.

State CEQA Guidelines §15088 recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contain in the text of the DEIR, that the Lead Agency either revise the text of the DEIR or include marginal notes showing that information. Added or modified text is shown in Section 3.0, Errata, by underlining ( example) while deleted text is shown by striking (example). The additional information, corrections, and clarifications are not considered to substantively affect the conclusions within the EIR and therefore the City has determined that recirculation of the DEIR is not required as none of the criteria for recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been met.

CEQA Guidelines §15132 indicates that the contents of a FEIR shall consist of:
a) Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state wher e in the document each element is discussed.
b) The EIR may be prepared as a separate document, as part of a general plan, or as part of a project report. If prepared as a part of the project report, it must still contain one separate and distinguishable section providing either analysis of all the subj ects required in an EIR or, as a minimum, a table showing where each of the subjects is discussed. When the Lead Agency is a state agency, the EIR shall be included as part of the regular project report if such a report is used in the agency’s existing review and budgetary process.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 206

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
812 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction

City of Menifee May 2025

1.0-2
c) Draft EIRs shall contain the information required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Final EIRs shall contain the same information and the subjects described in Section 15132. d) No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include a “trade secret” as defined in Section 6254.7 of the Government Code, information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), the City will provide written responses to comments to any public agency that commented on the DEIR, at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission 's consideration of certifying the EIR as adequate under CEQA. Written responses to comments will also be provided to non -public agency individuals, organizations, and entities that commented on the DEIR. In addition, the FEIR will be made available to the general public at the City’s Planning Division office and on the City’s website a minimum of 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.

The FEIR, along with other relevant information and public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, will be considered by the City’s Planning Commission.

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF EIR
This Final EIR provides the requisite information required under CEQA and is organized as follows:

Section 1.0 Introduction. This section provides an introduction to the Final EIR, including the requirements under CEQA, the organization of the document, and a brief summary of the CEQA process activities to date.

Section 2.0 Comments and Responses. This section provides a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the Draft EIR, provides a copy of each written comment received, and any response required under CEQA.

Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft EIR. This section presents clarifications, amplifications, and insignificant modifications to the EIR, identifying revisions to the text of the document.

1.3 CEQA PROCESS SUMMARY
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is an informational document intended to inform the public and decision-makers about the environmental consequences of the Project. The Project involves the development of two new concrete tilt up warehouse and distribution buildings with associated office space on 20.17 acres of land. Building 1 is proposed to be 105,537 square feet (sq. ft.) consisting of 6,000 sq. ft. of office space and 99,537 sq. ft. of warehouse space and is located on the north side o f the site. Building 2 is on the southern end of the site and is proposed to be 292,715 sq. ft. consisting of 8,000 sq. ft of office space, 7,000 sq. ft. of mezzanine, and 277,715 sq. ft. of warehouse area. Buildings 1 and 2 combined would consist of 398,252 sq. ft. of total building area. Associated facilities and improvements of the Project site includes loading dock doors (15 for Building 1; 37 for Building 2), on site landscaping, and related on -site and off -site improvements (including relocation of an underground flood channel).

The proposed warehouse uses are considered speculative in nature, but may be used for receiving, Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 207

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
813 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction

City of Menifee May 2025

1.0-3
storing, and distribution of manufactured goods, pursuant to the City of Menifee Development Code (Menifee Development Code)’s definition for Warehousing, logistics, and distribution facilities. The proposed buildings would not include cold storage.

Additionally, SB 330, which provides that the City shall not “chang[e] the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning…to a less intensive use… below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances in effect on January 1, 2018”. However, the Act includes an exception, and general plan and zoning designation changes to a “less intensive use” are permitted so long as the City concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction, such that there is no net loss in residential capacity. (Govt. Code §66300(i).)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice that an EIR for the proposed Project was being prepared. The initial NOP was distributed on XXX to solicit comments related to the proposed Project.

After receiving public comments on the NOP, the proposed Project was analyzed for its potential to result in environmental impacts. Impacts were evaluated in accordance with the significance criteria developed by the City that are based on criteria present ed in Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the CEQA Guidelines. The criteria in the Environmental Checklist (checklist), was used to determine if the proposed Project would result in, “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation measures,” or potentially significant impact” to a particular environmental resource. In some instances, a project may use the checklist to provide an initial discussion of a project and to screen out certain topics from a full discussion in the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR describes the existing environmental resources on the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site, analyzes potential impacts on those resources that would or could occur upon initiation of the proposed Project, and identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of those impacts determined to be significant. The environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR concern several subject areas, including aesthetics/light and glare, air quality, biological resource s, cultural and tribal resources, energy/energy conservation, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tran sportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. As noted in the preceding paragraph, public comment was received during the NOP process and included written letters provided to the City during public meetings. A copy of the letters with the NOP and a copy of the letters with the revised NOP is provided in Appendix A to the Draft EIR. The comments were used, as intended, to help inform the discussion of th e Draft EIR and help determine the scope and framework of certain topical discussions.

When the Draft EIR was completed, it was circulated for public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15087. The 45-day public review for the Draft Environmental Impact Report began on June 21, 2023 and ended on July 20, 2023. All comment letters received during the 45-day public review period previously Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 208

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
814 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction

City of Menifee May 2025

1.0-4
mentioned are included in this Final EIR. Additionally, a public meeting with was held for the proposed Project on June 27, 2023 at 5:30 p.m.

As set forth in more detail in the Responses to Comments and Errata, none of the clarifications or amplifications set forth herein change the significance conclusions presented in the Draft EIR or substantially alters the analysis presented for public revi ew. Furthermore, the Draft EIR circulated for public review was fully adequate under CEQA such that meaningful public review was not precluded. Thus, the clarifications provided in the Responses to Comments and Errata do not constitute significant new information that might trigger recirculation.

1.4 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
As stated previously, Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft EIR details the changes to the DEIR. In response to public comments, text changes have been made to DEIR sections to clarify and amplify the analysis or mitigation measures, and to make insignificant modifications to the DEIR. This information does not rise to the level of significant new information as the resulting impact analysis and alternatives considered remain essentially unchanged, and no new or more severe impacts have been identified. These ch anges do not warrant DEIR recirculation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. As discussed herein and as elaborated upon in the respective Response to Comments, none of the clarifications or changes made in the Errata reflect a new significant environmental impact, a “substantial increase” in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted, nor do the Errata reflect a “fundamentally flawed” or “conclusory” DEIR. In all cases, as discussed in individual responses to comments and DEIR Errata, these minor clarifications and modifications do not identify new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that the City has not committed to mitigate. Therefore, the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or an unadopted feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure. Instead, the information added supports the existing analysis and conclusions, and responds to inquiries made from commenters. Therefore, this FEIR is not subject to recirculation prior to certification.

CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes when an EIR requires recirculation prior to certification, stating in part:
“(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this sect ion, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 209

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
815 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction

City of Menifee May 2025

1.0-5
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to apply it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.”

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 210

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
816 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction

City of Menifee May 2025

1.0-6

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 211

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
817 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-1
Section 2.0 Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Table 2.0-1 below provides a list of those parties that provided written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period. In addition, one comment letter was received after the close of the public review period. Each comment document has been assigned a letter as indicated in the table.

A copy of the written comments are provided in this section and have been annotated with the assigned letter along with a number for each comment. Each comment document is followed by a written response that corresponds to the comments provided.

Table 2.0-1: Comments from Public Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Letter Date Received Organization/Name
Agencies
A1 June 20, 2024 South Coast Air Quality Management District Evelyn Aguilar, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA-IGR
A2 July 10, 2024 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Amy McNeill, Engineering Project Manager
A3 July 18, 2024 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Katherine Avila, Assistant Planner
A4 July 18, 2024 South Coast Air Quality Management District Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
A5 July 22, 2024 City of Perris
Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager
Organizations
O1 June 18, 2024 Radical Research, LLC
Mike McCarthy, Ph.D.

O2 July 1, 2024 Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), c/o Lozeau Drury, LLP
Kylah Staley
O3 July 17, 2024 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, c/o Blum, Collins & Ho LLP Gary Ho
Tribal
T1 July 23, 2024 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Luz Salazar, Cultural Resources Analyst
Public/Individuals
P1 June 25, 2024 Breanna Harwood
P2 July 16, 2024 Jose Marquez

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 212

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
818 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-2

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 213

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
819 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-3
Comment Letter A1 - South Coast Air Quality Management District Evelyn Aguilar, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA-IGR

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 214

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
820 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-4

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 215

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
821 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-5
Responses to Comment Letter A1 - South Coast Air Quality Management District Evelyn Aguilar, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA-IGR
A1-1 This comment includes introductory statements and therefore, no further response is warranted.

A1-2 This comment includes a public records request for 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. As requested by the Commenter, the City sent the requested data files on March 26, 2024

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 216

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
822 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-6

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 217

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
823 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-7
Comment Letter A2 - Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Amy McNeill, Engineering Project Manager

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 218

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
824 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-8

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 219

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
825 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-9

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 220

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
826 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-10

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 221

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
827 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-11
Response to Comment Letter A2 - Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Amy McNeill, Engineering Project Manager
A2-1 This comment includes introductory statements concerning the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (District) interest in projects associated with the District Master Drainage Plan facilities and other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system. Refer to Responses to Comments A2-2 through A2-4 below.

A2-2 It is noted that the Project Applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction-related activities occurring within District right -of-way or facilities, such as the Project’s construction of the District’s Homeland/Romoland Dr ainage Plan and the Project Applicant will be required to pay any applicable fees in accordance with the Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plan as a condition of approval. The Area Drainage Plan (ADP) fees will be paid to the District at the time of issuance of grading permits.

A2-3 It is noted that the Project Applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction-related activities occurring within District right -of-way or facilities , namely Romoland Master Drainage Plan Line A and Romoland Master Drainage Plan Line A-8. Further, the Draft EIR evaluates the Project’s potential impacts on drainage facilities and, at page 4.9 -23, concludes that all proposed drainage improvements would adequately convey flows to the basin and provide flood protection for t he 100-year storm event. Additionally, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit, and comply with the water quality policies of the City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) and the Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which require implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) per a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP; see MM HYD-1) and post -construction BMPs in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. In addition, the Santa Ana Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit requires the preparation of a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) for all development projects. Pursuant to Santa Ana MS4 Permit, a project-specific WQMP was prepared and is included as Appendix I 1 to the Draft EIR and has incorporated combined low -impact development (LID) treatment, hydrologic control BMPs, and sediment supply BMPs. A final WQMP will be required to address BMP sizing and O&M plan p ursuant to Draft EIR MM HYD -2 and comply with City of Menifee Municipal Code (Menifee MC) Section 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Project -Specific WQMP and has outlined all BMPs designed to meet water quality standards and mitigate any adverse impacts.

Refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-15 through 4.9-19 for further discussion.

A2-4 The Commenter’s attachment letter dated July 17, 2023 and submitted during the Project’s Notice of Preparation has been noted. No further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 222

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
828 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-12
A2-5 Relevant to the Project, the NPDES permit is divided into two parts: construction and post - construction. The construction permitting is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), while the post -construction permitting is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Development projects typically result in the disturbance of soil that requires compliance with the NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated w ith Construction Activities (Order No. 2012-0006- DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002) General Construction Permit. This Statewide General Construction Permit regulates discharges from construction sites that disturb one or more acres of soil. As stated in Response to Comment A2-3 above, the Project would comply with the NPDES permit with the implementation of construction and post -construction BMPs in the SWPPP and Project-specific WQMP. Therefore, the Project would be compliant with the NPDES permitting requirements (see Draft EIR MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2).

A2-6 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality page 4.9 -5, review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows th e Project site being covered by one map panel: 06065C2055H (effective 8/18/2014). According to this FIRM, the westerly portion of the Project site is within Flood Zone X (shaded) under the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 21-09-0711P (effective 1/24/2022) and the easterly portion of the Project site is within Flood Zone X (unshaded) . Flood Zone X (shaded) characterize areas of moderate flood hazard and is defined as areas of 0.2-percent annual chance (500-year) flood; areas of 1-percent annual chance (100-year) flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1-percent annual chance (100-year) flood.

Flood Zone X (unshaded) is defined as areas of minimal flood hazard.

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality page 4.9-23, BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas (DMAs). As noted in Draft EIR Preliminary Water Calculations ( Appendix I2), with implementation of the proposed BMP, runoff would be conveyed to the corresponding detention basins which have been designed appropriately to provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event. Implementation of efficient design measures and applicable BMPs pursuant to the Project’s WQMP and SWPPP (MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2,) would prevent flooding on - and off-site due to an increase in surface water runoff. Therefore, the Project will adequately control storm water drainage.

A2-7 The City of Menifee prepared a Draft EIR and this FEIR in accordance with CEQA. The Project applicant will implement mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR and comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations to reduce impacts associated with the Project.

A2-8 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3: Biological Resources page 4.3-17, a Jurisdictional Delineation was conducted for the Drainage 1/Ethanac Wash located along the eastern portion of the Project site. Draft EIR Appendix C3 concluded that no riparian vegetation or wetland obligate plant species were observed within Drainage 1. Review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset did n ot identify any riverine features within or adjacent to the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 223

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
829 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-13
boundaries of the Project site. Further, Drainage 1 does not hold water for long enough to create anaerobic condition, ultimately forming hydric soils. Thus, Drainage 1 did not meet wetland requirements. Therefore, because regulatory approvals from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would not be required since Drainage 1 was created wholly in the uplands and did not replace an existing blueline stream it does not qualify as waters of the United States.

However, the RWQCB and CDFW may assert jurisdiction over the storm drain channel which would require a Report of Waste Discharge and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Accordingly, the Project Applicant will obtain a Report of Waste Discharge and Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to Project implementation. Refer to Draft EIR 4.3-17 for further discussion.

A2-9 The Commenter’s attachment letter dated July 17, 2023 and submitted during the Project’s Notice of Preparation has been noted. No further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 224

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
830 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-14

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 225

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
831 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-15
Comment Letter A3 - Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Katherine Avila, Assistant Planner

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 226

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
832 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-16

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 227

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
833 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-17

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 228

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
834 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-18

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 229

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
835 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-19

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 230

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
836 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-20

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 231

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
837 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-21

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 232

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
838 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-22

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 233

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
839 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-23
Response to Comment Letter A3 - Riverside County Department of Waste Resources Katherine Avila, Assistant Planner
A3-1 This comment includes introductory statements and a brief Project description. No further response is warranted.

A3-2 The City appreciates and values these comments during the FEIR participation process. Responses to comments are provided in Responses to Comments A3-3 through A3-6 below.

A3-3 Draft EIR Table 4.15-5: Landfill Information lists the El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum permitted throughput (tons per day), remaining capacity in cubic yards, maximum permitted capacity in cubic yards, and ceased operation date. This information reflected available data at the time the Draft EIR was prepared. The Project’s estimated 5,846 pounds (2.9 tons) of waste per day represented approximately 0.02 percent of El Sobrante’s Landfill’s maximum daily throughput.

Therefore, the Project adequately included information regarding the El Sobrante Landfill in the Draft EIR per the commenter’s suggestion.

A3-4 The Draft EIR anticipated that solid waste from the Project site would ultimately end up in either El Sobrante Landfill or Badlands Landfill. As concluded in Draft EIR Section 4.15 page 4.15-18, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities. However, the availability for the Project to utilize the Lamb Canyon Landfill has been noted.

A3-5 Draft EIR Table 4.15 -5: Landfill Information lists the Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s maximum permitted throughput (tons per day), remaining capacity in cubic yards, maximum permitted capacity in cubic yards, and ceased operation date. This information reflected available data at the time the Draft EIR was prepared. The Project’s estimated 5,846 pounds (2.9 tons) of waste per day represented approximately 0.06 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill maximum daily throughput. Therefore, the Project adeq uately included information regarding the Badlands Sanitary Landfill in the Draft EIR per the commenter’s suggestion.

A3-6 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.15, page 4.15-18 and 4.15-19, the Project‘s solid waste would be handled and disposed in compliance applicable federal, state, and local regulations which include, but not limited to, with California Green Building Standards Code § 5.408.1, the more stringent of the code sections , that requires a minimum of 65 percent diversion of solid waste; and Menifee MC Sections 6.40.010 and 6.40.050, requiring a 50 percent diversion of solid waste materials from landfills by using recycling, reuse, and diversion programs. Therefore, the Project would adhere to the solid waste goals and requirements of AB 75 and 1383.

A3-7 The City thanks the Commenter for their letter on the Project’s Draft EIR. As requested, the City will include the Commenter on the Project’s public interest list for all future Project noticing. No further response is warranted.

A3-8 The Commenter’s letter on the Project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) has been noted. The Commenter’s comments made on the NOP were taken into consideration during the preparation of the Draft EIR’s environmental impact analysis pertaining to solid waste. Accordingly, refer to Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 234

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
840 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-24
Responses to Comments A3 -3 through A3 -6 above and Draft EIR Sections 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems for more information.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 235

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
841 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-25
Comment Letter A4 - South Coast Air Quality Management District Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 236

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
842 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-26

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 237

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
843 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-27

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 238

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
844 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-28

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 239

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
845 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-29

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 240

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
846 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-30

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 241

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
847 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-31

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 242

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
848 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-32

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 243

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
849 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-33
Response to Comment Letter A4 - South Coast Air Quality Management District Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
A4-1 This comment includes introductory statements and therefore, no further response is warranted.

A4-2 The comment includes a summary of the Project description. No further response is warranted.

A4-3 The commenter provides a brief summary of the Project and identifies existing sensitive receptors. The introductory comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.

A4-4 The Air Quality Assessment used a truck trip length of 33.2 miles in the emissions modeling based on the California Air Resources Board document Emissions Estimation Methodology for On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. It should be noted that this distance is specific to transloading/local distribution facilities and the longest (i.e., most conservative) distance identified in the study for the South Coast Air Basin. Shorter distances are identified for other locations such as off-terminal and intermodal facilities. The CARB study used GIS to estimate travel distances. CARB explains that that estimating travel distances to/from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to distribution and transload ing facilities is complicated because there are thousands of facilities and the number of trips to each facility and location of each facility is unknown. Therefore, CARB used the Ports’ truck trip origin and destination (O-D) survey data to estimate distribution center travel distances.

The CalEEMod methodology uses average trip lengths, which accounts for some longer trips (e.g., to/from the Ports or other location) and some shorter trips (e.g., to/from other facilities or warehouses in the area). Goods movement can involve several steps (i.e., origin and destination) between the port and a particular warehouse, intermodal facility , or other facility. Each step would be a separate trip. As such, not all truck trips would originate from the Ports; some trips may be from intermodal facilities, storage warehouses, cross -dock warehouses, distribution centers, retail stores, etc. Truck t rips would likely be redistributed from other existing locations.

As described above, the CARB truck trip lengths used in the Air Quality Assessment are based on substantial evidence and representative of warehouse truck trips to/from the Ports in the Sout h Coast Air Basin (i.e., the region where the Project is located).

Based on the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (page 4), “ ’vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project,” where automobile refers to passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. VMT generated from trucks are not considered in the VMT impact as sessment based on the OPR Technical Advisory. This is due in part with the understanding that trucks are already on the regional roadway network with or without the Project, such as traveling to/from the Ports and using major freeways to end up at their final destinations. The addition of this Project may likely result in a net decrease in regional VMT, as these projects are strategically located near delivery points, thereby reducing trip lengths by providing additional regional warehouses.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 244

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
850 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-34
A4-5 The Air Quality Analysis located in Appendix B of the Draft EIR uses the SCAQMD ‘s Mass Rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look-Up Table to analyze LST impacts. The mass rate look- up table identifies the maximum allowable construction and operation emissions without generating significant localized air quality impacts based on the Project location, project size (ranging between 1, 2, and 5 acres), and the distance from sensitive receptors (ranging from 25 meters or less, 50 m, 100 m, 200, and 500 m). As a project increases in size, the allowable emissions continue to increase. The LST screening thresholds are based on dispersion modeling conducted by the SCAQMD. The screening thresholds for sites 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size were only modeled by the SCAQM D. The commenter noted that the Project is 20.17 acres, however as discussed in Section 4.2.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project uses a disturbance area of 3.5 acres per day in the analysis. Therefore, the construction emissions threshold for 3.5 acre s was interpolated from the 2-acre threshold and the 5 -acre threshold. The operational LST analysis conservatively used the 5-acre emission screening thresholds (i.e., a larger site acreage would have higher/less conservative thresholds because the polluta nts would have more area to disperse). As shown in Table 4.2 -11 and Table 4.2 -12, the Project generated less emissions than is permitted for a 3.5-acre construction site and a 5 -acre warehouse site. Because the emissions generated by the Project are less t han those permitted for a smaller site, it is reasonable to assume that the Project would not generate significant localized air quality impacts even though the Project site is

20.17 acres.

A4-6 The LST analysis conservatively assumed 3.5 -acres would be disturbed per day as shown in Table 4.2-10 of the Draft EIR. However, the commenter notes that SCAQMD staff found that up to a maximum of 4 acres may be disturbed during grading. As discussed above, as the area of disturbance increases, the allowable emissions increase until maxing out at 5 -acre l evels.

Therefore, using the 3.5-acre threshold is more conservative than using the 4-acre threshold. For informational purposes, the results from Tabl e 4.2 -11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions have been updated with the construction thresholds for 4 acres of disturbance in the table below. As shown, the screening thresholds increase, and impacts remain less than significant.

Description Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation Emissions 36.00 32.90 1.60 1.47
Grading Emissions 34.30 30.20 1.45 1.33
Building Construction Emissions 10.40 13.00 0.43 0.40
Paving Emissions 7.45 9.98 0.35 0.32
Architectural Coating Emissions 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
Infrastructure Improvement Emissions 2.12 2.46 0.08 0.08 Maximum Emissions 36.00 32.90 1.60 1.47
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (adjusted
for 4 acres at 107 meters) 348 3,263 55 15
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 245

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
851 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-35
A4-7 As shown in Errata Exhibit 2-7: Conceptual Site Plan – Building 2, the southern portion of the site was identified as a future road and was not originally included in the analysis, therefore the closest sensitive receptor was identified as being 123 meters from the construction area. When the Project was updated to include the southern portion of the Project site, the distance to the closest sensitive receptor was updated to 107 meters. Although the distance was not updated in the Air Quality Assessment, the correct values are presented in the Draft EIR. As shown in Tables 4.2 -11 and 4.2 -12 of the Draft EIR, emissions remain below the thres holds identified for sensitive receptors located 107 meters from the construction boundary area.

A4-8 The comment includes a statement of nearby warehouse cumulative projects #’s 27, 34, 38, and 48 and their total square footage of approximately 1,591,393 square feet. No further response is warranted here but refer to the following Responses to Comments A4-9 and A4 -10 for further discussion.

A4-9 The commenter notes that SCAQMD is concerned with cumulative air quality impacts. The commenter also notes that SCAQMD has initiated a public process to develop guidance for evaluating cumulative air quality impacts however no final methodologies or thresh olds have been adopted. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.

A4-10 The commenter suggests performing a qualitative analysis of cumulative impacts. A discussion of this topic can be found on pages 4.2-36 and 4.2-37 of the Draft EIR. Additionally, cumulative past, present, and probable future projects are listed in Draft EIR Table 3-1: List of Cumulative Projects and are shown on Draft EIR Exhibit 3 -1: Location of Cumulative Pr ojects. The Draft EIR lists 48 cumulative projects. As discussed, air emissions are largely a cumulative impact and SCAQMD has developed thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to air basin’s existing air quality conditions.1 Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact and, inversely, emission volumes below the SCAQMD operational thresholds are not cumulative ly considerable. The analysis follows the approach in South Coast AQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.

The cumulative projects identified in the comment are also subject to CEQA and are required to mitigate potential impacts to the extent feasible. These projects (as with the Project) are also required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, which would minimize emissions. Draft EIR Table 4.2 -9 shows that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD operational thresholds. Therefore, as discussed in section 4.2.6 of the Draft EIR, the Project’s emissions would not result in a cumulatively cons iderable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D, 2003.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 246

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
852 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-36
A4-11 The commenter summarizes the Project and notes the distance of sensitive receptors from the Project. A Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the Project and included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. In addition, the results of the study can be found in Ta ble 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment and 4.2-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment in the Draft EIR. As demonstrated in these tables, risks to sensitive receptors from toxic air contaminants are reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, there is no nexus for additional mitigation.

A4-12 The commenter suggests implementing project design features to reduce impacts from mobile sources. Although the commenter calls them project design features, they are mitigation measures.

The first measure suggests requiring zero-emission or near zero-emission on-road haul trucks. The suggested measures contained in the comment related to zero - and near-zero emission (ZE and NZE) vehicles are not feasible to implement, because the availabil ity of vehicles equipped with such technology in the Project’s opening year is speculative. Even with adoption of CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Rule, CARB acknowledges that it will take time for ZE and NZE vehicles to become commercially available and to pen etrate the market. For example, CARB’s Staff Report for the Proposed Amendments to the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation and the Zero -Emission Powertrain Certification Test Procedure (March 26, 2024) explains that the regulation requires manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of ZE trucks in California. Additionally, by 2035 ZE truck/chassis sales would need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. 2 Based on the regulation’s phase-in, it will take time for fleets to turn over and for the ZE percentages of new truck sales to penetrate the market.

As discussed in Draft EIR pages 4.7 -26 and 4.7 -27, trucks accessing the Project site would be subject to the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. Additionally, trucks are subject to the Heavy-Duty Low NOX Omnibus Regulation and SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 – WAIRE Program. These regulations are required for all trucks and the suggested mitigation measure is already part of the existing regulatory environment and would not be considered mitigation under CEQA.

A4-13 The second measure suggests requiring a phase -in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner trucks. However, the CARB approved the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation which implements a phase-in schedule for transitioning truck fleets to ZE vehicles.3 The ACF Regulation requires fleet operators to replace vehicles with ZE trucks based on age or mileage milestones. 4 As this regulation is already required, it does not qualify as mitigation under CEQA.

A4-14 The third measure suggests limiting the number of trucks allowed to access the Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document. The City disagrees with the suggestion that the Final EIR

2 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/isor2.pdf 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact -sheets/advanced-clean-fleets-regulation-overview 4 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/acf22/ac/acffrod31.pdf Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 247

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
853 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-37
should include a limit on the daily number of trucks allowed at the Project to levels that were analyzed in the EIR and would require re-evaluating impacts through CEQA should daily truck trips from the Project be anticipated to exceed those levels. The analysis is based on a set of realistic, but conservative, set of assumptions regarding the magnitude of potential activities. The Project’s air quality and GHG analysis is consistent with the TIA which assumed 184 daily truck trips and 497 daily passenger vehicle trips based on ITE Code 150 Warehouse. Therefore, the City does not anticipate total emissions (combined passenger vehicle and truck trips) to exceed those modeled in the EIR, and future re-evaluation is not necessary.

A4-15 The fourth measure suggests providing EV charging stations and electrical hookups for truckers to plug in onboard auxiliary equipment. The Project will be consistent with the EV charging requirements in the 2022 CALGreen building code for warehouses and MM AQ-3 requires the electrical to be oversized to accommodate equipment for future EV charging stations and designate areas for future truck charging. The Project does not require the installation of electrical hookups at dock doors as the Project does not include cold storage and will not employ trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs). However, electric hookups can be installed by future tenants if requested. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

A4-16 The commenter suggests implementing project design features to reduce impact from other source areas:
1) Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays The Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions on page 4.7-20 of the Draft EIR shows that total GHG emissions are below SCAQMD’s threshold. Therefore, mitigation measures requiring the installation of solar panels to reduce GHG emissions is not necessar y.

However, the Project would comply with all building code requirements and may add solar panels in the future if desired.
2) Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.

California's Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards includes cool roof requirements for new and existing buildings. These requirements are in the following sections of the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 standards:
• Section 10-113(a, b) (Mandatory Certification and Labeling of Roofing Product Reflectance and Emittance)
• Section 110.8(i) (Mandatory Insulation, Roofing Products & Radiant Barriers) • Section 140.1 (Performance Approach: Energy Budgets (Nonresidential)) • Section 140.2 (Prescriptive Approach (Nonresidential)) • Section 140.3(a)1 (Prescriptive Requirements for Building Envelopes (Nonresidential))
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 248

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
854 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-38
Therefore, since Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards applies to the Project, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure. Additionally, the Project’s truck courts would be paved with concrete, which is light -colored. The increased stiffness of concrete makes it able to withstand heavier wheel loads without risk of rutting.

A4-17 The commenter suggests implementing project design features to reduce air quality and health risk impacts:
1) Design the Project such that any truck check -in point is inside the Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.

The Project is a speculative warehouse; therefore, the site plan does not include check-in points. However, the Project does include a large driveway located on Evans Road that will be used to access the two buildings and allow trucks to que ue onsite. Future check- in points will be built by the tenant based on their operational needs. These check -in points would comply with all applicable code and would require the approval of the City.

Consistent with the commenters request, queuing will not occur outside the Project area. 2) Design the Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.

The Project has been designed to keep truck traffic away from sensitive receptors. Truck parking is located in the center of the site so that sensitive receptors are shielded from noise by the warehouse buildings. Warehouse docking doors are setback approx imately 775 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor. As a result, Project parking and drive aisles are located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. 3) Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing sufficient overnight truck parking inside the Project site.

The Project is required to provide adequate on-site parking in accordance with the City’s parking standards. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.

A4-18 The commenter provides a list of documents to review and suggests adding any applicable mitigation measures. These documents have been reviewed; however, additional mitigation measures are not necessary because the Project has already incorporated mitigati on to reduce impacts to less than significant.

A4-19 The commenter states that if the Project requires the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, etc., air permits from SCAQMD will be required, and the role of SCAQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. However, the Project is speculative, and no end user has been identified. Therefore, the Project has no plans at this time to install emergency generators or other permitted stationary equipment . Emissions from emergency generators were included in Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 249

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
855 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-39
the GHG analysis as seen in Table 4.7-3 of the Draft EIR in order to analyze a worst-case scenario.

Following construction of the Project any future tenant that requires the use of a generator or stationary equipment with an internal combustion engine woul d be required to obtain permits from SCAQMD prior to installation.

As previously stated, the Project is speculative and there are no known permitted stationary sources identified as part of the Project. Therefore, SCAQMD would remain a Commenting Agency and is not considered a Responsible Agency.

A4-20 Construction and operation emissions are calculated in CalEEMod and the results are included in the output files in Appendix B and Appendix G.

A4-21 Refer to Response to Comments A4-3 through A4-20 above. The issues raised in these comments have been addressed in detail, and the City’s responses have been provided in good faith, and contain reasoned analysis, without resort to unsupported conclusory statements.

The comment requests that the City comply with CEQA when responding to SCAQMD’s comments. As requested, the City’s responses to SCAQMD’s comments will be sent to the SCAQMD as part of the Final EIR distribution prior to certification of Final EIR. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted. T he comment is included here to provide a complete record of the SCAQMD’s letter. The comment will become part of the administrative record and will be considered by the decision-makers.

A4-22 The comment includes conclusionary statements and therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 250

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
856 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-40

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 251

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
857 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-41
Comment Letter A5 - City of Perris
Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 252

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
858 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-42

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 253

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
859 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-43

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 254

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
860 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-44

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 255

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
861 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-45

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 256

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
862 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-46

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 257

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
863 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-47

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 258

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
864 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-48

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 259

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
865 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-49
Response to Comment Letter A5 - City of Perris
Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager
A5-1 This comment includes an introductory statement and brief Project description. No further response is warranted.

A5-2 The description of the GVSP located north of the Project site is noted. This comment does not raise any specific reasons why a warehouse use cannot be compatible with nearby areas that are used for residential purposes. Lastly, Ethanac Road is designated as a truck corridor in the City of Menifee’s General Plan. As such, trucks utilizing Ethanac Road for access is appropriate.

A5-3 The commenter states that the Draft EIR did not adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts related to air quality, project alternatives, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and transportation. This portion of the comment does not raise specific concerns and therefore no further responses is warranted. Responses to the City of Perris’ specific concerns regarding the inadequacy of the Draft EIR are provided below.

A5-4 CalEEMod truck trip lengths , which are utilized in the Draft EIR Air Quality Assessment, were updated to 33.2 miles based on a CARB study entitled Emissions Estimation Methodology for On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards which determined the average truck distance from port terminals to local distribution facilities.

Refer to Response A4-4, which explains why this average trip length is appropriate for the Project.

A5-5 The CalEEMod default for the one-way warehouse trip length of 11.50 miles was replaced with

33.2 miles , based on the CARB study entitled Emissions Estimation Methodology for On -Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy -Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards . This distance is consistent with other recent warehouse projects within the City of Menifee. Due to updates in the CalEEMod program, some changes to the default settings are no longer displayed in the CalEEMod outputs. However, the mileage use d can be easily identified by reviewing Section 5.9 Operational Mobile Sources of the Air Quality Assessment Appendix A, located in Appendix B of the Draft EIR and dividing VMT/Year by Trips/Year to get trip length. See excerpt below.

As shown, 2,229,712 vehicle miles traveled ÷ 67,160 trips = 33.2 miles per trip.

A5-6 The commenter questions whether CalEEMod trip lengths were used in air quality analysis for the Draft EIR. As discussed above under responses A5-4 and A5-5, the default tip length of 11.50 miles generated by CalEEMod was replaced with 33.2 miles base on the CARB study entitled Emissions Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 260

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
866 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-50
Estimation Methodology for On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. This distance is consistent with other recent warehouse projects within the City of Menifee.

A5-7 The Project includes an early-suppression fast-response (EFSR) fire sprinkler system and will use an electric or diesel -powered fire pump to provide additional water pressure. If an electric fire pump is installed, in the event that the building loses electricity, power for the electric fire pump will be provided by the emergency backup generator. As noted on page 4.2 -19 and page 4.7-20 of the Draft EIR, emissions from emergency backup generators are included in the operational air quality and GHG analysis of the Project.

A5-8 The commenter notes that diesel powered fire pumps must be tested on a weekly basis for a minimum of 30 minutes. Conservatively, the analysis for this Project assumed that diesel generators would operate for one hour every week and included those emissions in Table 4.2-9 of the Air Quality Section and Table 4.7-3 of the GHG Section of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR analysis conservatively overestimates the contribution from stationary diesel emissions sources by assuming one hour of testing rather than 30 minutes of testing.

A5-9 The commenter notes that health risk impacts are based on emissions generated by construction equipment, mobile sources, off -road equipment, and emergency backup generators within the site and suggests that the analysis needs to include emissions from vehicles travelin g on roadways. However, the commenter is incorrect in assuming mobile sources are only analyzed on site. As shown on page 4 of the Health Risk Assessment Appendix A, located in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, offsite truck routes analyzed include Ethanac Road, Evans Road, and Barnett Road.

The commenter also suggests identifying impacts to residents north of Ethanac Road. The Health Risk Assessment includes health risk results for receptors up to 722 feet north of the Ethanac Road centerline. As identified in Table 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, the maximum cancer risk with mitigation is 1.73 in one million which is below SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

A5-10 Refer to Response A5-4 and A5-5.

A5-11 Refer to Response A5-4 and A5-5.

A5-12 This comment contends that the Project’s warehouse use is not compatible with the GVSP and residential land uses in the surrounding area. As shown in Draft EIR Table 2 -2 (page 2 -2), the Project site and surrounding area has a land use and zoning designation of Economic Development Corridor-Northen Gateway (EDC -NG), respectively. The ECD -NG designation allows for the development of industrial uses, and therefore the proposed industrial uses are permitted within the site and surrounding area. Regarding the Project’s impacts to the residential land uses located in the City of Perris, the Project will comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which requires 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. As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the Project’s localized emissions during construction and operational Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 261

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
867 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-51
activity would be less than significant wit hout implementation of mitigation measures (pages 4.2-26 through 4.2-28). Additionally, CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 681 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project and less than significant impacts were determined. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.2 -13, the Project’ HRA determined that with implementation of MM GHG-2, impacts concerning carcinogenic risk from Diesel Particulate Matter would be reduced belo w SCAQMD’s maximum cancer risk threshold (pages 4.3-33 and 4.2-34). Lastly, as discussed in the Draft EIR at page 4. 7-25, Ethanac Road is designated as a n expressway in the City of Menifee’s General Plan. As such, trucks utilizing Ethanac Road for access is appropriate.

The commenter also states that it is inappropriate for the Draft EIR to study using Evans Rd., which routes trucks further along Ethanac Road, and that only Barnett Road should be utilized instead.

Ethanac Road is currently designated as a truck route . The Project site is not situated such that Barnett Road alone provides sufficient access, and there is not an existing truck route south of the Project site that can also be used to provide access. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the Project Traffic Study to utilize Ethanac to Evans to access the site. It is also considered a conservative, worst-case scenario because the Draft EIR thus analyzed air quality and transportation impacts on the residences north of Ethanac Road, and air quality and transportation impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation, and less than significant, respectfully . A global Traffic Study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (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. However, that global study has not been completed, and therefore it was not appropriate for the Draft EIR to utilize and speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be designated.

A5-13 Ethanac Road is currently a truck route and is generally a straight and flat road, with good visibility, no visual obstructions, and no sharp curves. As noted in the Project Traffic Study, truck access provided to the Project site would consist of one full -movement truck-accessible driveway on Evans Road and one full -movement truck -accessible driveway on Barnett Road. The implementation of improvements is based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant via the Conditions of Approval process. 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 engineering for the Project. The recommended improvements noted in the Project Traffic Study will further improve safety conditions in the study area and would not create hazards due to geometric design features.

A HRA was prepared for the Project and a s identified in Table 4.2 -13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment of the Draft EIR, the maximum cancer risk with mitigation is 1.73 in one million which is below SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. In addition, cumulative short-term and long- term impacts were analyzed on pages 4.2 -36 and 4.2-37 of the Draft EIR and it was determined that the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 262

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
868 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-52
A5-14 Ethanac Road is currently designated as a truck route, and therefore it was appropriate for the Project Traffic Study to utilize Ethanac to access the site. It is also considered a conservative, worst-case scenario because the Draft EIR thus analyzed air quality and transportation impacts on the residences north of Ethanac Road, and air quality and transportation impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporation, and less than significant, respectfully .

Further, the Project Traffic Study also analyzes both Project-specific and cumulative impacts with the inclusion of Cumulative Project traffic in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Project Traffic Study, as requested by the commenter, includes an area -wide analysis. Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s transportation analysis was supported by substantial evidence. As noted in Response to Comment A5-12, a global Traffic Study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) area and surrounding area, including the possible 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.

However, that global study has not been completed, and therefore it was not appropriate for the Draft EIR to utilize and speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be designated.

A5-15 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, LOS associated with automobile delay no longer constitutes a significant environmental impact , and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of app roval outside of CEQA’s framework. Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided.

Based on the City of Perris LOS Standards and Traffic Criteria for Traffic Studies (not dated), below are the current City of Perris LOS standards and criteria:

Level of Service Standards
The City of Perris has established the following standards regarding minimum acceptable level of service (LOS):
• LOS “D” along all City maintained roads (including intersections) and LOS “D” along I-215 and SR-74 (including intersections with local streets and roads). An exception to the local road standard is LOS “E”, at intersections of any Arterials and Expressways with SR-74, the Ramona- Cajalco Expressway, or at I-215 freeway ramps.
• LOS “E” may be allowed within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan Area to the extent that it would support transit -oriented development and walkable communities.

Increased congestion in this area will facilitate an increase in transit ridership and encourage development of a complementary mix of land uses within a comfortable walking distance from light rail stations.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 263

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
869 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-53
Thresholds of a Traffic Impact
A project would be considered to have a project-related effect based on the following criteria:
• A project-related traffic effect is considered direct when a study intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips causes the intersecti on delay to increase by 2 seconds or more and causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing plus project conditions.
• A project-related traffic effect is considered direct when a study intersection operates at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips causes the intersec tion delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.
• A cumulative effect is considered direct when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable Level of Service without the project and with the addition of 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more and causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service. • A cumulative effect is considered an indirect traffic effect when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and the project contributes 50 or more AM or PM peak hour project trips and causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.

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:

2. Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road (City of Perris)

3. I-215 SB Ramps at Ethanac Road (Caltrans)

4. I-215 NB Ramps at Ethanac Road (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 the Project Traffic Study at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS), would more than offset the Project- related effect, and would address the City of Perris significance criteria. The Project Traffic Study notes that all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS under Existing Plus Project conditions. Therefore, the Project would not cause a direct effect at the study intersections and would not be responsible for constructing recommended improvements.

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 engineering for the Project.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 264

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
870 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-54
A5-16 Detailed truck trip distribution figures are provided in Appendix D of the Traffic Study. As noted in the Project Traffic Study, truck access provided to the Project site would consist of one full - movement truck -accessible driveway on Evans Road and one fu ll-movement truck -accessible driveway on Barnett Road. The Project Traffic Study analyzes a majority of trucks (60%) utilizing Ethanac Road via Evans Road and 40% of trucks using Ethanac Road via Barnett Road.

A5-17 See Response to Comment A5-12.

A5-18 See Response to Comment A5-15.

A5-19 See Response to Comment A5-15.

A5-20 The site plan being referenced in Exhibit 2-7which contained the term “Future Road” has been revised as “Future Private Driveway .” Refer to Section 3.0, Errata to the FEIR for the revised exhibit. This is a future private driveway that would be developed by the Applicant as part of the Project to allow automobiles and trucks to enter Building 1 from Evans Road. Therefore, inclusion of the future driveway was considered as part of the Project’s circulation design. The development of this future private driveway would not affect circulation or distribution of passenger vehicles and trucks on surrounding roadways. Therefore, no additional analysis is needed.

A5-21 The study locations on pages 4 and 5 of the Project Traffic Study have been updated accordingly.

See Response to Comment A5-15 regarding City of Perris impact criteria.

A5-22 A separate signalized intersection typically has its own traffic signal cabinet, which is located on a corner of the intersection to which the signal cabinet is connected to. The traffic signal cabinet assigns phasing, signal timing, and cycle length that direct the operation of the individual traffic signal. In the case of the intersection of Ethanac Road at Barnett Road/Case Road, there is only one traffic signal cabinet located south of Ethanac Road between the two offset legs of the intersection. As such, while the northbound and southbound approaches are offset, the intersection operates as one signalized intersection that has connected phasing, signal timing, and cycle length. As a result, the intersection of Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes.

Ethanac Road is generally a straight and flat road, with good visibility, no visual obstructions, and no sharp curves. Based on the Project Traffic Study, the intersection of Ethanac Road at Barnett Road/Case Road does not decline to an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. A separate queuing analysis was conducted in the Project Traffic Study, which included the westbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Ethanac Road at Barnett Road/Case Road. The queuing analysis noted that the 95th percentile queue for the westbound left-turn pocket at the noted intersection would exceed the queuing capacity of the existing left -turn pocket under Opening Year 2025 Cumulative and Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Based on the queuing analysis, it is recommended in the Project Traffic Study for the westbound left - turn pocket at the intersection of Ethanac Road and Barnett Road/Case Road be extended to 250 feet. It should be noted that the existing left -turn pocket would have adequa te capacity for the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 265

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
871 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-55
95th percentile queue under Existing Plus Project conditions. As such, the project would not have a direct effect on the westbound left-turn pocket.

It should be noted that queuing progression and congestion does not automatically mean there is a safety hazard. As such, for the reasons noted above in this response, there is no evidence that those occurrences will create safety hazards in this case and the City of Perris has not provided any evidence to the contrary.

A5-23 See Response to Comment A5-15.

A5-24 See Response to Comment A5-22.

A5-25 Detailed turning movement percentages at each study intersection for both passenger car and truck Project trips is provided in Appendix D of the Project Traffic Study. Further, as noted in the Project Traffic Study, truck access provided to the Project site would consist of one full-movement truck-accessible driveway on Evans Road and one full -movement truck-accessible driveway on Barnett Road. The Project Traffic Study analyzes a majority of trucks (60%) utilizing Ethanac Road via Evans Road and 40% of trucks using Ethanac Road via Barnett Road. Accordingly, the Project Traffic Study clearly sets forth how Project traffic enters/exits the Project site.

A5-26 See Response to Comment A5-15.

A5-27 The Traffic Scoping Agreement includ ed a list of Cumulative Projects (including development projects within the City of Perris). The City of Perris provided a NOP Comment dated July 20, 2023, which include comments regarding Transportation, but did not provide comments with regards to Cumulative Projects within the City of Perris to be included as part of the Traffic Study.

A5-28 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, LOS associated with automobile delay no longer constitutes a significant environmental impact , and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of app roval outside of CEQA’s framework. Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided.

The intersection of Barnett Road/Case Road at Ethanac Road operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. The "right turn on red" volume in the traffic model for the study intersection was zero (0) on all approaches as a worst-case scenario. Based on the Project Traffic Study, the intersection would operate at an acceptable Level of Service with the addition of Project traffic. Therefore, no recommended improvements are required for the Project.

A5-29 Refer to Response to Comment A5-22. No further response is warranted.

A5-30 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. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for inf ormational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 266

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
872 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-56
outside of CEQA’s framework. Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided.

The Project Traffic Study only provides recommended improvements to study intersections and roadway segments that would cause the deficient study locations to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) and would more than offset the Project-related effect. The implementation of improvements is based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant via the Conditions of Approval process. 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 engineering for the Project. The developer/property owner shall pay fair share costs for off-site improvements as detailed in the Project Traffic Study prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

A5-31 Refer to Response to Comment A5-22. No further response is warranted.

A5-32 Ethanac Road is generally a straight and flat road, with good visibility, no visual obstructions, and no sharp curves. It should be noted that queuing progression and congestion does not automatically mean there is a safety hazard. As such, there is no evidence that those occurrences will create safety hazards in this case and the City of Perris has not provided any evidence to the contrary.

The Project will be contributing a fair-share payment per Condition of Approval #135. It should be noted that the Ethanac Road/I-215 interchange has been identified as a Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) project. Therefore, the Project's payment of TUMF fees will cover additional costs to TUMF projects, such as the Ethanac Road/I-215 interchange. Nevertheless, the recommended improvements to deficient s tudy locations are to address automobile delay, which are no longer CEQA impacts and therefore, not required improvements to mitigate CEQA-related impacts.

A5-33 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, LOS associated with automobile delay no longer constitutes a significant environmental impact , and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of app roval outside of CEQA’s framework. Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided.

Implementation of dual left-turn lanes would require two receiving lanes for the left turns exiting the intersection, which may not be feasible for all applicable roadways, consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element.

A5-34 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. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for inf ormational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 267

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
873 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-57
outside of CEQA’s framework. Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided.

A5-35 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. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. Notwithstanding that this comment raises issues outside the scope of CEQA, the following response is provided. The Project will construct the ultimate half -width cross-section of Evans Road and Barnett Road along the project frontage, consist ent with City of Menifee Road Improvement Standards and Specifications (Design Standards, 2019). Also, site access, including curb radii, driveway width, and truck turn design, will be designed consistent with City Design Standards to provide adequate mane uvering and queuing space for trucks/trailers on-site, as well as at the intersection of project driveways and adjacent streets. A copy of the project site plan with applicable truck-turning templates is provided as an attachment to this FEIR. As shown in the truck-turning templates, driveways, truck turning would be sufficient at a 45-foot radius and the Project is subject to the following condition:

Condition #115. 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. As outlined in the following conditions, medians may be required to restrict turning movements for public safety purposes as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

As noted in discussion in page 4.13-19 of the Draft EIR, in compliance with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) access requirement, adequate emergency access would be provided by the Project. It should be noted that the roadways serving the project site are generally straight and flat. The project driveways have been designed so that adequate sight distance for drivers entering and exiting the site is maintained. Based on the items noted in this response and Section 4.13.5 of the Draft EIR, the Project would improve sight distance and safety conditions in the area and would not create hazards due to geometric design features.

A5-36 The City has noted that the Commenter could potentially provide additional comments on the environmental topics analyzed in the Draft EIR. The City has provided responses to the comments made in this letter submitted during the public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21091. Any additional comment letters submitted after the close of the public review period would be noted, but please note that responses to any late comment letters are not required under CEQA. Additionally, the City wi ll provide all future notices of the Project to the Commenter. No further response is warranted.

A5-37 This comment includes conclusionary statements and therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 268

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
874 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-58

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 269

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
875 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-59
Comment Letter O1 - Radical Research, LLC
Mike McCarthy, Ph.D.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 270

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
876 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-60

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 271

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
877 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-61
Response to Comment Letter O1 - Radical Research, LLC
Mike McCarthy, Ph.D.

O1-1 Refer to the Response to Comment below O1-2.

O1-2 As stated in the response to the commenter, the link provided by the comment er showed this Project and the “Northern Gateway Commerce Center” project proposed west of Evans Road .

Both projects have different APNs and project applicants.

O1-3 This comment includes an introduction and general concern of the Project. No further response is warranted.

O1-4 Refer to Response to Comment O1-2 for explanation of the commenter’s concern on the Project name, applicant, and state clearing house number issue.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 272

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
878 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-62

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 273

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
879 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-63
Comment Letter O2 - SAFER, c/o Lozeau Drury, LLP
Kylah Staley

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 274

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
880 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-64

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 275

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
881 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-65
Response to Comment Letter O2 - SAFER, c/o Lozeau Drury, LLP Kylah Staley
O2-1 This comment includes introductory statements and a brief summary of the Project’s description.

O2-2 The Commenter stated that the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impact without stating any specific alleged deficiencies with the Draft EIR or providing any evidence that supplements these claims.

Therefore, no further response is warranted.

O2-3 The City has noted that the Commenter could potentially provide additional comments on the environmental topic analyzed in the Draft EIR. The City has provided responses to the comments made in this letter , submitted during the public review period , pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21091. Any additional comment letters submitted after the close of the public review period would be noted, but please note that responses to any late comment letters are not required under CEQA.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 276

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
882 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-66

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 277

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
883 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-67
Comment Letter O3 - Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, c/o Blum, Collins & Ho LLP Gary Ho

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 278

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
884 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-68

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 279

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
885 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-69

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 280

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
886 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-70

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 281

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
887 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-71

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 282

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
888 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-72

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 283

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
889 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-73

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 284

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
890 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-74

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 285

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
891 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-75

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 286

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
892 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-76

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 287

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
893 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-77

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 288

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
894 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-78

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 289

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
895 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-79

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 290

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
896 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-80

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 291

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
897 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-81

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 292

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
898 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-82

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 293

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
899 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-83

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 294

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
900 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-84

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 295

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
901 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-85

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 296

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
902 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-86

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 297

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
903 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-87

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 298

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
904 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-88

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 299

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
905 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-89

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 300

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
906 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-90

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 301

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
907 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-91

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 302

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
908 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-92

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 303

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
909 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-93

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 304

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
910 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-94

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 305

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
911 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-95

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 306

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
912 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-96

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 307

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
913 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-97
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 308

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
914 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-98
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 309

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
915 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-99
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 310

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
916 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-100
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 311

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
917 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-101
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 312

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
918 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-102
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 313

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
919 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-103
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 314

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
920 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-104
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 315

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
921 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-105
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 316

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
922 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-106
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 317

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
923 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-107
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 318

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
924 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-108
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 319

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
925 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-109
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 320

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
926 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-110
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 321

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
927 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-111
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 322

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
928 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-112
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 323

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
929 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-113
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 324

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
930 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-114
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 325

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
931 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-115
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 326

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
932 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-116
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 327

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
933 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-117
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 328

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
934 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-118
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 329

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
935 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-119
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 330

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
936 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-120
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 331

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
937 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-121
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 332

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
938 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-122
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 333

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
939 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-123
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 334

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
940 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-124
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 335

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
941 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-125
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 336

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
942 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-126
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 337

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
943 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-127
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 338

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
944 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-128
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 339

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
945 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-129
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 340

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
946 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-130
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 341

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
947 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-131
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 342

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
948 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-132
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 343

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
949 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-133
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 344

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
950 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-134
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 345

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
951 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-135
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 346

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
952 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-136
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 347

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
953 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-137
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 348

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
954 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-138
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 349

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
955 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-139
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 350

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
956 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-140
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 351

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
957 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-141
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 352

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
958 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-142
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 353

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
959 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-143
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 354

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
960 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-144
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 355

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
961 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-145
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 356

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
962 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-146
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 357

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
963 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-147
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 358

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
964 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-148
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 359

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
965 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-149
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 360

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
966 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-150
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 361

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
967 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-151
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 362

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
968 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-152
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 363

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
969 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-153
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 364

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
970 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-154
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 365

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
971 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-155
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 366

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
972 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-156
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 367

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
973 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-157
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 368

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
974 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-158
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 369

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
975 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-159
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 370

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
976 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-160
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 371

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
977 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-161
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 372

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
978 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-162
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 373

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
979 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-163
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 374

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
980 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-164
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 375

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
981 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-165
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 376

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
982 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-166
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 377

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
983 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-167
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 378

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
984 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-168
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 379

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
985 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-169
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 380

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
986 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-170
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 381

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
987 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-171
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 382

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
988 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-172
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 383

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
989 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-173
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 384

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
990 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-174
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 385

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
991 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-175
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 386

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
992 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-176
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 387

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
993 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-177
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 388

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
994 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-178
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 389

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
995 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-179
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 390

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
996 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-180
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 391

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
997 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-181
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 392

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
998 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-182
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 393

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
999 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-183
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 394

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1000 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-184
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 395

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1001 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-185
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 396

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1002 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-186
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 397

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1003 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-187
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 398

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1004 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-188
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 399

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1005 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-189

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 400

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1006 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-190

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 401

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1007 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-191

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 402

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1008 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-192

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 403

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1009 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-193

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 404

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1010 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-194

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 405

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1011 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-195

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 406

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1012 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-196

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 407

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1013 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-197

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 408

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1014 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-198

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 409

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1015 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-199

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 410

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1016 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-200

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 411

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1017 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-201

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 412

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1018 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-202

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 413

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1019 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-203

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 414

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1020 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-204

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 415

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1021 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-205

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 416

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1022 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-206

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 417

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1023 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-207

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 418

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1024 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-208

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 419

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1025 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-209

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 420

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1026 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-210

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 421

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1027 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-211
Response to Comment Letter O3 - Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, c/o Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Gary Ho
O3-1 This comment includes introductory statements and a request to be added to the public interest list. As requested, the City has added the Commenter and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance to the Project’s public interest list. No further response is warranted.

O3-2 This comment includes a summary of the Project’s description. No further response is warranted.

O3-3 A floor plan, detailed elevations, and conceptual grading plan are included in the Project’s Planning Application. The colored elevations in the EIR depict the conceptual building based on the detailed elevations submitted during the planning application p rocess. A floor plan and detailed elevations were not included in the Draft EIR, nor are they required to be included, since it is not necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Draft EIR to provide information of the Project’s environmental impacts caus ed during construction and operations of the Project. Draft EIR Section 2.0 , Project Description pages 2-3 and 2 -4 sets forth the Project’s height, floor area, parking spaces, and other detailed Project information, including a Project narrative. Lastly, a legend depicting the Project information is already provided in Draft EIR Exhibit 2 -5, Overall Site Plan so the legend was not reiterated in Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7.

O3-4 Refer to Section 3.0 , Errata to the Draft EIR of this FEIR that includes new Exhibit 4.15-1, Conceptual Utility Plan that illustrates the relocation of the underground flood channel (Line A-8) north of Building 2, and supplemental text that clearly explains the relocation of Line A -8.

Additionally, the relocation of Line A-8 would occur within the Project site and is therefore not an off-site utility improvement. Off-site improvements incorporated in to the analysis include improvements to Evans Road and Barnett Road. Therefore, all improvements, both on -site and off-site, have been incorporated into the air quality, GHG, and noise analysis for the Project.

O3-5 Pursuant to the comment, Exhibits 2-11 through 2-13, depicting the Project’s conceptual grading were created and have been provided in Section 3.0 of this FEIR. Additionally, the Draft EIR Section 2.0 already includes the Project’s projected earthwork (page 2-4).

O3-6 As discussed in Response to Comment O3 -4, information regarding the relocation of the underground flood channel (Line A -8). The corrected reference is provided in Section 3.0 of this FEIR. Additionally, refer to Response to Comment O3-3 for information regarding floor plans, site plan, and elevations. Lastly, the relocation of Line A -8 was factored in the earthwork quantities, as illustrated in Exhibit 2-11.

O3-7 The Commenter states that the list of off-site improvements does not provide sufficient details or state the extent the off-site improvements but doesn’t further explain why the off-site discussion is insufficient. The Commenter also incorrectly states that Evans Road from Ethanac Road to McLaughlin Road needs to be constructed in order to serve the Project. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.0 pages 2-3 and 2 -4, the Project’s proposed off -site improvements under Evans Road includes but is not limited to asphalt concrete pavement at the Project frontage. While the Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 422

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1028 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-212
site is described as 20.17 acres of land on page 2 -3 of the Draft EIR, modeling for the Project included 22.35 acres in order to cover all off -site improvements. As a result, all improvements, both on-site and off-site, have been incorporated in the air quality, GHG, and noise analysis of the Project. Further, refer to FEIR Exhibit O3-1: Truck Turning below that illustrates which portions of Evans Road would be improved to allow trucks to enter the site.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 423

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1029 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-213

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 424

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1030 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-214

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 425

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1031 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-215
O3-8 The incorrect reference of future private driveway as “A Street” in the Draft EIR Project Description has been revised, including revisions to Draft EIR Exhibit 2-7 (refer to Section 3.0 of this FEIR). The future driveway is located within the Project site boundaries and is not considered an off -site improvement. Additionally, the relocated underground flood channel , currently traversing the southern portion of the Project site, would be relocated within the Project site and is not considered an off-site improvement. Therefore, all improvements, both on-site and off-site, have been incorporated into the air quality, GHG, and noise analysis for the Project. Refer to Section 3.0 of this FEIR for further information regarding the underground flood channel and Responses to Comments O3-3 through O3-5.

O3-9 The commenter refers to an attachment from SWAPE. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.

O3-10 The commenter suggests the Draft EIR does not include relevant environmental justice issues , including cumulative impacts. The commenter cites to several statistics from CalEnviroScreen regarding ozone, PM 2.5, and traffic in the Project’s census tract . As discussed in Appendix B2 (Health Risk Assessment), CalEnviroScreen and the environmental justice factors are disclosed on pages 11 -12. CEQA does not require consideration of potential implications to environmental justice or socioeconomics as a specific resource, further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, as discussed within the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Localized air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, even if the topic of environmental justice was a required topic within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, there would not be impacts to local residents as a result of approval of the proposed Project. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration. Because the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted.

O3-11 The comment provides demographic data. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration.

O3-12 The commenter states that the census tract adjacent to the Project site is identified as a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community. 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.” These funds must be used fo r programs that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 535 does not include project -specific requirements or prohibit developments in proximity to the designated communities. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft E IR or raise any other CEQA issue. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 426

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1032 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-216
O3-13 The commenter states that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved Title 24 compliance energy modeling software. With specific regard to the use of CalEEMod for the purposes of modeling energy consumption, the Lead Agency has historically and successfully employed CalEEMod for this purpose. Further, the SCAQMD, the expert commenting agency for air quality considerations, endorses use of CalEEMod 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 operational from a variety of land use projects.” Through the use of CalEEMod, SCAQMD integrates air quality and energy impact analyses. 5 To ensure consistency of and accuracy of analyses in support of SCAQMD policies, the Lead Agency has determined that CalEEMod is appropriate for CEQA modeling of both air quality impacts and energy consumption.

The energy modeling protocols cited by the commenter (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) are used for the performance approach (energy budget) method for demonstrating compliance with the Title 24 Energy Standards. The analysis in EIR Section 4.5 discloses the amount of energy that the Project would require and is not intended or required to demonstrate compliance for Title 24 energy standard performance.

Additionally, the EIR discloses the Project’s electricity consumption and transportation fuel consumption and determined that the Project’s energy consumption would not be inefficient or wasteful as the Project will be required to comply with the Title 24 Nonresidential Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards published by the CEC, which contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use. Therefore, the Project used the appropriate model to calculate and disclose the Project’s energy use, and also demonstrated that the Project would be required to comply with 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency and CALGreen Standards. The findings and conclusions of the EIR are not affected; no revisions are necessary.

O3-14 Refer to Response O3-13.

O3-15 The commenter reports that without mitigation, the Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the GHG threshold and that MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 are required to reduce emissions to less than significant. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.

O3-16 The commenter repeats the requirements of MM GHG-1 and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.

O3-17 The commenter repeats the requirements of MM GHG-2 and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.

5 https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 427

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1033 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-217
O3-18 It is the commenters opinion that MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 will not result in GHG emission reductions. GHG emissions for the Project were modeled using CalEEMod 2022. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The unmitigated emissions for the Project includes equipment and/or appliances typically associated with a warehouse project of this size. MM GHG-1 prohibits the installation of natural gas lines, as a result the Project would not generate any emissions associated with natural gas, hence Table 4.7-3 shows 0 (zero) emissions from “energy -natural gas” under the mitigated column. MM-GHG-2 requires all cargo handling equipment to be powered by electricity or other alternative fuels. As a result, emissions from diesel powered forklifts and yard trucks have been reduced from 350 MTCO2e to 79 MTCO2e per year under the mitigated column. MM GHG-1 and MM GHG-2 include clear performance standards and enforcement mechanisms (e.g., the Project Applicant must provide evidence to the City prior to issuance of building or occupancy permits) for the City to verify that the analyzed reductions will be achieved. The EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will ensure that these mitigation measures are implemented and enforced.

O3-19 The commenter notes that the Project is a speculative warehouse and the need for cargo handling equipment is unknown, however based on the size of the buildings it can be assumed that some form of cargo handling equipment will be needed . The estimated number of cargo handling equipment modeled for the Project was calculated based on the size of the warehouse using the formulas identified in the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results . Using this metho dology, the analysis conservatively assumed the Project would employ eight diesel forklifts and one diesel yard truck. However, regardless of the number, MM GHG-2 would require all cargo handling equipment used on site to be electric or use alternative fuels, resulting in reduced emissions. Although the proposed warehouses are speculative, any future occupant would be required to use zero emission cargo handling equipment, if such equipment is necessary. This measure is tie d to the issuance of occupancy permits and would be verified by the City. Future tenants would not be permitted to occupy the Project site unless compliance with the mitigation can be demonstrated.

O3-20 Refer to Response to Comments O3-18 and O3-19. The comment incorrectly concludes that the mitigation cannot be assured. As described above, the mitigation measures have clear performance standards and are tied to issuance of City building and occupancy permits.

Therefore, the City has a mechanism to verify the measures are incorporated.

O3-21 After review of the Perris Valley ALUCP Compatibility Map, correct reference to the Project site being within the Perris Valley Airport ALUCP Compatibility Zone E has been made in Section 3.0 of this FEIR. Please note that this correction does not change the Draft EIR’s significance conclusion of “less than significant impact” concerning the Project resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

O3-22 Information regarding ALCU information for Perris Valley ALUCP has been added in Section 3.0 of this FEIR. However, the Commenter incorrectly references that the EIR does not provide any Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 428

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1034 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-218
analysis or information regarding regulations and requirements within influence area Zone E of the Perris Valley or March Air Reserve Base (MARB) ALUCPs. As stated in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials page 4.8-27, the Project contains a condition of approval (COA HAZ-1) in consistency with MARB and Perris Valley ALUCP requirements. Furthermore, since the Project is within Zone E of the Perris Valley and MARB ALUCP, and does not propose any legislative action (e.g., general plan amendmen t or zone change), review by Riverside County ALUC is not required, and can be conducted by the City. Therefore, the sentence from the Draft EIR that states, “All new development would be in accordance with the Compatibility Zone E and all state, county, and local goals, policies, and regulations” indicates that the Project would be developed in accordance with relevant City regulations and design guidelines to minimize safety hazards and noise impacts during the Project’s construction and operational phase s Therefore, no further analysis is required as impacts would remain less than significant with addition of the Perris Valley ALUCP discussion.

O3-23 Exhibit LU -4 also states in the Notes section that citywide build -out levels historically do not achieve the maximum allowable density/intensity on every parcel, and on average are lower than allowed by the Menifee GP. However, the build -out estimates in t he Menifee GP assume variations in the build -out intensity. Therefore, if based on the average, as it states, in some instances the FAR will be higher than the 0.40 FAR, which offsets projects that might be over the FAR. In addition, the GP allows fo r a maximum of 1.0 FAR. Additionally, pursuant to Menifee GP FEIR, land assumptions were not site specific, and the EDC land use designation was generally envisioned for a mixture of residential, commercial, office, industrial, entertainment, educational, recreational uses, and/or other uses. Accordingly, the Project is not inconsistent with the GP buildout scenario, RTP/SCS and AQMP.

O3-24 The Commenter states that the Project, due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence, is not consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goals 5 through 7. The air quality and greenhouse gas emissions have been modeled in CalEEMod using the approved methodology identified in the CalEEmod User Handbook . The commenter suggests there are errors in the modeling but does not identify them. The commenter also suggests that the Project is inconsistent with RTP/SCS Goals 5, 6, and 7 but provides no evidence. All air quality and greenhouse gas impacts identified in the Draft EIR have been reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Draft EIR presents substantial evidence that the Project is consistent with RTP/SCS Goals 5,6, and 7. The Draft EIR has determined that Project is consistent with all applicable RTP/SCS goals as shown in Table 4.7-4 of the Draft EIR.

O3-25 The City respectfully disagrees that the Draft EIR does not provide a consistency analysis with applicable goals, policies, and regulations for the Project. Goal S-7 and Policy S-7.1 refer to climate change and GHG emissions. Consistent with Goal S-7 and Policy S-7.1 a GHG Emissions Assessment was prepared to identify and inform the City of GHG impacts. Policy EJ-3.6 refers to continuing to collaborate with SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and WRCOG that would be conducted by the City, and therefore not Project-specific. The commenter does not state how the Draft EIR is not consistent with Policy C -5.3. The Project would comply with Goal OSC -10 since the Project includes Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 429

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1035 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-219
implementation of MMs GHG -1 and GHG-2 and compliance with local, state, or federal regulations or laws to reduce mitigation GHG emissions to less than significant levels. Pursuant to Policy OSC -10.1, the Draft EIR page 4.7 -256 includes a discussion regarding the Project’s consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. Policies OCS-10.2 through OCS-10.3 would also be conducted by the City, and not by the Project applicant.

The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR does not show consistency with the City of Menifee General Plan. However, all applicable goals and policies in the General Plan are discussed on pages 4.7-23 and 4.7-24 of the Draft EIR. The commenter then lists goals and policies from the General Plan that are either not applicable or have already been discussed in the Draft EIR.

1. Goal S -7: This goal is relevant to city planning and is beyond the scope of the Project.

Therefore, this goal is not applicable to the Project. However, development of the Project would not conflict with this Goal because all impacts associated with air quality and GHG, including those associated with health risk and sensitive receptors, have been reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

2. Policy S-7.1: This is a policy relevant to city planning and is beyond the scope of the Project.

Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the Project. However, the preparation of the Draft EIR provides the environmental analysis the City seeks to achieve by implementing Policy S-7.1.

3. Policy EJ-3.6: This is a policy relevant to city planning and is beyond the scope of the Project.

Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the Project. However, development of the Project would not conflict with this policy.

4. Policy C-5.3: This is a policy relevant to city planning and is beyond the scope of the Project.

Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the Project. However, the Project will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including those that will reduce/eliminate the negative environmental impacts of goods movement.

5. Goal OSC-10: This goal is relevant to city planning and is beyond the scope of the Project.

Therefore, this goal is not applicable to the Project. However, development of the Project would not conflict with this goal.

6. Policy OSC-10.1: Consistent, refer to page 4.7-23 of the Draft EIR.

7. Policy OSC-10.2: Consistent, refer to page 4.7-24 of the Draft EIR.

8. Policy OSC-10.3: Consistent, refer to page 4.7-24 of the Draft EIR.

9. Policy OSC-10.4: Consistent, refer to page 4.7-24 of the Draft EIR.

10. Policy C-5.3: Refer to number 4 of this list.

O3-26 The commenter summarize s an excerpt from the Project Traffic Impact Analysis that recommended improvements for various deficient intersections, but the comment does not raise Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 430

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1036 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-220
any deficiencies with the analysis or conclusions. Comment has been noted, and no further response is warranted.

O3-27 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, LOS associated with automobile delay no longer constitutes a significant environmental impact , and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning these proposed improvements was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. 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 Pla n. All roadway improvements associated with the 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.

O3-28 See Response to Comment O3-26.

O3-29 See Response to Comment O3-27.

O3-30 Based on the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (page 4), “’vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project,” where automobile refers to passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. VMT generated from trucks are not considered in the VMT impact assessment based on the OPR Technical Advisory. The proposed facility does not anticipate delivery van trips. However, if the Project were to implement deliver y vans, it would likely result in a net decrease in regional VMT, as these projects are strategically located near delivery points, thereby reducing trip lengths by providing additional regional warehouses.

O3-31 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 as sociated with the Project, including Project driveways and emergency access, would be consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element and the City of Menifee Road Improvement Standards and Specifications (Design Standards, 2019 ). Site access, including curb radii, driveway width, and truck turn design, will be designed consistent with City Design Standards to provide adequate maneuvering and queuing space for trucks/trailers on-site, as well as at the intersection of project driveways and adjacent streets. A copy of the project site plan with applicable truck -turning templates is provided as an attachment to this FEIR. As shown in the truck -turning templates, driveways, truck turning would be sufficient at a 45 -foot radius and the Project is subject to the following condition:

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 431

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1037 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-221
Condition #115. 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. As outlined in the following conditions, medians may be required to restrict turning movements for public safety purposes as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

As noted in discussion in page 4.13-19 of the Draft EIR, in compliance with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) access requirement, adequate emergency access would be provided by the Project. It should be noted that the roadways serving the project site are generally straight and flat. The project driveways have been designed so that adequate sight distance for drivers entering and exiting the site is maintained. Based on the items noted in this response and page 4.13.19 of the Draft EIR, the Project wo uld improve sight distance and safety conditions in the area and would not create hazards due to geometric design features.

O3-32 See Response to Comment O3-31. No further response is warranted.

O3-33 All roadway improvements associated with the Project, including Project driveways and emergency access, would be consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element and the City of Menifee Road Improvement Standards and Specifications (Design Standards, 2019) As noted in the discussion on page 4.13-19 of the Draft EIR, in compliance with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) access requirement, adequate emergency access would be provided by the Project. It should be noted that the roadways serving the project site are generally straight and flat. The project driveways have been designed so that adequate sight distance for drivers entering and exiting the site is maintained. Based on the items noted in this response and Section 4.13.19 of the Draft EIR, the Project would improve sight distance and safety conditions in the area and would not create hazards due to geometric design features.

O3-34 The roadways serving the Project site are generally straight and flat, with no visual obstructions.

Therefore, there is no evidence that driver visibility will be inadequate and the commenter has not provided evidence otherwise. Accordingly, no further analysis of sight distance is warranted.

O3-35 Refer to Response to Comment O3-13 above.

O3-36 Refer to Response to Comment O3-23 above.

O3-37 The City respectfully disagrees that the Draft EIR does not include a meaningful discussion of potential growth inducing impacts. Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address the “growth inducing” effects of the Project. Pursuant to § 15126.2(d) of the Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing;
• Remove obstacles to population growth;
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 432

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1038 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-222
• Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

As discussed in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, Other CEQA Consideration s, the Project would not induce employment growth projected in SCAG’s Connect SoCal . Utilizing SCAGs Employment Density Study 1 employee per square feet per employee (581 for warehousing; 481 for Office) in Riverside County , the Project could potentially create approximately 6 92 permanent job opportunities. This would represent 4.5 percent of employment growth. The Project’s proposed uses are consistent with the E conomic Development Corr idor – Northern Gateway land use designation which accounted for warehouse development. For the reasons discussed in the Draft EIR Section 5.0 , the Project’s employee base is expected to come from within the city or immediately surrounding region and would not require new housing; would have no effect on stimulating population growth; and provides sufficient infrastructure to meet its needs concurrent with development. Lastly, data from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found that approximately 13 percent of Americans move ea ch year, and of those 21 percent move for job-related reasons. 13 percent of 692 is 90 people and 21 percent of 90 people is approximately 19 people. Therefore, the Project could potentially generate approximately 19 new residents in the City Menifee which represents approximately 0.07 percent of the City’s population growth forecast of 129,800 people by 2045.

O3-38 This is a direct quote from Draft EIR Section 7.4 -1. No further comments were made here and therefore, no further response is warranted.

O3-39 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 term local area encompasses the City, unincorporated County area, and surrounding communities, such as Perris and Murrieta due to a high unemployment rate, currently at 5.7 percent for the City of Menifee, and 5.2 percent for the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Project’s potential employment opportunities would provide much needed employment within the City and support the City’s pursuit in a more balanced jobs -housing ratio. The Project VMT Analysis was conducted consistent with the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT Guidelines, January 2022). The Project VMT Analysis concluded that the Project’s Employment -Based VMT does not exceed the City’s VMT threshold and that the project would have a less-than=significant VMT impact.

O3-40 The Comment provides no supporting evidence of how a qualified or interested workforce versus an unqualified workforce would impact VMT, and therefore a calculation of longer worker trips is not warranted. Additionally, the commenter does not provide any supporting evidence that an unemployment rate below 5 percent is considered full employment.

O3-41 Refer to Section 3.0 of this FEIR for information regarding the Project’s potential employment growth.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 433

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1039 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-223
O3-42 Refer to Response to Comment O3 -41 above. Additionally, the comment mistakenly references this document as a mitigated negative declaration, and states that an EIR must prepared. This comment is not applicable to this project.

O3-43 The Commenter fails to specify why the sentence provided by the commenter needs to be deleted. Draft EIR Sections 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems go in depth about the potential utility infrastructure that would be needed to service the Project. As discussed in Response to Comment O3-8, the reference to “Street A” has been corrected. Additionally refer to Section 3.0 of the FEIR for a conceptual utility figure that depicts proposed on- and off -site utility impr ovements. Lastly, the commenter incorrectly states that “50% 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 ” without pointing to this reference in the Draft EIR.

Draft EIR Section 7.0 states multiple times that the Project is located in a partially developed portion of the City which is accurate Lastly, the Project is located between Evans Road which is a dirt road that can currently be used to access the Project site, and Barnett Road that is currently developed.

O3-44 Refer to Response to Comment O3-37.

O3-45 This comment includes conclusionary statements, and therefore no further response is warranted.

O3-46 This comment is noted for the record and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration. However, response s to comments for further information regarding the commenter’s comments regarding AQ, GHG, Hazards and Hazardous Materials , and transportation are provided in Response to Comments O3-4, O3-7 through O3-20, O3-24 through O3-25, O3-26 through O3-34, and O3-39. Refer to those responses for more further details.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 434

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1040 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-224

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 435

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1041 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-225
Comment Letter T1 - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Luz Salazar, Cultural Resources Analyst

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 436

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1042 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-226

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 437

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1043 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-227

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 438

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1044 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-228

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 439

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1045 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-229
Response to Comment Letter T1 - Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Luz Salazar, Cultural Resources Analyst
T1-1 This comment includes introductory and conclusion statements and refers the City to review comments made on the Draft EIR. Please review the following respons es to the comments for further discussion.

T1-2 The comment stating that a “Tribal monitor needs to be present during off -site improvements” has been noted. COA-CUL-4 and COA-CUL-5 already require that a tribal monitor be present “on- site” or in person during all ground -disturbing activities ground disturbing activities within the Project site, and off-site improvement locations.

T1-3 The correct reference to spelling of “Pechanga” has been noted and corrected in Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft EIR of this FEIR.

TI-4 The Commenter is incorrectly referencing this COA by stating that all cultural resources are significant. The term “unique archeological resource" is defined in subdivision (g) of CEQA Guidelines Section 21083.2 as an archaeological artifact, object, or si te about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Therefore, this COA will be implemented to specifically address impacts to unique archeological resources defined by CEQA, and is not intended to devalue the significance of nonunique cultural resources.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 440

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1046 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-230

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 441

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1047 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-231
Comment Letter P1 - Breanna Harwood

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 442

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1048 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-232

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 443

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1049 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-233
Response to Comment Letter P1 - Breanna Harwood
P1-1 This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and no further response is needed.

P1-2 The Commenter’s concerns regarding the Project’s impacts on aesthetic, air quality, health risk, biological resources, hazards materials, traffic congestion and noise pollution have been noted for the record, but this comment did not provide substantive evidence regarding the inadequacy of the aforementioned environmental topics analyses discussed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, home property values are not considered a CEQA issue, but this has also been noted for the record.

An air quality assessment and health risk assessment were both prepared to analyze health impacts associated with emissions from the Project.
• Construction Emissions. As shown in Table 4.2 -8: Construction Related Emissions and Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, all emissions generated during construction of the Project are below SCAQMD’s construction thresholds. • Operational Emissions. As shown in Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions and Table 4.2 -12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions of the Draft EIR, all operational emissions are below SCAQMD’s operational thresholds. • Health Risk. With the incorporation of MM GHG -2, which requires all cargo handling equipment operating onsite to be electric or powered by alternative fuels, the cancer risk and chronic non-carcinogenic health impacts will be reduced below SCAQMD threshold levels as shown in Tables 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment and Table 4.2-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR also analyzed the impacts of noise on the surrounding sensitive receptors. • Construction Noise. As shown in Table 4.11 -8: Project Construction Noise Levels of the Draft EIR, construction noise at the nearest sensitive receptor would not exceed the applicable noise threshold.
• Operational Noise. Operational noise levels, both daytime and nighttime, are below the applicable City noise standard as shown in Table 4.11-9: Project Operational Noise Levels of the Draft EIR. The operational noise analysis included noise generated from mechanical equipment, on-site traffic, and parking lot noise.
• Offsite Traffic Noise. Roadway noise was also analyzed and shown in Table 4.11 -10:

Project Traffic Noise Levels of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4.11-10, traffic noise levels would be less than significant.

The Draft EIR also analyzed impacts related to Aesthetics.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 444

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1050 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-234
• Construction and Operations. Construction and operation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning scenic vistas, and light and glare. No impacts from a CEQA perspective would occur concerning the confliction with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

The Draft EIR also analyzed impacts related to the burrowing owl species. • Construction. As discussed further in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, despite a systemic search of the Project site, no burrowing owls or sign (pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed on or within 500 feet, where accessible, of the Project site during the field investigation. However, based on a review of CDFW’s CNDDB, 22 burrowing owl observations have been recorded within five miles of the Project site in previous years. Therefore, the Project would implement MM BIO-2 which would require the Project Applicant would retain a qualified biologist to conduct a 30 -day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. With implementation of MM BIO -2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR pages 4.3-14 through 4.3-16) The Draft EIR also analyzed impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. • Construction and Operation. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project would implement MM HAZ -1 to e nsure proper handling of contaminated soils and substances which may be encountered during construction activities. Additionally, compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous mat erials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts during both construction and operations.

Concerning traffic congestion, 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. The analysis included in the Draft EIR concerning LOS was provided for inf ormational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework.

P1-3 The Commenter’s opposition to the Project has been noted for the record. Per the Commenter’s request, the City will send the Commenter a public notice during distribution, prior to certification of this Final EIR.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 445

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1051 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-235
Comment Letter P2 – Jose Marquez

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 446

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1052 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-236

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 447

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1053 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-237
Response to Comment Letter P2 – Jose Marquez
P2-1 The Economic Development Corridor designation including the subarea Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway that the Project is located in was approved as part of the adopted Menifee GP. Pursuant to the Menifee Development Code, the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway area is envisioned as a business park area with more intensive industrial uses (less office) and a buffer and transition between the commercial uses in Perris to the north and the residential uses in Menifee, south of McLaughlin Road . Therefore, the Project’s proposed industrial uses are consistent with current land use and zoning designations. The Draft EIR prepared for this Project include s an analysis of the Project’s impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, health risk assessment, biological resources, noise, and transportation. No significant unavoidable impacts were identified, but the City advises that the commenter read through the Draft EIR for further information.

P2-1 The Commenter’s opposition to the Project has been noted for the record. Per the Commenter’s request, the City will send the Commenter a public notice during distribution, prior to certification of this Final EIR.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 448

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1054 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

2.0-238

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 449

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1055 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-1
Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ERRATA
The Draft EIR for the Northern Logistics Center Project dated May 2024 , is hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Final EIR. Changes to the Draft EIR are further detailed below.

The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document, and instead represent changes to the Draft EIR that provide clarification, amplification and/or insignificant modifications, as needed as a result of public comments on the Draft EIR, or due to additional information received during the public review period. These clarifications and corrections do not warrant Draft EIR recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

None of the changes or information provided in the comments reflect a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted. In addition, the changes do not reflect a fundamentally flawed or conclusory Draft EIR.

Changes to the Draft EIR are listed by Section, page, paragraph, etc. to best guide the reader to the revision. Changes are identified as follows:
• Deletions are indicated by strikeout text.
• Additions are indicated by underlined text.

3.2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR

Associated facilities and improvements of the Project site includes loading dock doors (15 for Building 1; 37 for Building 2), on site landscaping, and related on -site utility improvements and off-site improvements, including the relocation of an underground flood channel approximately 200 feet northerly along the same alignment to avoid conflicts with the proposed utility improvement; refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

The proposed buildings would not include cold storage.

The Project is expected to use tractors, graders, dozers, and scrapers during the grading construction phase; refer to Exhibit 2-11, Conceptual Grading Plan – Building 1, Exhibit 2-12, Conceptual Grading Plan – Building 2 Part 1 , and Exhibit 2 -13, Conceptual Grading Plan – Building 2 Part 2 . As shown in Exhibits 2-11 through 2-13, Tthe Project would require approximately 34,865 Cubic Yards (CYs) of soil cut and 33,346 CYs soil fill resulting in approximately 1,519 CYs of export to balance the site.

New Pages 2-15 through 2-17
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 450

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1056 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-2
Exhibit 2-11, Conceptual Grading Plan – Building 1
Exhibit 2-12, Conceptual Grading Plan – Building 2 Part 1 Exhibit 2-13, Conceptual Grading Plan – Building 2 Part 2

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 451

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1057 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-3

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 452

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1058 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-4

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 453

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1059 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-5

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 454

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1060 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-6

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 455

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1061 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-7

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 456

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1062 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-8

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 457

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1063 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-9

• Storm System: 18” and 24” Reinforced Concrete Pipes (RCP) storm system in A Streetthe future driveway. Installation of 7’ catch basin and five manholes in A Streetthe future driveway.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 458

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1064 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-10

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 459

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1065 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-11

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 460

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1066 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-12

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 461

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1067 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-13

It should be noted that the Project does not include cold storage.

The City conducted tribal consultation in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and has received responses from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and PachangaPechanga Band of Indians.

The entirety of Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of the March Air Reserve Base47 MARB airport land use compatibility plan (ALUCP), but a small portion of the northwestern Project site is also located within Compatibility Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport AL UCP.47 Please note that the portion of the Project site within Perris Valley Airport ALUCP encompasses the proposed northwest driveway only.

All new development would be in accordance with the Compatibility Zone E and all state, county, and local goals, policies, and regulations. Furthermore, the Project does not require review by ALUC because the City is consistent withSince the Project is within compatibility zones E of the Perris Valley and MARB airport land use compatibility plan ( ALUCPs), but does not propose any legislative action (e.g., general plan amendment or zone change), review by R CALUC is not required and can be conducted by the Ci ty.

As discussed throughout this EIR, the Project would be developed in accordance with all state, regional, and local regulations and design standards to minimize noise impacts during the Project’s construction and operational phases; refer to Section 4.11: Noise for further information. Additionally , the Project would To be consistent with the requirements of Zone E, by complying with COA HAZ-1 has been included,. and tTherefore, the Project’s potential to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area would be less than significant. Project would not result in a significant impact.

MDP facility Line A -8 (Line A -8) traverses northly through the easterly through the northerly portion of the proposed Building 2 location, ultimately connecting to Line A. As concluded in the Preliminary Hydrology Calculations, the MDP 100-year flow rate in Line A -8 on the MDP map 292 cfs, although the storm drain plan shows 283 cfs.

To collect surface water and runoff from the impervious areas, an extensive drainage plan would be in place which includes ribbon gutters, subsurface storm drains, curb cuts, u-channels, and detention basins.

The basins are designed to weaken the flow of post-development runoff to pre-development conditions, and have been designed to treat runoff for pollutants, pursuant to SW RCB regulations. Additionally, the existing Line A -8 would be removed and relocated approximately 200 feet northerly alon g the same alignment to avoid conflicts the proposed drainage improvements. The relocated storm drain would maintain the same size (10 feet-width by 6 feet-height) and downstream hydraulic controls as the existing drain. The relocated Line A -8 would continue to discharge into Romoland MDP Line A. Refer to Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 462

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1068 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-14
Exhibit 4.9-2: Conceptual Storm Drain Plan for that illustrates the Project’s proposed drainage improvements and relocated Line A-8.

As shown in Exhibit 4.15-1, Conceptual Utility Plan, Eexisting utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of Project to serve the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the warehouses. All required improvements and extensions to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing roadway rights -of-way adjacent to the Project site, and off-site at including Evans Road, Barnett Roads, and McLaughlin Road. All areas adjacent to the existing roadways are also disturbed and are within the overall footprint of the Project. All impacts are discussed and disclosed as part of this Draft EIR, within the various sections of this document.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 463

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1069 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-15

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 464

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1070 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-16

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 465

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1071 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-17

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 466

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1072 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-18

This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 467

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1073 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR

City of Menifee May 2025

3.0-19

Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this EIR. As discussed above, the Project No project-specific or cumulatively significant impacts were discovered during the analysis of the Project. Mitigation measures would be implemented to ensure that all environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. As such, the Project would not result in activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

Construction of the Project would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because those jobs are temporary in nature and are expected to be filled by persons within the local area. This expectation is based on the latest unemployment data for Riverside County 6 (4.5 percent) and the City of Menifee 7 (4.2 percent). Utilizing SCAGs Employment Density Study of 1 employee per square feet per employee (581 for warehousing; 481 for Office) in Riverside County, the Project could potentially create approximately 692 permanent job opportunities once the Project is developed. This would represent 4.5 percent of employment growth. However, employment growth does not directly translate into population growth.

Data from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found that approximately 13 percent of Americans move each year, and of those 21 percent move for job-related reasons. 13 percent of 692 is 90 people and 21 percent of 90 people is 1 9 people. Therefore, the Project could potentially generate approximately 19 new residents in the City Menifee which represents approximately 0.07 percent and

0.003 percent of the City’s and County’s population growth forecast of 129,800 people , and 2,927,000 people, respectfully, by 2045.8Additionally, theThe SCAG’s Connect SoCal notes that it is anticipated that the population would in Riverside County would grow to 2,927,000 .8 Similarly, the Menifee GP Draft EIR states that the population is forecast to grow to 119,332 by 20359.

As such, population growth in the City is anticipated with future development and such growth has been considered in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the Project site is served by existing public roadways, and utility infrastructure would be installed beneath the public rights -of-way that abut the Project site.

For these reasons, Project constructiondevelopment of the Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial, unplanned population growth in the City. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on unplanned population growth.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 468

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1074 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 1 February 2025
EXHIBIT “B”
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 469

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1075 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 2 February 2025
SECTION 1: AUTHORITY
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091(d) and 15097 to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Northern Gateway Logistics Center (Project), as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Menifee (City).

As noted in the EIR, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, as reflected in Project design plans and in Project design features. In addition, the EIR addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.

The City is the lead agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction manager or third- party monitor. However, as the lead agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program. In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.

SECTION 2: MONITORING SCHEDULE
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by the developer or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports.

Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the project as specified in the mitigation measures or as otherwise deemed necessary. At minimum, the City will prepare a mitigation monitoring status report prior to commencing construction, prior to commencing operations, within 90 days of commencing operations, and following completion of the first full year of operations.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 470

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1076 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 3 February 2025
SECTION 3: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.

SECTION 4: FORMAT OF MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementation and monitoring agencies.

SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Acronyms/Abbreviation ...........Description
AQ ..............................Air Quality
BIO .............................Biological Resources
BMP............................Best Management Practice CARB ..........................California Air Resources Board CDFW .........................California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA ..........................California Environmental Quality Act City .............................City of Menifee
County........................County of Riverside
CUL.............................Cultural Resources
EV ...............................Electric Vehicle
GEO ............................Geology and Soils
HAZ.............................Hazards
MM ............................Mitigation Measure
Moyer Program..........Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program
MSHCP .......................Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan PRD.............................Permit Registration Documents PRIMP.........................Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program SCAQMD ....................South Coast Air Quality Management District SMARTS......................Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System
SWPPP........................Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan State...........................State of California
TDM ...........................Transportation Demand Management VIP..............................Voucher Incentive Program WAIRE ........................Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program
WQMP........................Water Quality Management Plan Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 471

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1077 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 5 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
MM BIO-1: If grading or construction activities, including vegetation removal, occurs between February 1 to August 31, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The Project Applicant shall ensure that impacts to nesting bird species at the Project site and off-site improvement areas are avoided through the implementation of preconstruction surveys, ongoing monitoring, and if necessary, establishment of minimization measures. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
a. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
b. Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance- free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate. c. If an active nest is confirmed during the preconstruction clearance survey, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a Project Applicant Prior to ground
disturbance
activities or any
vegetation removal
Biological Monitor;
City of Menifee Community
Development Department

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 472

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1078 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 5 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest (generally 300 feet for migratory and non-migratory songbirds and 500 feet raptors and special-status species) based on their best professional judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of Project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such Project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such Project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest) or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions. The on-site qualified biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting avoidance buffers and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

MM BIO-2: The Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The results of the single one-day survey shall be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. If at any time there is a lapse of Project activities for 30 days or more, another burrowing owl survey shall be conducted and submitted to the City.

If burrowing owl are not detected during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgement and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with CDFW, or the Project Developer shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established Project Applicant Prior to ground
disturbance
activities; Prior to
issuance of grading
permit
Biological Monitor;
City of Menifee Community
Development Department;
CDFW (if active burrowing owl
burrows are detected during
the breeding season)

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 473

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1079 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 6 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GEO-1: During construction activity, special care shall be given to moisture conditioning of all slab subgrade to 100 percent of optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching.

Project Applicant;
Project geotechnical
consultant; General
During construction
activity
City of Menifee Engineering
Department
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre-construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. The PRIMP would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Information contained in the PRIMP shall minimally include:

1. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations.

2. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth-moving activities.

3. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving.

4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens.

5. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City.

6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays.

7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any.

8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary.

9. Fossil identification cataloged and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution.

Project Applicant;
Qualified
Paleontological
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
City of Menifee Community
Development Department
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 474

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1080 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 7 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material.

11. All pertinent maps and exhibits.

12. Procedures for reporting of findings.

13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRIMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MM GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit or tenant occupancy permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project does not include conveyance of natural gas utility lines. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to reduce GHG emissions from natural gas.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permit or
tenant occupancy
permits
City of Menifee Building and
Safety Division
MM GHG-2: All outdoor cargo handling equipment (such as yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission (i.e., powered by electricity or other alternative fuels). The warehouse buildings shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permit
Project Owner and/or
operator; City of Menifee
Building and Safety Division
and Community Development
Department

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: Soil Management Plan (SMP). Prior to issuance of a grading permit or trenching or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway infrastructure, the Master Developer, or Site Developer shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a SMP that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The purpose of the SMP is to outline protocol for ensuring the proper handling and/or disposal of impacted soil and/or subsurface features of concern that may be encountered during site development. The SMP shall be submitted to the City’s (Engineering Department) for review and approval prior to commencement of trenching or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway infrastructure. The SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
Land use history, including description and locations of known contamination;
The nature and extent of previous investigations and remediation at the site;
Identified areas of concern at the site, in relation to proposed activities; Project Applicant;
Qualified
Environmental
Professional
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
ground disturbing
activity.

City of Menifee Engineering
Department
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 475

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1081 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 8 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
A listing and description of institutional controls, such as applicable City ordinances and other local, state, and federal regulations and laws that would apply to the project;
Names and positions of individuals involved with soils management and their specific role;
An earthwork schedule;
Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HSPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the project site. The HSP should be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect on-site workers by including engineering controls, personal protective equipment, monitoring, and security to prevent unauthorized entry and to reduce construction related hazards. The HSP should address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards including hazardous waste contamination and include procedures to protect workers and the public; Hazardous waste determination and disposal procedures for known and previously unidentified contamination, including those associated with any soil export activities, if applicable;
Requirements for site specific techniques at the site to minimize dust, manage stockpiles, run-on and run-off controls, waste disposal procedures, etc; and
Copies of relevant permits or closures from regulatory agencies.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM HYD-1: Prior to commencing grading, the Project Applicant shall comply with applicable construction water quality regulations including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit, which shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This process requires that the applicant electronically submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) prior to commencement of construction activities in the Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs consist of the Notice of Intent, Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement by the Legally Responsible Person, and the first annual fee.

The required SWPPP must be submitted to the City of Menifee Engineering Department for review and approval, identifying specific actions and Best Project Applicant Prior to grading
activities
City of Menifee Engineering
Department; RWQCB
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 476

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1082 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 9 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration, contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements:

A. Compliance with the requirements of the State of California’s most current Construction Stormwater Permit.

B. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all disturbed areas.

C. Disturbed surfaces shall be treated with erosion control measures during the October 15 to April 15 rainy season.

D. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other BMPs.

E. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate discharge of materials to storm drains.

F. BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the Santa Ana RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure.

G. In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the duration of construction.

H. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit the Final Tentative Parcel Map that includes the water quality BMPs for approval by the City of Menifee Engineer. The City of Menifee Engineer shall ensure that all applicable water quality standards are met before approving the SWPPP.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 477

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1083 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Menifee 10 February 2025
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
MM HYD-2: The Project Applicant shall prepare a Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with operations and maintenance (O&M) Plan for submittal together with the associated grading and improvement plans which must be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. These documents shall be prepared in accordance with applicable City (Menifee) and County (Riverside) water quality requirements, for review and approval by the City of Menifee Engineering Department, including the following:
Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Source Control BMPs
Treatment Control BMPs
BMP Sizing
Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives
Regionally-Based Treatment Control BMPs
O&M Responsibility for Treatment Control
BMPs
Project Applicant Prior to the
issuance of a
building and
grading permits
City of Menifee Engineering
Department
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 478

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1084 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of a project be examined and disclosed prior to approval of a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 1”].
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 2”]. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 3”].

Having received, reviewed and considered the Northern Gateway Logistics Center (Project), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 2021110379; as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings regarding the CEQA Documents for the Project are hereby adopted by the City of Menifee (City).

1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
These Findings have been categorized into the following sections:
1)Section 1.0 Findings of Fact provides an introduction to these Findings. 2)Section 2.0 Project Summary provides a summary of the Project, overview of other discretionary actions required for the Project, and a statement of Project objectives. 3)Section 3.0 Environmental Review and Public Participation provides a summary of those activities that have preceded the consideration of the Findings for the Project as part of the environmental review process, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project.
4)Section 4.0 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Determined to Have No Impacts or Be Less Than Significant sets forth findings regarding those potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Project design features.

EXHIBIT “C”
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 479

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1085 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
2 5)Section 5.0 Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts which can be Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant sets forth findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the CEQA Documents which the City has determined can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures included in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project.
6)Section 6.0 Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Which Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant sets forth findings for significant and unavoidable project impacts. It should be noted that the proposed Project would does not include any significant and unavoidable impacts.
7)Section 7.0 Findings Regarding Growth Inducing Impacts sets forth findings regarding growth- inducing impacts.
8)Section 8.0 Findings Regarding Project Alternatives sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project.
9)Section 9.0 Findings Regarding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contains findings regarding the MMRP for the Project.
10)Section 10.0 Other Findings contains other relevant findings adopted by the City with respect to the Project.
11)Section 11.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. It should be noted that the proposed Project would does not include any significant and unavoidable impacts.
12)Section 12.0 Certification of the Final EIR contains information pertaining to the certification of the Final EIR.

The Findings set forth in each section herein are supported by findings and facts identified in the administrative record of the Project.

1.3 CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions regarding the Project are located at the City of Menifee Community Development Department, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, California 92586. The City is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project.

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION
The Project is generally located southwest of the Interstate 215/Ethanac Road interchange in the City, County of Riverside, State of California. The Project is generally bounded by farmland, the Ethanac Wash Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 480

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1086 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
3 channel, Ethanac Road, and vacant land to the north; SCE utility corridor, McLaughlin Road, and single- family residences to the south; Ethanac Wash, Barnett Road, and vacant land to the east; and Evans Road and vacant land to the west. The Project site is comprised of five parcels total (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 331-060-007, 331-060-008, 331-060-020, 331-060-023, and 331-060-030).

The majority of the Project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land with grassland/agriculture. The Project would include the development of two new concrete tilt up warehouse and distribution buildings with associated office space on 20.17 acres of land. Building 1 is proposed to be 105,537 square feet (sq. ft.) consisting of 6,000 sq. ft. of office space and 99,537 sq. ft. of warehouse space and is located on the north side of the site. Building 2 is on the southern end of the site and is proposed to be 292,715 sq. ft. consisting of 8,000 sq. ft of office space, 7,000 sq. ft. of mezzanine, and 277,715 sq. ft. of warehouse area.

Buildings 1 and 2 combined would consist of 398,252 sq. ft. of total building area. Associated facilities and improvements of the Project site includes loading dock doors (15 for Building 1; 37 for Building 2), on-site landscaping, and related on-site and off-site improvements (including relocation of an underground flood channel). The proposed warehouse uses are considered speculative in nature, but may be used for receiving, storing, and distribution of manufactured goods, pursuant to the City of Menifee Development Code (Menifee Development Code)’s definition for Warehousing, logistics, and distribution facilities. The Project includes a total of 354 automobile parking spaces, 41 truck trailer parking spaces, and 52 dock doors. The Project also includes an on-site private driveway south of Building 2 that would allow automobiles and trucks to head westbound from Barnett Road to Evans Road.

2.2 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of the EIR for the Project. It is expected that the City, at a minimum, would consider the data and analyses contained in this EIR when making their permit determinations. Prior to development of the Project, discretionary permits and approvals must be obtained from local, state and federal agencies, as listed below.
Major Plot Plan No. PLN23-0040 proposes to construct two concrete tilt-up buildings totaling 398,252 sq. ft building area on the 20.17-acre Project site. The maximum building height allowed is 100 feet. The proposed building heights fall below this limit at 44 feet in height for Building 1 and 43.6 feet in height for Building 2. The Project includes a total of 354 automobile parking spaces, 41 truck trailer parking spaces, and 52 dock doors. The proposed conceptual landscape plan proposes an approximate total of 105,837 sq. ft. of landscape area or approximately 12 percent of the Project site.

Other permits required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: issuance of encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities; security and parking area lighting; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new utility connections.

2.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project by the City and Project applicant:

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 481

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1087 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
4 Objective 1: Fulfill the City of Menifee’s vision of developing the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway in conformity with the City’s General Plan. The presence of Northern Gateway Logistics Center will attract businesses and investment that will stimulate economic growth.

Objective 2: Provide tax revenue to ensure future prosperity for the City and its residents.

Objective 3: Create employment opportunities for City residents and surrounding communities.

Objective 4: Infrastructure development that will include enhancements in roads, utility infrastructure and landscaping.

Objective 5:Increase trade and commerce within the City that will facilitate local and regional economic growth.

Objective 6: The institutional quality development will attract high end users and enhance the aesthetics of the underutilized vacant land.

Objective 7: Participate in backbone infrastructure that will help facilitate transportation throughout the corridor and increase public safety/traffic flow with new roads, signs, and striping.

Objective 8: Locate the Project near the I-215 freeway in order to provide adequate vehicular access to the Project site and to reduce vehicular travel through residential neighborhoods or heavily-trafficked City roadways.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for the Project by the City on June 21, 2023. Additionally, the State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the Project, SCH # 2022120083. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to interested agencies, groups, and individuals for a period of 30 days, during which comments were solicited and received, pertaining to environmental issues/topics that the Draft EIR should evaluate. These NOP responses were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR, which upon release, was made available to all Responsible/Trustee Agencies and interested groups and individuals, as required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087.

The State-mandated public review of the Draft EIR began on June 6, 2024, and concluded on July 22, 2024.

The Final EIR includes a Response to Comments package, which presents all written comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and includes responses to these comments and associated changes made to the EIR.

The EIR includes any exhibits or appendices thereto, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the EIR, the comments which were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City as the lead agency with respect to the Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 482

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1088 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
5 and the EIR. The following findings for the Project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record.

3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACTS OR BE LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT
The City finds, based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR, dated June 2024, as the following environmental effects of the Project either have no impact or the impacts are less than significant, and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The City hereby finds that existing regulatory requirements, policies, and/or Project conditions have been identified and incorporated into the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the potentially significant effect on the environment to a less than significant level.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Impact 4.1-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project will not significantly impact views of the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. Notably, Building 1 would be approximately 44 feet in height and Building 2 would be approximately 43 feet 6 inches in height, consistent with and well under the permitted maximum building height of 100 feet for the Economic Development Corridor - Northern Gateway (EDC- NG) zoning category. Further, Buildings 1 and 2 would be setback in accordance with the design standards of the Menifee Development Code. The development code requires front, rear, and side setbacks to be 25, 10, and 15 feet, respectively. Along Evans Road, the front setback for both buildings would be 25 feet.

The rear setback for is approximately 37 feet for Building 1 and approximately 298 feet for Building 2.

Along the future driveway, Building 2 would have a side setback approximately 20 feet from the southern property line. Building 2 would have a side setback from the northern property line at approximately 61 feet. Additionally, development standards applicable to the Project include landscape requirements.

Current standards for development within the EDC-NG zone relating to landscape require that ten percent of the total lot area, excluding that portion of the lot contained within the required front setback area, is dedicated to landscaped open space. The total landscape area would be 105,837 square feet which is 12 percent of the Project site, above the required ten percent under the Menifee Development Code.

Landscaping on the Project site is incorporated to enhance the aesthetic character of the site and soften building and screen walls. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project’s impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation relating to this issue is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-8 and 4.1-9)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly affect scenic vistas. Potential aesthetic impacts to scenic views are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 483

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1089 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
6 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-8 and 4.1-9.

Impact 4.1-2: No Impact
There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is approximately 22 miles east of the Project site (SR 74 from the west boundary of the San Bernardino National Forest to SR 111 in Palm Desert). Due to the distance between the Project and this portion of SR 74 that is officially designated, the Project would not obstruct views from this highway. As previously mentioned, SR 74 is located approximately 0.93 miles northeast of the Project site and is eligible but not officially designated as a state scenic highway. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project site would not damage or obstruct a scenic resource (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p.

4.1-9)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly affect scenic highways and corridors.

Potential aesthetic impacts to scenic highways and corridors are considered less than significant.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.1-9.

Impact 4.1-3: No Impact
The Project is in an urbanized area and is zoned as EDC-NG which permits a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The Project proposes construction and operation of two logistics buildings in addition to associated facilities and related on-site and off-site improvements. The Project would be designed consistently with development standards relating to building height, setbacks, and landscaping applicable to scenic quality. Through compliance with the EDC-NG development standards and design standards and guidelines, and City of Menifee General Plan (Menifee GP) goals and policies, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1- 10).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly affect the visual character of the City.

Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.1-10.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 484

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1090 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
7 Impact 4.1-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project will require minimal construction-related lighting, as the majority of the construction of the Project would be during daytime hours of construction permitted by the City of Menifee MC § 8.01.010 Hours of Construction. Once operational, all lighting at the Project site would be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties, and no structures or features would be permitted that create adverse glare effects pursuant to the Menifee MC Chapter 9.205, Lighting Standards which states that, “all Project lighting, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for signs, structures, landscaping, parking, loading, unloading and similar areas shall be focused, directed, and arranged to prevent glare or direct illumination on streets or adjoining property.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-11).

Additionally, as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update the City established Community Development Design Guidelines for any applicable residential, commercial, and industrial projects.

Lighting designs for nonresidential development must be designed in such a way that it avoids direct glare into neighboring properties. Road improvements along Evans Road, Barnett Road, and the future driveway, would include the installation of a total of 16 streetlights. In accordance with the aforementioned development standards outlined in the MC and Development Design Standards, the Project will ensure operational lighting is designed to enhance the aesthetic of the buildings and provide proper lighting along the improved roads in such a way that it mitigates additional glare to surrounding residential communities. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10 and 4.1-11).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.1-10 and 4.1-11.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impacts 7.2-1 and 7.2-5: Less than Significant Impact
According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Farmland Finder and Exhibit OSC-5:

Agricultural Resources from the Menifee GP, the Project contains Farmland of Statewide Importance and Farmland of Local Importance.

Farmland of statewide importance is similar to prime farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. This indicates the land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production as some point in time during the four years prior to the mapping date; 2018. According to the Menifee Final EIR, the City is focused on developing land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population. As such, the City has placed significant emphasis on future development to include mixed-use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting agricultural uses that have become less economically viable. Moreover, the Menifee GP Final Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 485

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1091 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
8 EIR determined that because of the small area of farmland and the economic and regulatory constrains placed on agriculture, it is unlikely that the properties that are categorized as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide importance would remain in agricultural production even without the adoption of the Menifee GP. Consequently, the approval of the Menifee GP in 2013 converted 522 acres of existing state-designated farmland to nonagricultural uses and the land was reestablished for urban development.

Although the Project area has been identified to be Farmland of Statewide Importance, the adoption of the Menifee GP converted the land for nonagricultural uses. As such, the Project’s proposed industrial uses would be consistent with the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use designation and zoned as EDC-NG which was envisioned to accommodate a mixture of non-residential and residential development. Moreover, the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use designation does not permit agricultural use and the City does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to urban land uses. Therefore, impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-1 through 7-3).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the EDC-NG zone does not permit agricultural uses. Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR, pages 7-1 through 7-3.

Impacts 7.2-2 through 7.2-4: No Impact
There are no lands within the City that are currently under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use, and there is no forest or timberland present on the Project site that could be lost from Project implementation. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not create impacts on agricultural-zoned land, forestry resources, or lands user Williamson Act Contract and no mitigation relating to this issue is required. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not conflict with lands zoned for agricultural use, forestry land, and timberland or land under a Williamson Contract. No potential impacts are anticipated to occur.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this no impact determination.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR, page 7-2.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 486

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1092 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
9 Impact 4.2-1: Less than Significant Impact
the Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs (AQMPs). The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resource Basin (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The pollutant control strategies in the AQMPs are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMPs are defined by the following indicators:
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMPs. Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Draft EIR Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-9, the Project would not exceed construction or operational emissions standards.

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contain air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project would not result in a change of land use designations reflected in the AQMPs. Therefore, the Project is assumed to be consistent with the AQMPs regional emissions inventory for the SCAB. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.

It is also noted that future tenant(s) of the Project site would also be required to comply SCAQMD Rule 2305 which would directly reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions. As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMPs or any applicable air quality plan. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 and 4.2-22) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 487

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1093 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
10 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.2-19 through 4.2-20.

Impact 4.2-2: Less than Significant Impact
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO X) and PM 10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. As stated above, review of Draft EIR Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions concluded that construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD threshold for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts concerning construction emissions would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-23). Similarly, review of Draft EIR Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions indicated that Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-24). Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 would further reduce criteria pollutants, specifically NO X and particulate matter emissions. Furthermore, the Project would adhere to other relevant Because Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LOR)-1 through LOR- 8 to further reduce emissions. Therefore, the Project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-22 through 26) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the emissions beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.2-22 through 4.2-26.

Impact 4.2-4: No Impact
The Project does not involve any of the land uses that would result in emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-35 and 4.2-36) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the emissions (leading to odors), beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.2-33 through 4.2-34.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 488

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1094 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
11 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-2: Less than Significant Impact
No jurisdictional drainages, riparian/riverine and/or wetland features were observed within the Project site during the field survey. Furthermore, a jurisdictional delineation was conducted for the Drainage 1/Ethanac Wash located along the eastern portion of the Project site. As part of the Project, a storm drain would be installed from the western bank of Drainage 1, that would include the installation of riprap within the channel bottom. Draft EIR Appendix C3 concluded that no riparian vegetation or wetland obligate plant species were observed within Drainage 1. Further, Drainage 1 does not hold water for long enough to create anaerobic condition, ultimately forming hydric soils. Thus, Drainage 1 did not meet wetland requirements. Therefore, because regulatory approvals from the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) would not be required since Drainage 1 was created wholly in the uplands and did not replace an existing blueline stream it does not qualify as waters of the United States. However, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may assert jurisdiction over the storm drain channel which would require a Report of Waste Discharge and Streambed Alteration Agreement. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-17) Overall, Project development would not result in significant impacts to riparian/riverine habitats and a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would not be required under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the loss of riparian/riverine habitats and a DBESP would not be required under the MSHCP for the loss of riparian/riverine habitat. Further, no sensitive habitats were identified within the Project site. Lastly, the Project applicant would obtain a Report of Waste Discharge and Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to Project implementation. Thus, no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would be impacted from Project implementation.

However due to the impacts to the storm drain channel, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-17)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.3-17.

Impact 4.3-3: No Impact
No inundated areas, wetland features, or wetland plant species that would be considered wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA occur within the Project footprint. As a result, implementation of the Project would not result in any impacts or have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 489

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1095 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
12 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact. (Draft EIR, p.

4.3-18)
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.3-18.

Impact 4.3-4: No Impact
The Project site has not been identified as occurring in a wildlife corridor or linkage. The nearest linkage to the Project site, as identified by the MSHCP, occurs approximately 1.6 miles to the southwest of the Project site in association with the San Jacinto River. The Project would be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife. Therefore, the Project site does not function as a major wildlife movement corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the Project is not expected to have a significant impact to wildlife movement opportunities or prevent local wildlife movement through the area. Due to the lack of any identified impacts to wildlife movement, migratory corridors or linkages or native wildlife nurseries, no mitigation is required. Thus, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages are not expected to occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.3-18.

Impact 4.3-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be constructed in compliance with the Menifee GP Open Space and Conservation Element’s goals and policies pertaining to the conservation of biological resources. The Menifee GP’s Open Space and Conservation Element provides goals and policies for the conservation of biological resources.

Goal OSC-8 protects biological resources and Policy OCS-8-5 calls for the recognition of the impacts new development will have on the City's natural resources and to identify ways to reduce these impacts. The Menifee MC contains Chapter 9.200: Tree Preservation, which would require that the Project to, “protect trees, considered to be a valuable community resource…”, but there are no trees on the Project site, and therefore this regulation would not apply. Adherence with the Menifee GP goals and policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources would ensure that impacts are less than significant.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 490

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1096 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
13 Additionally, there are no local policies or ordinances that pertain to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to local polices or ordinances are not expected to occur from development of the proposed project, and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 and 4.3-19) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-18 and 4.3-19.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.4-1 and 4.4-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA; Draft EIR Appendix D) concluded that portions of the Project site have been subject to three previous cultural resources assessments, and no cultural resources have been previously identified within its boundaries. The field survey also did not identify any cultural resources (including architectural historical resources, prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic archaeological resources) within the Project site boundaries as the Project site has been subject to severe disturbances associated with mechanical clearing and discing as well as flooding.

While the CRA did not indicated sensitivity for unknown cultural resources within the Project boundaries, ground disturbing activities always have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Accordingly, monitoring of future earth-disturbing activities would be conducted in accordance with Standard Conditions of Approval (COA)-CUL-1 through COA CUL-6 (refer to COA-CUL-1 and COA-CUL- 6 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources). Lastly, a record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) SLF was completed for the area of potential effect, “the Project site”, and the search returned negative results. Therefore, the Project’s potential impacts concerning the significance of a cultural resource are determined to be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-12 through 4.4-17).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly generate impacts to historical or archaeological resources, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with compliance with applicable COAs. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-12 through 4.4-17.

Impact 4.4-3: Less than Significant Impact
There are no cemeteries on or near the Project site. Most Native American remains are found within areas associated with prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. Since the CRA concluded that prehistoric or Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 491

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1097 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
14 historic cultural materials could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities, human remains could also be encountered. Therefore, the Project would adhere to COA CUL-7 and COA CUL-8 in the event that human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-17 and 4.4-18).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not significantly generate impacts to human remains, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with compliance with applicable COAs. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.4-17 and 4.4-18.

4.6 ENERGY
Impact 4.5-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would comply with the applicable Title 24 standards and other relevant energy and fuel efficiency laws and regulations. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-10 through 4.5-16) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to the wasteful or inefficient energy use beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.5-10 through 4.5-16.

Impact 4.5-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be required to comply with these existing energy standards. Compliance with state and local energy efficiency standards would ensure that the Project meets all applicable energy conservation policies and regulations. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal, adopted in September 2020, integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets set by CARB. The document establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks, as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 375. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the Connect SoCal. Potential impacts are considered not significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-16 and 4.5-17) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 492

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1098 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
15 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts stemming from conflicts with established renewable energy or energy efficiency plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR.

Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.5-16 and 4.5-17.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.6-1 (i) and 4.6-2 (ii): Less than Significant Impact There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project site and the Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Since there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project site, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Additionally, there was no evidence of faulting identified during the Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Appendix F) of the Project site. The Project site is not subject to surface rupture of a known active fault; therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the Project site is considered to be low. Nevertheless, all Project components would be constructed to the current California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Design Parameters. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed CBC standards for earthquake resistance. All grading and fill placement activities would be completed in accordance with the CBC requirements and the Menifee MC’s Grading Ordinance (Chapter 7.90 Grading Regulations).

Following these requirements, the Project would be designed to resist strong seismic ground shaking and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury and reduce catastrophic property damage and loss of life to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-9 and 4.6-10) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding fault rupture or strong seismic ground shaking beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-9 and 4.6-10.

Impact 4.6-3(iii): Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is located within a zone of “low” potential for liquefaction. Due to the depth of groundwater greater than 50 feet, the generally dense nature of the underlying soils, and the presence of cohesive soils, the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement is considered very low.

The proposed development would primarily consist of compacted fill over dense alluvial fan deposits.

These soils are not considered susceptible to dynamic settlement. Due to the very low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is also considered very low. Therefore, the Project the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 493

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1099 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
16 loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts seismic ground failure or landslides beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-10.

Impact 4.6-4(iv): No Impact
According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation (Draft EIR Appendix F), the Project site is nearly flat.

Research and field observations did not indicate the presence of landslides on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity. Review of regional geologic maps of the area do not indicate the presence of known or suspected landslides at the site or in the vicinity of the site. According to the Menifee GP Liquefaction and Landslides map the Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility. The Project area is also outside of the hazard zone for rockfall/debris-flow. The relatively flat topography of each site along with its location outside of identified landslide susceptibility and rockfall/debris-flow hazard areas would lead to no impact occurring. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts related to landslides beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impact is anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-11.

Impact 4.6-5: Less than Significant Impact
Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Accordingly, the Project would implement erosion siltation control measures to reduce duce runoff from the site and to hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. Additionally, the Project would comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) which requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring plan, which would include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would be required to meet or exceed measures required by the CGP to control potential construction-related pollutants and would comply with Menifee MC Title 8, Chapter 8.26 – Grading Regulations. Conformance to these requirements and verification by the City as part of the development approval process would ensure that potential impacts from construction of the Project are less than significant.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 494

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1100 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
17 Following construction of the Project, the Project site would be covered with hardscape which would not contribute to erosion, and it would contain some landscaping, but these areas would include ground covers to reduce erosion and loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that operation of the Project site would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies. Additionally, the Project will include the installation of a network of storm drains and gutters that would capture any erosion during operational activity. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 and 4.6-12) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. A less than significant impact is anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-11 and 4.6-12.

Impact 4.6-6: Less than Significant Impact
Liquefaction and landslides are not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading and dynamic settlement would be low. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) lists the types of geologic hazards known to occur in the City regarding slope instability, leading to possible mudflow, liquefaction, and collapsible or expansive soils. The Project site is not located in an area identified as susceptible to slope instability, landslides, or liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is not likely to occur at this site primarily because the groundwater level is deep (in excess of 50 feet). The Project site is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to any potentially unstable topographical feature, such as a hillside or riverbank. Therefore, impacts associated with these hazards would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-12)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse beyond those concluded in the EIR. A less than significant impact is anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-12.

Impact 4.6-8: Less than Significant Impact
No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impact concerning soils adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 495

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1101 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
18 The City hereby finds that the Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater as concluded in the EIR. No impact is anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-13.

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potential significant impacts were determined to occur related to greenhouse gas emissions. Refer to Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions below for further discussion and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR for a more through discussion regarding the Project’s potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions during the Project’s construction and operational phases.

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.8-2: Less than Significant Impact
Database searches did not reveal any Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs), Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) or Aboveground Storage Tank (ASTs) located on the Project site. Additionally, the Project site itself is not on the Cortese List, and the Project site has not been cited or issued violation notices by any environmental regulatory agency for improper use or disposal of hazardous materials. However, Project construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. Accordingly, compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility under SCAQMD Rule 1166. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by Riverside County Fire Department would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Project construction workers would also be required to conduct safe handling of hazardous material.

Operation of the Project site would involve typical hazardous materials and chemicals such as solvents and cleaning products associated with operation of an industrial/warehouse type use. Any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during warehouse operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Prior to Project approval, a Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP) would be required for approval to show conformance with all applicable materials handling protocols. Adherence to these regulations is overseen and enforced by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch.

Overall, compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-25 and 4.8-26).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 496

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1102 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
19 The City hereby finds that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment beyond those concluded in the EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-25 and 4.8-26).

Impact 4.8-3: Less than Significant Impact
No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The closest schools to the Project site are Railway Elementary School located approximately 2.4 miles to the northwest and Romoland Elementary School located approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or include the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The transport of hazardous substances or materials to-and-from the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations intended to reduce public safety hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.8-26)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to being within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.8-26.

Impact 4.8-4: Less than Significant Impact
According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, the Project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.9. In addition, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Draft EIR Appendix H) did not identify any environmental concerns for the Project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-26)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-26.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 497

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1103 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
20 Impact 4.8-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is located within Compatibility Zone E of the MARB. Within Compatibility Zone E of the AIA, residential density and non-residential intensity are not restricted. Furthermore, based on the MARB Inland Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Map MA – 4 noise impacts are low to moderate and risk of accidents is low. Airspace protection is the major concern in that aircraft pass over these areas while flying to, from, or around the MARB. The Project would be designed in accordance with the Compatibility Zone E and all state, county, and local goals, policies, and regulations. Furthermore, the Project does not require review by ALUC because the City is consistent with the Perris Valley and MARB airport land use compatibility plan (ALUCP). To be consistent with the requirements of Zone E, COA HAZ-1 has been included, and therefore the Project would not result in a significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-27 and 4.8- 28)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with public or private airports beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-27 and 4.8-28.

Impact 4.8-6 Less than Significant Impact
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. Furthermore, the proposed roadways would be designed in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements. In addition, all roads would be maintained during construction activities, and buildout of the Project’s on-and off-site circulation improvements would provide additional points of access in the surrounding area. Construction or operations of the Project would not significantly disrupt or interfere with emergency access or impede access to nearby roadways or interfere with the City’s emergency management program. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-28 and 4.8-29)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.8-28 through 4.8-29.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 498

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1104 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
21 Impact 4.8-7 Less than Significant Impact
The Project area is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA), or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). According to CAL FIRE’s FHSZ Map Viewer, the Project site is located in a LRA and is classified as a non-Very High FHSZ. Consequently, the Project would not directly, or indirectly expose people or structures significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-29)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to the risk of wildland fires beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-29.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.9-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would construct on-site and off-site potable water and recycled water systems in accordance with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) design standards to receive water services from EMWD.

Thus, the Project would utilize potable and recycled water and would not use any on-site or off-site groundwater wells, nor any other groundwater extractive methods to service the Project. Furthermore, a Will Serve Letter prepared by the EMWD (Draft EIR Appendix L) determined that EMWD will be able to provide water services to the Project site via the closest EMWD waster system. Accordingly, the Project would include water system improvements that are constructed in accordance with EMWD’s standards, specifications, and master plan. Since the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater basin, implementation of the Project in this regard would not substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies or directly impact groundwater supplies. Impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, while construction activities would introduce new impermeable surfaces to the Project site, the Project would reduce the amount of runoff from the new impervious areas with implementation of design measures in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). These measures include, but are not limited to, low impact development (LID) BMPs and other stormwater drainage controls. The LIDs would be engineered to capture and control run-off prior to being released downstream. This would increase the duration that water is held on-site prior to being released to downstream receiving waters. This timed- release allows water to slowly infiltrate the ground and helps facilitate recharge. In addition, LIDs that include permeable materials, enable run-off to immediately infiltrate and begin the recharge process.

Lastly, the Project site also includes areas that would be landscaped with permeable surfaces in accordance with EMWD’s Water Efficient Guidelines for New Development, which also would facilitate groundwater recharge. Therefore, with the required measures in place, the loss of the permeable area would not be substantial and groundwater recharge would maintain pre-project conditions. The Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 499

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1105 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
22 would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-19 and 4.9-20) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the reduction of groundwater resources beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-19 and 4.9-20.

Impact 4.9-6: Less than Significant Impact
the Project is underlain by the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. For groundwater management plan and reporting purposes, the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin is further separated into the Hemet/San Jacinto Management Plan Area, where the San Jacinto Fault Zone strongly influences the groundwater hydrology and is adjudicated under the Hemet-San Jacinto Watermaster, and the West San Jacinto Management Plan Area, for which EMWD is the designated Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the San Jacinto groundwater basin was prepared for EMWD in September 2021 and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on January 31, 2022. As discussed above, the Project’s components are not anticipated to obstruct groundwater facilities as groundwater facilities are not planned by EMWD for this Project. Furthermore, it was concluded that the Project would not substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies or directly impact groundwater supplies. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-23)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with adopted water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-23.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.10-1 No Impact
The Project will not be located in an established residential community, and it would not physically divide any such community. The Project would occupy an area to be fully designated/classified as EDC-NG which permits Industrial uses. Accordingly, the Project’s proposed warehousing uses would be consistent with established land use and zoning designations. The Project would be designed in accordance with all applicable development standards correlated to industrial development. Furthermore, the Project would not involve the removal of vital roadways or points of connection for residents but would improve Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 500

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1106 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
23 area roadways. Therefore, development of the Project would not divide an established community and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-5 and 4.10-6) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to established communities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.10-5 through 4.10-6.

Impact 4.10-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As set forth in the EIR, regionally, the Project would comply with the goals and policies presented in SCAG’s Connect SoCal (refer to Draft EIR Table 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning). Locally, the Project would comply with the Menifee GP (see Draft EIR Table 4.10-4 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning and its land use goals and policies, the Menifee Development Code, and the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-6 through 4.10-20).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with adopted land use policies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.10-6 through 4.10-20.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 7.3-1 and 7.3-2: No Impact
The Project site is located in a heavily disturbed and partially developed portion of the City. The previous uses at the Project site does not include mining activities or mineral processing. Furthermore, the California Department of Conservation’s Mines Online mapper concluded that no active mining sites exist within the City. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with any existing or potential mining activities.

No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-3).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 501

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1107 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
24 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to the loss of mineral resources beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 7-3.

4.13 NOISE
Impact 4.11-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-8, the Project’s construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction threshold. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-14 and 4.11-15) The highest exterior noise level at residential receptors would occur during the overlap of the grading, building construction, and paving phases and would be 68.6 A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) which is below the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold.

Construction equipment would operate throughout the Project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Although sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction, these noise levels would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses.

Additionally, as shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-9, Project-generated noise levels at the nearest off-site properties would range from 29.2 dBA Leq to 46.7 dBA Leq during the daytime and would not exceed the Menifee MC noise limit of 65 dBA Leq. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-17 and 4.11-18) Similarly, Project-generated noise levels during the nighttime would range from 28.9 dBA Ldn to 43.4 dBA Leq and would not exceed the Menifee MC noise limit of 45 dBA Leq. As such, Project noise impacts from on-site operations would be less than significant. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.11-10, although the “Opening Year With Project” scenario traffic noise levels would exceed the Normally Acceptable Standard along Ethanac Road, noise levels would not exceed the 3.0 dBA increase significance threshold along any of the surrounding roadways. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-18 and 4.11-19) As a result, the Project would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-13 through

4.11-19).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-13 through 4.11-19.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 502

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1108 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
25 Impact 4.11-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The nearest structure to the Project construction site is approximately 435 feet away. Table 4.11-11 shows that at 435 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.0012 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and below the 0.4 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure.

Additionally, since the Project’s truck movements would be at low speed (not at freeway speeds) and would be over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), Project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive ground-borne vibrations; no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground-borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. The Project would not create or cause any vibration impacts due to operations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-19 and 4.11-20)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to excessive groundborne vibrations beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-19 and 4.11-20.

Impact 4.11-3: Less than Significant Impact
The public airport nearest to the Project site is the Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 1.7 miles to the northwest. According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, the Project site is not located within the Perris Valley Airport 65 CNEL noise contour. As such, Perris Valley Airport noise levels would not exceed the City’s normally acceptable noise standard (75 dBA CNEL) for industrial uses; refer to Table 4.11-6. Additionally, the Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the Project would not expose substantial numbers of people to excessive noise levels from airports and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-20 through 4.11-21) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts stemming from proximity to airport land use plan areas or private airstrips beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.11-20 through 4.11-21

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 503

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1109 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
26 Impact 7.4-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The Project would have a beneficial effect on the City’s employment base by developing a site that is largely vacant with a new industrial/warehouse facility with ancillary office space and mezzanine. Given that the current unemployment rate for Riverside County is approximately 4.5 percent and the City (4.2 percent), it is reasonably assured that the jobs would be filled by people living in the City, unincorporated County area, and surrounding communities. Utilizing SCAGs Employment Density Study of 1 employee per square feet per employee (581 for warehousing; 481 for Office) in Riverside County, the Project could potentially create approximately 692 permanent job opportunities once the Project is developed. This would represent 4.5 percent of employment growth. However, employment growth does not directly translate into population growth.

Data from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found that approximately 13 percent of Americans move each year, and of those 21 percent move for job-related reasons. 13 percent of 692 is 90 people and 21 percent of 90 people is 19 people. Therefore, the Project could potentially generate approximately 19 new residents in the City Menifee which represents approximately 0.07 percent and

0.003 percent of the City’s and County’s population growth forecast of 129,800 people, and 2,927,000 people, respectfully, by 2045
Additionally, the Project would occupy an area to be fully designated/classified as EDC-NG. The Project’s proposed warehousing uses would be consistent with established land use and zoning designations.

Therefore, any growth associated with the Project is planned and accounted for. Furthermore, the Project proposed roadway and utility infrastructure improvements would be installed beneath the public rights- of-way that abut the Project site to serve the Project site. As a result, the Project would not be anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the Project area. Therefore, impacts associated with substantial, unplanned population growth would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-4) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from induced population growth beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 7-4.

Impact 7.4-2: No Impact
No housing of any kind exists onsite and as such, no home or residents would be displaced with the implementation of the Project. As such, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-4)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 504

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1110 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
27 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the displacement of individuals or housing beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 7-4.

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 4.12-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project Applicant would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) toward new fire facilities.

Additionally, the Project would be designed in accordance with Menifee MC’s fire safety and fire suppression features, including type of building construction, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, and paved access. With payment of these fees, the Project would receive adequate fire protection service and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Because no fire protection facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with existing fire structures or require modification of fire protection facilities.

Compliance with applicable local and state regulations would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-7 and 4.12-8) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to fire services beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-7 and 4.12-8.

Impact 4.12-2: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be subject to the applicable DIFs. Funding for the operation and maintenance of existing services comes from the City’s General Fund, Measure DD funds, and development impact fees. The Project site would be adequately served by existing Menifee Police Department (MPD) facilities, equipment, and personnel such that new facilities would not be required. Because the Project site is not residential, although some calls for service are anticipated, the increase for police services would not be significantly impacted due to construction and operation of the Project warehouse. Additionally, development of the site would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of funding to offset any increases in demands for public services generated by the Project. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-9 and 4.12-10)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 505

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1111 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
28 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to police services beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-9 and 4.2-10.

Impact 4.12-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not draw a substantial number of new residents to the districts and therefore, would not indirectly generate school-aged students requiring public education. The Project does not include residential land uses and would not directly introduce new school-age children within the Romoland School and Perris Union Highschool Districts (RUSD and PUSHD, respectively). Furthermore, the Project is not expected to draw a substantial number of new residents to the surrounding area and would not, therefore, substantially increase enrollment at RUSD and PUSHD schools. Because the Project would not directly generate students and is not expected to indirectly draw a substantial number of students to the area, the Project would not cause or contribute to a need to construct new or physically altered public school facilities. Although the Project would not create a direct demand for public school services, PUHSD and RUSD currently requires school mitigation impact fees per square foot for commercial/industrial developments. RUSD and PUSHD use these fees to pay for facility expansion and upgrades needed to serve new students. Payment of these fees in compliance with Government Code section 65996 fully addresses all impacts to school facilities. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to schools beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.12-10.

Impact 4.12-4: Less than Significant Impact
Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, the need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Because no park facilities exist on the Project site, the Project would not conflict with existing park structures or require modification of park facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to park facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12- 11)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 506

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1112 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
29 The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to parks beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-11.

Impact 4.12-5: Less than Significant Impact
Project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered other public facilities, need for new or physically altered other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. Because no public facilities exist on the Project site, development of the Project would not conflict with existing public structures or require modification of public facilities. Therefore, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to other public facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-11 and 4.12-12) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to other public facilities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.12-11 and 4.12-12.

4.16 RECREATION
Impact 7.5-1 and 7.5-2: No Impact
The Project is a non-sort warehouse building with office and mezzanine space that does not include any recreational facilities and the Project applicant does not propose any residential development or other land use that may generate a population that would increase the use of any existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in the increased use or substantial physical deterioration of an existing neighborhood or regional park.

Implementation of the Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment as it pertains to construction/expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 7-5) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts due to the increased demand on established parks beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 7-5.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 507

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1113 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
30 4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Impact 4.13-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be consistent with SB 375 by complying with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. The Project’s consistency analysis with SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals is further discussed in Draft EIR Table 4.10-3: Project Compatibility with SCAG’s Connect SoCal Strategies within Draft EIR Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning of this EIR. The Project would also be consistent with Riverside County’s CMP goals but not limited to, adhering to the CMP by maintaining and enhancing the performance of the multimodal transportation system near the Project site, and minimizing travel delay. The Project would also comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by being consistent with the Menifee GP Circulation Element.

The Project would include improvements to Evans Road and Barnett Road that would provide access to the Project. The Project’s on-site perimeter circulation would be designed in compliance with the Menifee MC development standards. Furthermore, the Project would include improvements for Opening Year 2025 and Opening Year 2025 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions through a combination of fee payments to help establish programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of fair-share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches.

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

Overall, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the Project’s circulation system. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-10 and 4.13- 17)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.13-10 and 4.13-17.

Impact 4.13-2: Less than Significant Impact
Review of Draft EIR Table 4.13-5 shows that the Project’s Employment-Based VMT land use does not exceed the City’s VMT threshold under any project scenario, based on the City’s VMT guidelines. The VMT per service population for the Project is less than the City's VMT threshold. This finding should remain consistent whether the entirety of the Project's VMT is considered, or if only the VMT within the City is considered. This is because both the Project and the rest of the City, under which the threshold was developed, will have consistent travel patterns and so the relative VMT per service population between Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 508

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1114 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
31 the project and the remainder of the City should remain consistent within the City. Therefore, it can be determined that under baseline conditions, the Project effect on VMT would be considered a less-than- significant impact on VMT within the City. Therefore, under baseline conditions, the Project’s effect on VMT would be less than significant impact on VMT within the City. In addition, the City’s VMT Guidelines state that the cumulative no project shall reflect SCAG’s adopted Connect SoCal. As such, if a project is consistent with the Connect SoCal, then the cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant.

The proposed land use is consistent with the Menifee GP; therefore, the Project’s cumulative VMT impact is considered less than significant.

The City provides Industrial Good Neighbor Policies for new industrial project sites. Although the Project’s VMT impact is considered to be less than significant, the Project would comply with the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for industrial uses with over 100 employees to reduce work-related vehicle trips. Overall, impacts concerning the Project’s VMT effects are less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-17 and 4.13-18) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding conflicts with CEQA transportation guidelines beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.13-17 and 4.13-18.

Impact 4.13-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on-site, such as farm equipment. All circulation improvements would be constructed as approved by the City’s Public Works Department. Additionally, the Project would be constructed in accordance with Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.160.050. All structures shall be located to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection and required off-street parking.” In addition, all Project driveway intersections operate at an acceptable LOS with implementation of the recommendations and would therefore not create unsafe traffic conditions at these intersections. Sight distance at Project access points would comply with applicable sight distance standards and no sharp curves are proposed as part of the Project design (Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.160.060). Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-18 and 4.13-19) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from hazardous design features beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.13-18 and 4.13-19.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 509

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1115 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
32 Impact 4.17-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would not result in adequate emergency access. During construction, access roads will be kept and maintained in such condition to allow for safe passage of emergency response vehicles. The Project’s compliance with applicable City laws and regulations, along with its provision of access points, will ensure that the Project’s construction impacts relating to this issue will be less than significant. Emergency access lanes would be provided around the perimeter of both buildings. Following compliance with Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) access requirements, adequate emergency access to the Project site would be provided. Project impacts concerning emergency access would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-19)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from impaired emergency access beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.13-19.

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.14-1: Less than Significant Impact
The City of Menifee sent letters to those interested tribes that requested notification from projects occurring within the City pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The following are the interested tribes:
Pechanga Band of Indians;
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians; and
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

To date, no response from the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Cultural Resources Department has been received. The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (RBLI) responded on March 10, 2023. Mr. Shuuluk Linton noted that the Project site is located within RBLI TUA. For this reason, the RBLI Tribal Historic Preservation Coordinator requested the receive copies of existing Project documents and to consult on the Project to learn more about potential impacts to cultural resources.

On March 15, 2023, the Pechanga Band to Indians (PBI) stated that the Project is a part of PBI’s aboriginal territory. Therefore, PBI requested to begin consultation under AB 52 for the Project and to be added to the distribution list for public notices and circulation of all documents, including environmental review documents, archaeological reports, development plans, conceptual grading plans (if available), and all other applicable documents pertaining to the Project.

Based on consultation with local tribes, Conditions of Approval (COA)’s COA-CUL-1 through COA-CUL-8 (see Draft EIR Section 4.4, Cultural Resources) would ensure that any impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Additionally, if human remains are discovered during Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 510

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1116 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
33 construction, the Project contractor would be subject to either the State law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the NAHC shall be contacted. The NAHC will determine the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) and the City and Developer would work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-7 and 4.14-8)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts on tribal cultural resources beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.14-7 and 4.14-8.

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 4.15-1: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is currently substantially vacant with an existing adjacent unimproved roadway. Adjacent and nearby uses, including residential and commercial developments, are served by existing utilities, including electricity, natural gas, and wet and dry utilities but they have not been extended into the Project site. Existing utilities would be extended and upgraded as needed during construction of Project to serve the anticipated demands and to accommodate operation of the warehouse. All required improvements and extensions to existing electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utilities would occur within the existing roadway rights-of-way adjacent to the Project site, including Evans Road and Barnett Road. All areas adjacent to the existing roadways are also disturbed and are within the overall footprint of the Project.

Water
EMWD’s available water supplies would be sufficient to meet all of the water demands of the entire customer base, including the Project, through 2045, including during single and multiple dry years. Table

4.15-1: Total Retail and Wholesale Water Supply (AFY), above, shows these values. In all cases through year 2045, even during single and multiple dry year conditions, water supplies available to EMWD would be sufficient to meet all present and future water supply requirements of the entire customer base, including the Project, for the next twenty-five years, as shown in Draft EIR Tables 4.15-3 and 4.15-4 in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Additionally, EMWD provided a Water and Sewer Will service letter (Draft EIR Appendix L) which stated that EMWD is willingly to provide water and sewer services to the Project site from the nearest EMWD water system. As such, the Project would have sufficient water supplies. Additionally, based on the incremental increase in demand that would result from implementation of the Project, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-13 and 4.15- 14)
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 511

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1117 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
34 Stormwater and Drainage
To prevent stormwater and drainage impacts, the Project would include off-site improvements which include storm drain lines running from an existing channel heading north on Evans Road toward Ethanac Road. No other off-site improvements are proposed. All other storm drain connections would be connected to existing storm drain lines. Furthermore, Project storm water and drainage facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the EMWD and City. In consideration of existing requirements, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to Project storm water and drainage facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-14) Wastewater
Construction on the approximately 20.17-acre Project site would result in 398,252 square feet (SF) of warehouse, mezzanine, and office use south of Ethanac Road between Evans Road and Barnett Road.

Prior to construction or operations of the Project, the Project applicant would comply with EMWD’s New Development Process.

The EMWD has previously used wastewater generation rates for industrial uses of approximately 1,700 gallons per day (GPD) per acre. Based on this value, wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 15,500 GPD. This represents approximately 0.02 percent of the total daily capacity of the EMWD’s 78 Million Gallon per Day (MGD) current treatment capacity. The EMWD’s facilities currently treat an average of 50.4 MGD. The Project would therefore represent approximately 0.07 percent of the typical daily flows. Therefore, the increase in the daily wastewater generated by the Project site would be minimal and result in a less than significant impact. Improvements to facilitate service to the Project site would consist of tie-ins to the existing wastewater lines. Besides the on-site wastewater system, the Project requires an off-site connection to the existing sewer line along Evans Road. This proposed sewer line would run south on Evans Road connecting to the existing sewer line on McLaughlin Road. No other off-site wastewater system improvements would be required.

Proposed wastewater facilities would be below ground, within existing or planned roadway rights-of-way, and as such are addressed in respective Draft EIR section(s). All Project wastewater facilities would be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations of the EMWD and City and would also follow applicable EIR mitigation measures in each topical area addressed in the Draft EIR.

In consideration of existing requirements and Draft EIR mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to Project wastewater facilities. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effect, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-14 and 4.15-15) Electric Power
The Project would require electricity facilities such as powerlines and other similar system components.

However, this new infrastructure would be completely underground, pursuant to the City of Menifee MC, Title 9, also referred to as the City of Menifee Development Code (Menifee Development Code) and would be installed within the proposed development areas. At most, it is anticipated that SCE would provide Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 512

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1118 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
35 more electricity to the Project compared to what is currently consumed, due to the current mostly vacant status of the Project site. No off-site electrical facilities are anticipated at this time. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power which could cause significant environmental effects, and a less than significant impact would occur. Draft EIR, p.

4.15-15)
Natural Gas
As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, use of natural gas would be prohibited on-site. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-15 and 4.15-16) Telecommunications
The Project site would require telecommunication services to be provided by Frontier Communications.

Existing telecommunication lines, located within existing adjacent rights-of-way, would serve the Project.

Service to the Project site would require tying into these lines but these improvements would occur within existing areas of disturbance such as those adjacent to existing roadways. The new facilities required for the Project would be constructed within the development area and would be placed underground as per the City’s Development Code, Title 9. Therefore, construction of the Project’s telecommunication, cable and internet facilities would not create an increased impact on the environment beyond what is addressed for the overall Project, in respective EIR sections. No off-site telecommunications facilities are anticipated at this time. The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-16) Overall, the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-13 through 4.15-17)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts from the increased demand on public facilities beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-13 through 4.15-17.

Impact 4.15-2: Less than Significant Impacts
The Project’s water service provider is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the projected demands as further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Additionally, a Will Serve letter from the EMWD (Draft EIR Appendix L) stated that EMWD is willingly to provide water and Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 513

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1119 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
36 sewer services to the Project site from the nearest EMWD water system. The Project would result in less than significant impacts on services provided by the water service provider. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-17) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts to water supplies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.15-17.

Impact 4.15-3: Less than Significant Impact
The Project’s wastewater service provider is anticipated to have adequate capacity to treat the projected demand. The Project is anticipated to cause a less than significant impact on services provided by the wastewater service provider. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-14, 4.15-15, and 4.15-17) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding wastewater treatment demand beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-14, 4.15-15, and 4.15-17.

Impact 4.15-4: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient remaining permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. According to CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generations Rates for warehouse facilities, the Project is anticipated to produce 13.82 pounds of waste per employee per day. The estimated number of employees to operate the warehouses would be approximately 423 people That is approximately 0.02 percent of the El Sobrante Landfill’s maximum daily throughput and

0.06 percent of Badlands Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput. Therefore, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs could be accommodated at one or a combination of the disposal facilities discussed above. Operational activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under CALGreen and Assembly Bill 939.

The Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste, and no mitigation is required.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts regarding solid waste generation beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 514

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1120 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
37 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-17 and 4.15-18.

Impact 4.15-5: Less than Significant Impact
The Project would be constructed in compliance with Government Code Section 5.408.1, the more stringent of the code sections which requires that projects recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Government Code Sections 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent. As such a less than significant impact would occur.

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with established solid waste policies beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.15-18 and 4.15-19.

4.20 WILDFIRE
Impact 7.6-1, 7.6-2, 7.6-3, 7.6-4: No Impact
According to Menifee GP Exhibits S-8, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Public Facilities, and S-6, High Fire Hazard Areas, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). In addition, the Project site does not contain lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFSZ/SRA to the Project site is located approximately 2.06 miles to the northeast. Therefore, no impact associated with the substantial impairment of an adopted emergency response plan would occur. Because the site is located within an urbanized area, it would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Additionally, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, nor would it require the installation/maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-5 and 7-6)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate impacts to the following: established emergency response or evacuation plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR; wildfire impacts beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR; substantial impacts due to the installation of infrastructure beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR; substantial post-fire flooding or landslide impacts beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. No impacts are anticipated. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this impact.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 7-5 and 7-6.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 515

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1121 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
38 4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED TO A

LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City finds, based upon the threshold criteria for significance presented in the Draft EIR, that all potentially significant environmental effects of the Project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with feasible mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. No substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the following impacts would, in fact, occur at levels that would necessitate a determination of significance.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b), requires a description of any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed Project is implemented.

4.1 AESTHETICS
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-3: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated To identify sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction and operations. The LST methodology provided by SCAQMD is used by lead agencies to assist in the analysis of localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions. Review of Draft EIR Tables 4.2-11 and 4.2-12 shows that the Project’s construction and operational emissions are below SCAQMD LSTs and therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs.

A Health Risk Assessment (Draft EIR Appendix A) was conducted based on the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. For carcinogenic risk, the Project’s combined construction and operational unmitigated impacts would result in a maximum cancer risk of 30.08 in one million at the nearest residential receptors; 11.74 in one million at the nearest park receptors; and 1.91 in one million at the nearest worker receptors. Therefore, the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million would be exceeded at the nearest residential and park receptors. The Project would be required to comply with MM GHG-2, which requires the use of zero emission cargo handling equipment during operations. With implementation of MM GHG-2, the Project’s cancer risk would be reduced to

1.73 in one million at the nearest residential receptors; 0.54 in one million at the nearest par receptors; and 0.10 in one million at the nearest worker receptors. As such, impacts associated with carcinogenic risk would be less than significance with implementation of MM GHG-2.

For chronic non-carcinogenic impacts, the highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with unmitigated diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the Project would be 0.012; a chronic hazard Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 516

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1122 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
39 index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. With mitigation, the chronic hazard would be reduced to 0.002. Therefore, even without mitigation, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.

Overall, implementation with MM GHG-2 would ensure that impacts concerning cancer risk would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-26 through 4.2-35) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with MM GHG-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.2: Air Quality, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM GHG-2 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GHG-2All outdoor cargo handling equipment (such as yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission (i.e., powered by electricity or other alternative fuel). The warehouse buildings shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements:

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.2-26 through 4.2-35.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-1: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated There are 24 special-status plant species that have been previously recorded in the Romoland and Perris quadrangles. No special-status plant species were observed on the Project site during field investigation.

The Project site and surrounding area have been subject to decades of anthropogenic disturbances which have removed native plant communities that historically occurred. The Habitat Assessment and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis (Draft EIR Appendix C1) determined that the site does not have potential to support anu of the other special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the site an all are presumed to be absent. The CNDDB lists two special-status habitats as being identified within the Romoland and Perris quadrangles: Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, which do not occur on the Project site. No CDFW special-status plant communities occur within the boundaries of the Project site.

According to the CNDDB, 77 special-status wildlife species have been reported in the Romoland and Perris quadrangles. Two special-status species were observed during the field investigation, Costa’s hummingbird and killdeer, the latter of which was not included in the CNDDB for the Romoland and Perris quadrangles. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a high potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 517

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1123 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
40 cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia); and a low potential to support great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). It was concluded that the Project site does not have the potential to support any other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site and all are presumed to be absent.

None of the aforementioned species are federally or state listed as threatened or endangered. In addition, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, great blue heron, burrowing owl, norther harrier, California horned lark, and loggerhead shrike are covered species under the MSHCP. Of the aforementioned species, only burrowing owl and California horned lark might be expected to nest on-site. Sharp-shinned hawk are no expected to nest on-site since this species do not nest in the region; and Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike are not expected to nest on-site due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat/opportunities.

A focused burrowing owl survey (Draft EIR Appendix C2) was conducted to confirm the presence of individual burrowing owls, nests, and suitable burrowing owl habitat. No burrowing owls or signs (pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed on or within 500 feet, where accessible, of the Project site during the field investigation. However, based on a review of CDFW’s CNDDB, 22 burrowing owl observations have been recorded within five miles of the Project site in previous years. Portions of the Project site are vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for minimal line-of-sigh observation favored by burrowing owls. Further, small mammal burrows that have the potential to provide suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat (>4 inches in diameter) were observed throughout the Project site. However, otherwise suitable burrows in the western portion of the site are unlikely to support nesting burrowing owls due to the presence of free roaming dogs and cats associated with neighboring properties to the west and otherwise suitable burrows in the southern portion of the site are unlikely to support nesting burrowing owls due to the perching opportunities for predators of burrowing owl (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that are present within the adjacent high-voltage transmission easement. Burrows in the northeastern portion of the site and adjacent flood control channel provide suitable roosting and nesting opportunities for burrowing owl. Pursuant to MM BIO-2, the Project Applicant would retain a qualified biologist to conduct a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The survey results would be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit to ensure that burrowing owls are not impacted.

Additionally, to ensure impacts to the aforementioned avian species do not occur from Project implementation, MM BIO-1 would require that a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey be conducted prior top ground disturbance. Therefore, with implementation of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, the Project’s impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-12 through 4.3-16) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 518

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1124 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
41 or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.3: Biological Resources, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM BIO-1: If grading or construction activities, including vegetation removal, occurs between February 1st and August 31 st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.

The results of the survey shall be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit.

The Project Applicant shall ensure that impacts to nesting bird species at the project site are avoided through the implementation of preconstruction surveys, ongoing monitoring, and if necessary, establishment of minimization measures. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
a) The Project Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures. b) Surveys shall be conducted by the Designated Biologist at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate. If a nest is suspected, but not confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall establish a disturbance-free buffer until additional surveys can be completed, or until the location can be inferred based on observations. If a nest is observed, but thought to be inactive, the Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest for one hour (four hours for raptors during the non-breeding season) prior to approaching the nest to determine status. The Designated Biologist shall use their best professional judgement regarding the monitoring period and whether approaching the nest is appropriate.
c) If an active avian nest is confirmed, the Designated Biologist shall immediately establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 519

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1125 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
42 professional judgement and experience. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of Project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such Project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the Designated Biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the Designated Biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite qualified biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting avoidance buffers and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to County for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

MM BIO-2: The Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a 30-day preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The results of the single one-day survey shall be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. If at any time there is a lapse of Project activities for 30 days or more, another burrowing owl survey shall be conducted and submitted to the City.

If burrowing owl are not detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgment and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with CDFW, or the Project Developer shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-16.

Impact 4.3-6: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project site is located in the City of Menifee within the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP. No jurisdictional drainages, riparian/riverine and/or wetland features were observed within the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 520

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1126 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
43 Project site. Development of the Project would not result in impacts to riparian/riverine habitats and a DBESP would not be required for the loss of riparian/riverine habitat from development of the Project.

Additionally, the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within or in close proximity of any Criteria Cells or designated conservation areas. Therefore, the Project would not need to comply with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.

Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface, is intended to address indirect effects associated with development in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project site is not located within or in close proximity of any Criteria Cells or designated conservation areas. Therefore, the Project would not need to comply with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines.

In accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in order to achieve coverage for these species. In compliance with the conservation goals of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, a Part B-Focused burrowing owl survey was conducted during the breeding season. Pursuant to MM BIO-2, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey would be required to ensure that the burrowing owl remains absent from the Project site.

The Project is located within the Mitigation Fee Area of the SKR HCP but is not located within or adjacent to any of the Core Reserve Areas. Since the Project is not located within or adjacent to any of the Core Reserve Areas, no focused SKR surveys or on-site mitigation would be required. On-site mitigation is only recommended in Ordinance 663.10 when a site is located within or adjacent to a Core Reserve Area. As a result, the applicant would only be required to pay the SKR HCP Mitigation Fee prior to development of the Project site. With completion of recommendations provided above and payment of the applicable MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee ($19,615/acre)1 for industrial developments (last updated July 1, 2024) and SKR HCP Mitigation fees, and implementation of MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, development of the Project site would be fully consistent with the MSHCP. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-19 through 4.3-21) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

The City hereby finds that the Project would not generate substantial impacts due to conflicts with established conservation plans beyond those concluded in the Draft EIR. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.3-19 through 4.3-21. 1 Regional Conservation Authority. (2024). MSHCP Fees. Available at https://www.wrc-rca.org/development-applications/permits-and-fees/ (accessed October 2024).

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 521

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1127 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
44 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.6 ENERGY
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.6-7: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as water levels and precipitation changes throughout the year. These soils normally occur within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume changes dramatically. The Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the Project (Draft EIR Appendix F) concluded that encountered near-surface soils consisted mostly of silty sand to sandy silt that was dry to moist and medium dense to very dense or stiff to hard in-place and scattered discontinuous beds of sandy clay and clayey sand, along with lenses of poorly graded sand. Based on the results of laboratory testing conducted during the Geotechnical investigation, the Project site soils were anticipated to have “Very Low” to “Low” expansion potential. Although grading activities would likely involve relatively significant mixing and blending of the site materials and a reduction of the overall expansion potential of the fill soils, sandy silt soils of low expansion index would still remain beneath the fill in most areas. The Project would implement the design recommendations listed in the geotechnical reports and 2022 CBC design standards, and MM GEO-1 to reduce impacts from expansive soils.

Additionally, the Project would comply with City standard conditions of approval requiring compliance with the design recommendations listed in the geotechnical reports. Therefore, implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that the on-site soils would not be liable to significant expansion and a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM GEO-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.6: Geology and Soils, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM GEO-1 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-1 During construction activity, special care shall be given to moisture conditioning of all slab subgrade to 100 percent of optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches prior to trenching.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR page 4.6-13.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 522

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1128 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
45 Impact 4.6-9: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The geologic units underlying the Project area are mapped primarily as old alluvial sand and gravel from the Pleistocene epoch, which is considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The Pleistocene alluvial deposits are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. Based on these results, MM GEO- 2 would be implemented which requires that the Applicant/Developer retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). With implementation of MM GEO-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-14 and 4.6-15) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM GEO-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM GEO-2 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GEO-2Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre- construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. The PRIMP would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Information contained in the PRIMP shall minimally include:

1. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations.

2. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth-moving activities.

3. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving.

4. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens.

5. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City.

6. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays.

7. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any.

8. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 523

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1129 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
46 9. Fossil identification cataloged and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution.

10. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material.

11. All pertinent maps and exhibits.

12. Procedures for reporting of findings.

13. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRIMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.6-14 and 4.6-15.

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 4.7-1: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Review of Draft EIR Table 4.7-2 concluded that the Project would result approximately 1,078 MTCO2e total construction emissions. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30-year period and then added to the operational emissions. The Project’s amortized construction emissions would be 36 MTCO2e. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.7-3 which concluded that the Project’s unmitigated GHG emissions would be approximately 3,378 MTCO 2e annually from both construction and operations and would exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold. The majority of the GHG emissions (approximately 54 percent unmitigated and 63 percent mitigated) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and neither the Project applicant nor the City has control over these standards.

The Project would be required to comply with several Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs) and mitigation measures to reduce operational GHG emissions. LOR-4 through LOR-6 require water efficient irrigation systems, and compliance with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (refer to LOR-7) which would directly reduce emissions or to otherwise facilitate emissions reductions. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby. Although Rule 2305 focuses on air quality pollutant emissions, the rule would facilitate cleaner vehicles and supporting infrastructure that would also result in GHG benefits. Furthermore, the Project would also implement MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2 to further reduce emissions.

As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.7-3, the Project adherence with relevant LORs and implementation of MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2 would reduce Project GHG emissions by approximately 14 percent and total mitigated emissions (2,696 MTCO2e per year) would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.

Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the Project would be less than significant with implementation Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 524

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1130 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
47 of MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2 and compliance with LOR-1 through LOR-8. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-19 through 4.7- 23)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM GHG-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit or tenant occupancy permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project does not include conveyance of natural gas utility lines. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to reduce GHG emissions from natural gas.

MM GHG-2All outdoor cargo handling equipment (such as yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission (i.e., powered by electricity or other alternative fuels). The warehouse buildings shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.7-19 through 4.6-23.

Impact 4.7-2: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As further discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project does not conflict with the applicable plans such as the City of Menifee GP, SCAG Connect SoCal, 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, and other relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, with respect to this particular threshold, the Project does not have a significant impact. As discussed in Impact 4.7-1, with adherence with LORs-1 through LOR- 8 and implementation of MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2, the Project’s long-term GHG emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO 2e per year threshold. Accordingly, the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-23 through 4.7-27).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 525

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1131 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
48 Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which is incorporated herein by reference, the MMs GHG-1 and GHG-2 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.7-23 through 4.7-27.

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.8-1: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Project construction would involve the general use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts.

A Phase I ESA (Draft EIR Appendix H) was conducted for the Project to assess the Project site’s potential hazardous impacts on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions associated with the Project site. There is no concern of possible past use and storage of chemicals and petroleum products at the site associated with these past uses. However, the Project site parcels were historically used for agricultural purposes and the Phase I ESA determined that agricultural related chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, may have been used on-site. Consequently, it is possible that residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals may be present in soil and potentially groundwater. However, if residual concentrations of these chemicals are present, it is unlikely that they would be the subject of regulatory scrutiny in the context of a non-residential land use scenario. As such, these findings would be considered as a de minimis condition (i.e., De minimis conditions are those that do not represent a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies), provided the future site use will be industrial/commercial and the site is not re-zoned for residential use.

In the event that any contaminated soils and substances are encountered during ground disturbing activities such as grading, MM HAZ-1 would be implemented that would proper handling of the potentially found contaminated soils and substances. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

During operations, Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The Project may also involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; the specific substances and quantities of such materials are presently unknown. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. DOT, California OSHA, and the Riverside County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 526

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1132 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
49 that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, the Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Riverside County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials during the Project’s operational phase are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for significant hazards to the public or the environment. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-22 through 4.8-24)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MM HAZ-1.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MM HAZ-1 is feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of this mitigation measure will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan (SMP). Prior to issuance of a grading permit or trenching or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway infrastructure, the Master Developer, or Site Developer shall retain a qualified environmental professional to prepare a SMP that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The purpose of the SMP is to outline protocol for ensuring the proper handling and/or disposal of impacted soil and/or subsurface features of concern that may be encountered during site development. The SMP shall be submitted to the City’s (Engineering Department) for review and approval prior to commencement of trenching or subsurface excavation for utilities or roadway infrastructure.

The SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
Land use history, including description and locations of known contamination; The nature and extent of previous investigations and remediation at the site; Identified areas of concern at the site, in relation to proposed activities; A listing and description of institutional controls, such as applicable City ordinances and other local, state, and federal regulations and laws that would apply to the project;
Names and positions of individuals involved with soils management and their specific role;
An earthwork schedule;
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 527

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1133 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
50 Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HSPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the project site. The HSP should be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect on-site workers by including engineering controls, personal protective equipment, monitoring, and security to prevent unauthorized entry and to reduce construction related hazards. The HSP should address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards including hazardous waste contamination and include procedures to protect workers and the public; Hazardous waste determination and disposal procedures for known and previously unidentified contamination, including those associated with any soil export activities, if applicable;
Requirements for site specific techniques at the site to minimize dust, manage stockpiles, run on and run-off controls, waste disposal procedures, etc.; and Copies of relevant permits or closures from regulatory agencies.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.8-22 through 4.8-24.

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.9-1: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with Project buildout may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in nearby drainages. Pursuant to MM HYD-1, the Project is required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the water quality policies of the City GP and the Riverside County DAMP, all which require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP in order to obtain grading and building permits. The SWPPP would identify site-specific construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff from the Project site. In addition, the Santa Ana MS4 Permit requires the preparation of a project-specific WQMP for all development projects and, as such, a project- specific WQMP has been prepared for the Project. The Project-Specific WQMP (see Appendix I1) has incorporated combined LID treatment, hydrologic control BMPs, and sediment supply BMPs to capture runoff during operations pursuant to MM HYD-2. A final WQMP will be required to address BMP sizing and O&M plan. Overall, the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15 through 4.9-19).

Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible and Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 528

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1134 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
51 are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

MM HYD-1Prior to commencing grading, the Project Applicant shall comply with applicable construction water quality regulations including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit, which shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This process requires that the applicant electronically submit Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) prior to commencement of construction activities in the Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs consist of the Notice of Intent, Risk Assessment, Post-Construction Calculations, a Site Map, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement by the Legally Responsible Person, and the first annual fee.

The required SWPPP must be submitted to the City of Menifee Engineering Department for review and approval, identifying specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, site restoration, contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements:

A. Compliance with the requirements of the State of California’s most current Construction Stormwater Permit.

B. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented on all disturbed areas.

C. Disturbed surfaces shall be treated with erosion control measures during the October 15 to April 15 rainy season.

D. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other BMPs.

E. The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate discharge of materials to storm drains.

F. BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the Santa Ana RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure.

G. In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the duration of construction.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 529

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1135 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
52 H. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit the Final Tentative Parcel Map that includes the water quality BMPs for approval by the City of Menifee Engineer. The City of Menifee Engineer shall ensure that all applicable water quality standards are met before approving the SWPPP.

MM HYD-2The Project Applicant shall prepare a Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with operations and maintenance (O&M) Plan for submittal together with the associated grading and improvement plans which must be approved prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. These documents shall be prepared in accordance with applicable City (Menifee) and County (Riverside) water quality requirements, for review and approval by the City of Menifee Engineering Department, including the following:
Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Source Control BMPs
Treatment Control BMPs
BMP Sizing
Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives
Regionally-Based Treatment Control BMPs
O&M Responsibility for Treatment Control BMPs
Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-15 through 4.9-19.

Impact 4.9-3: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project would generate on-site and off-site flows. With implementation of the Project, the northerly portion of Building 1 and the northerly drive aisle would drain to catch basins located in the northerly drive aisle. An on-site storm drain system would capture and convey flows southerly around the proposed building to the southerly drive aisle. Flows from the Building 1 truck yard would confluence in the proposed system in the easterly drive aisle. Flows continue southerly to the proposed 10 foot by 6 foot reinforced concrete box structure that ultimately discharges in the MDP channel. The northerly portion of Building 2, northerly truck yard, and northerly driveway would drain to catch basins located in the northerly truck yard. A separate on-site storm drain system conveys flows northerly to the proposed reinforced concrete box structure and discharges at the same location as the flows from the north.

Therefore, development of the Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site since the existing site is predominately undeveloped with little existing impervious surfaces.

The Project Applicant would obtain a NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit and implement a SWPPP to minimize soil erosion and siltation on and off the site; see MM HYD-1. BMPs as outlined in the WQMP would also be implemented during construction and operation of the site to minimize erosion and sedimentation; see MM HYD-2. In addition to the SWPPP and WQMP, the Project would comply with other applicable local and regional water quality requirements. Overall drainage patterns would be captured through the proposed drainage systems, with flows directed to the Santa Ana Watershed Region Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 530

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1136 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
53 and with water quality measures applicable to the respective watershed. In consideration of existing regulations, and with implementation of MM HYD 1 and MM HYD-2, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-20 and 4.9-21)
Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-20 and 4.9-21.

Impact 4.9-4: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Development of the Project would introduce more impervious surfaces on the site; therefore, increasing the amount and rate of surface runoff. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations (Draft EIR Appendix I2) conduced for the Project concluded that the Project’s drainage system would be designed to provide on- site underground detention systems and proprietary biotreatment units, combined with comprehensive storm drainage. The drainage design recommendations are included in the Project design plans and have been designed to ensure that all on- and off-site drainage and storm drain facilities would be adequately sized for the 100-year storm event. Additionally, the Project would implement MM HYD-1, Additionally, an NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit would be obtained and a SWPPP would be implemented to minimize soil erosion and siltation on and off the site (see MM HYD-1). BMPs, as outlined in the WQMP would also be implemented during construction and operation of the site to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, the Project would not significantly increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding, and run-off water would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Finally, the Project Applicant would be required to submit all final grading plans, erosion control plans, and drainage plans prior issuance of grading permit.

All plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure that the Project would not increase flows on- or off-site or substantially exceed the existing drainage facilities pursuant to MM HYD-2. Therefore, with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 and compliance with applicable City regulations (including Menifee MC Chapter 8.26: Grading Regulations), the Project would not cause additional flooding, exceed the capacity of existing drainage facilities, or impede or redirect flood flows such that on-site or off-site areas are significantly impacted. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-21 and 4.9-22) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 531

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1137 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
54 or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-21 and 4.9-22.

Impact 4.9-5: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The Project is inland and is not at risk for inundation due to a tsunami since it is more than 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean. However, the Project site lies within the dam breach inundation area for the Lake Perris Main Dam. In 2005, DWR determined that there were potential seismic safety concerns with the Lake Perris dam’s foundation if a magnitude 7.5 or larger earthquake struck the area. As a result, the DWR has commenced the Perris Dam Modernization Project that includes the Perris Dam Remediation Project, the Outlet Tower Improvements Project, and the Emergency Release Facility Project. The Perris Dam Remediation Project was completed in April 2018 and included several seismic retrofit upgrades such as strengthening the dam’s foundation and embankment. The Outlet Tower Improvements Project, part of the Perris Dam seismic retrofit projects, is planned for completion by 2026 and would ensure safe and reliable release of water during normal and emergency operations. Finally, the Emergency Release Facility Project is planned for construction between 2024 and 2026 and would safely route the flow of water in an emergency that requires the rapid lowering of Lake Perris. At project completion, flows would be directed by levees into a channel that would ultimately flow into the Perris Valley Storm Drain. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to be at a significant risk for inundation due to dam failure from the Lake Perris Main Dam,
According to maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; refer to Draft EIR Exhibit 4.9-1), the westerly portion of the Project site is located within Flood Zone X (shaded), which indicates that this portion of the Project site has an annual flood risk that is between a 1-percent annual chance (100-year) flood event and a 0.2-percent annual chance (500-year) food event. The easterly portion of the Project site is located within Flood Zone X (unshaded), which indicates that this portion of the Project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard. The Preliminary Hydrology Calculations concluded that the proposed drainage improvements, catch basins, and detention basins and off-site drainage improvement have been designed appropriately to provide flood protection for the 100-year storm event. As such, the Project would implement BMP’s and efficient design measures pursuant to the Project’s SWPPP and WQMP (MM HYD-1 and HYD-2), that includes, but is not limited to, the pretreatment of runoff through the proposed bioretention basins. Therefore, the Project’s impacts regarding the risk of pollutants would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR. pp. 4.9-22 and 4.9-23) Finding: The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 532

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1138 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
55 or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment to below a level of significance with implementation of MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2.

Mitigation Measures: Based upon the analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, which is incorporated herein by reference, MMs HYD-1 and HYD-2 are feasible and is made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Supportive Evidence: Please refer to Draft EIR pages 4.9-22 and 4.9-23.

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.13 NOISE
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.16 RECREATION
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.17 TRANSPORTATION
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

5.20 WILDFIRE
No impacts were concluded to be potentially significant.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 533

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1139 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
56 5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED

TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

5.1 AESTHETICS
No impacts were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.3 AIR QUALITY
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.6 ENERGY
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 534

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1140 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
57 No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.13 NOISE
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.16 RECREATION
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.17 TRANSPORTATION
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYTEMS
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

6.20 WILDFIRE
No impacts were concluded to be and significant and unavoidable.

7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.”
Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(e), a project would be considered to have a growth- inducing effect if it would result in any of the following effects:
Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 535

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1141 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
58 Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

Discussed herein, the Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.

First, the Project would not directly foster population growth as the Project does not involve the construction of residential uses, nor does the site zoning allow for residential development. The Project would generate employment, but the existing unemployment for Riverside County 6 (4.5 percent) and the City of Menifee7 (4.2 percent) suggests that there is a need for local employment opportunities which are anticipated to be filled by locals. Additionally, based on data from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found that approximately 13 percent of Americans move each year, and of those 21 percent move for job-related reasons. 13 percent of 692 is 90 people and 21 percent of 90 people is 19 people. Therefore, the Project could potentially generate approximately 19 new residents in the City Menifee which represents approximately 0.07 percent and 0.003 percent of the City’s and County’s population growth forecast of 129,800 people, and 2,927,000 people, respectfully, by 2045. For these reasons, Project construction would not directly or indirectly induce substantial, unplanned population growth in the City. (Draft EIR, p. 5-4)
Second, the Project would not remove obstacles to population growth. The Project’s development is localized to the Project site. The Project would not amend the Land Use Element or increase density on the parcels adjacent to the Project site. While the development of the Project would involve the expansion and updating of utility facilities such as electricity and water connections and the improvement of existing roadways, these improvements would serve the existing residences and businesses in the City and would improve services to these facilities and City connectivity. Substantial upgrades to the roadway system outside of the general Project area, which would promote further development, are not included as components of the Project. All infrastructure improvements associated with the Project are required of the Project itself, and do not contemplate future development in the area. Similar to the Project, all future projects in the general area would be subject to provide similar roadway and utility improvements to serve each project, as necessary. (Draft EIR, p. 5-4)
Third, the Project would not significantly induce population growth that would result in the taxation of existing community service facilities nor require the construction of new or expanded facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. As stated above, the Project would include infrastructure improvements and connections of wet and dry utilities and roadway improvements to serve the anticipated needs of the Project. Additionally, the Project would not require the expansion of utility facilities such as water treatment plants or landfills. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 and 5-5) Finally, the Project would not encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. The Project would not encourage or facilitate other development such as the construction of new housing or other developments that could potentially have a significant effect on the environment. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5) Finding – The City adopts CEQA Finding 1.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 536

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1142 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
59 The City hereby finds that the Project does not directly result in any significant growth-inducing impacts.

The Project involves the creation of opportunities for industrial development.

Supportive Evidence – Please refer to Draft EIR pages 5-4 and 5-5.

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were addressed in the Draft EIR:
1) The No Project Alternative
2) Reduced Building Intensity Alternative
3) Building Modification of two Building Site Plan to one Building with Additional Auto and Trailer Parking

6.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 1)
Description: State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving it. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that the Project site would not be developed, which means there would be no warehousing facilities, landscape improvements, or surface lot improvements developed on the Project site or off-site.

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

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

The City finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project objectives, as identified above as the Project site would remain in its existing vacant and undeveloped condition. The Project site would not provide employment opportunities, would not facilitate the movement of goods, would not develop an industrial project/warehouse facility that is Class A and that would attract high-end tenants to increase the City’s tax base.

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR Pages 6-5 through 6-9.

6.2 REDUCED BUILDING INTENSITY (15% REDUCTION) (ALTERNATIVE 2) Description: Alternative 2 assumes the proposed Project would undergo a 15 percent reduction in the overall square footage of the proposed warehouse building, removing approximately 59,800 SF of total warehouse space. Alternative 2 would minimize overall impacts related to the scale of the Project by 15 percent in square feet of proposed buildings.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 537

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1143 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
60 The City finds that Alternative 2 would likely lead to reduced impacts in air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and utilities and service systems. A smaller building size would still be consistent with land use designations for the Project site. Utility demand would be decreased due to the 15 percent reduction of internal warehouse space as well.

Alternative 2 would meet all of the Project Objectives. However, Alternative 2 does not maximize the City’s benefits realized or achievement of the Project Objectives when compared to the Project due to the reduced building square footage (59,800 SF) of interior warehouse.

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR Pages 6-9 through 6-13.

8.3 MODIFICATION OF TWO BUILDING SITE PLAN

TO ONE BUILDING WITH ADDITIONAL AUTO
AND TRAILER PARKING (ALTERNATIVE 3)
Description: Alternative 3 assumes that Building 2 would continue to be constructed in its original location, including the same office and mezzanine space, but the Building 1 portion of the site totaling

5.30 acres of land would be utilized for trailer storage and vehicle parking consisting of 91 automobile parking stalls and 120 trailer parking stalls. The additional trailer parking would be used by the building’s tenant for storage purposes and would not be used as a truck terminal. Building site coverage would be reduced from 45.3 percent to 33.3 percent from the Project to Alternative 3.

Finding – The City adopts Finding 3.

Alternative 3 would result in less intensive impacts concerning air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and utilities and service impacts than the Project due to shorter construction timeline and a smaller building footprint. Additionally, Alternative 3 would meet all of the Project Objectives. Alternative 3 does not maximize the City’s benefits realized or achievement of the Project Objectives when compared to the Project due to the elimination of Building 1, totaling 105,537 SF.

Supporting Evidence – Please see Draft EIR Pages 6-14 through 6-18.

9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when making findings required by Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the Lead Agency approving a project shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with project implementation and to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby finds that:
1) A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Project, and the mitigation measures therein. The MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for the Project.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 538

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1144 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
61 2) The MMRP designates responsibility for implementation and monitoring of proposed mitigation measures. The City’s Community Development Director will serve as the overall Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 539

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1145 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
61 MMRP coordinator and will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are complied with.
3) The MMRP prepared for the Project has been adopted concurrently with these Findings. The MMRP meets the requirements of Section 21021.6 of the Public Resources Code. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

7.0 OTHER FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
1) The foregoing statements are true and correct;
2) The City is the “Lead Agency” for the Project evaluated in the CEQA Documents and independently reviewed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR for the Project; 3) The Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. It requested that responsible agencies respond as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to that agency’s specific responsibilities;
4) The public review period for the Draft EIR was for 45 days between June 6, 2024, and July 22, 2024. The Draft EIR and appendices were available for public review during that time. A Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse, and notices of availability of the Draft EIR were published by the City. The Draft EIR was available for review on the City’s website. Physical copies of the environmental documents are available at the City of Menifee Community Development Department, Sun City Library, and the Menifee Library; 5) The CEQA Documents were completed in compliance with CEQA; 6) The CEQA Documents reflect the City’s independent judgment; 7) The City evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the City prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provided adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments. The City reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information to the Draft EIR regarding adverse environmental impacts. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR; 8) The City finds that the CEQA Documents, as amended, provide objective information to assist the decision-makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit all comments made during the public review period;
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 540

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1146 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
62 9) The CEQA Documents evaluated the following impacts: (1) aesthetics; (2) agriculture and forestry; (3) air quality; (4) biological resources; (5) cultural resources; (6) energy; (7) geology and soils; (8) greenhouse gas emissions; (9) hazards and hazardous materials; (10) hydrology and water quality; (11) land use and planning; (12) mineral resources; (13) noise; (14) population and housing; (15) public services; (16) recreation; (17) transportation and circulation; (18) tribal cultural resources; (19) utilities and service systems; (20) wildfire.

Additionally, the CEQA Documents considered, in separate sections, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts of the Project as well as a reasonable range of project alternatives. No significant environmental impacts were identified in the CEQA Documents;
10) The MMRP includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Documents and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the Project. The MMRP provides the steps necessary to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable; 11) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation; the City’s Community Development Director will serve as the MMRP Coordinator; 12) In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2;
13) The impacts of the Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the CEQA Documents;
14) The City made no decisions related to approval of the Project prior to the initial recommendation of certification of the CEQA Documents. The City also did not commit to a definite course of action with respect to the Project prior to the initial consideration of the CEQA Documents. 15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the CEQA Documents are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City of Menifee Community Development Department, the custodian of record for such documents or other materials; 16) The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR;
17) Having reviewed the information contained in the CEQA Documents and in the administrative record, the City finds that there is no new significant information regarding adverse environmental impacts of the Project in the Final EIR; and 18) Having received, reviewed and considered all information in the CEQA Documents, as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, these Findings are hereby adopted by the City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency.

8.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b), and CEQA Guidelines Section15093(a) and (b), the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 541

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1147 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center
Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Menifee November 2024
63 other benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (14 C.C.R. § 15093 (a)). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (14 C.C.R. § 15093(b)).

Courts have upheld overriding considerations that were based on a variety of policy considerations including, but not limited to, new jobs, stronger tax base, and implementation of an agency’s economic development goals, growth management policies, redevelopment plans, the need for housing and employment, conformity to community plan, and provision of construction jobs; see Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal App. 3d 671; Dusek v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal App. 3d 1029; City of Poway v City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal App. 3d 1037; and Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal App.3d 656.

The EIR determined that the proposed Project would not have any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. As such, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required.

9.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Planning Commission certifies that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and that the Planning Commission has complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

The Planning Commission further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the EIR in evaluation of the Project and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further finds that no new significant information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the Planning Commission after the circulation of the Draft EIR that would require further recirculation.

Accordingly, the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project.

As the decision-making body for approval, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting documentation. The Planning Commission determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the Project’s environmental impacts and benefits of the Project as detailed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 542

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1148 of 2087

RESOLUTION NO. 25-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. PLN23-0040 FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SPECULATIVE WAREHOUSES
TOTALLING 398,041 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 18.74

ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF ETHANAC ROAD, EAST OF EVANS

ROAD, WEST OF BARNETT ROAD, AND NORTH OF MCLAUGHLIN
ROAD.

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the applicant, Lovett Industrial (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Plot Plan (PP) No.

PLN23-0040 for the construction of two speculative warehouses totaling 398,041 square feet on approximately 18.74 acres. Building 1 (northern building) is 45 feet 1 inch in height and includes 99,326 square feet of warehousing space with 6,000 square feet of office space for a total of 105,326 square feet. Building 2 is 45 feet 7 inches in height and includes 277,715 square feet of warehousing space, 8,000 square feet of office space and a 7,000 square-foot mezzanine for a total of 292,715 square feet. The Project site is generally located south of Ethanac Road, east of Evans Road, West of Barnett Road and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California, (APN’s: 331-060-007, 331-060-008, 331-060-030, 331-060-023, and 331-060- 020); and
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Northern Gateway Logistics Center”; and
WHEREAS, Conditions of Approval for PP No. PLN23-0040 have been prepared and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” of the resolution; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2025, 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 Final Environmental Impact Report (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, on May 20, 2025, an application to appeal Planning Commission certification of the EIR for the Project and approval of PP No. PLN23-0040 was submitted by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2025, an application to appeal Planning Commission certification of the EIR for the Project and approval of PP No. PLN23-0040 was submitted by the City of Perris; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2025, the City Council of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project including the consideration of the FEIR, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a 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 Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 543

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1149 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center – Plot Plan
July 16, 2025
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee resolves as follows:

Section 1: The City of Menifee’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for PP No. PLN23-0040 in accordance with Title 9, Article 2, Chapter 9.80.70, “Findings for Approval for Plot Plans” of the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code:

Finding 1 - The proposed design and location of the Plot Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of 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. All development and design standards of the City of Menifee Development Code have been uniformly applied to the entirety of the Project, and the Project is consistent with the General Plan.

In addition, the Project is consistent with the following City of Menifee General Plan policies:
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.

The proposed industrial Project is in close proximity to Ethanac Road, a designated truck route per the City’s General Plan. Ethanac Road directly connects to the I-215 freeway interchange. 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.

The Project’s infrastructure improvements include new roadways, roadway widening, intersection improvements, and sidewalks. All these improvements will help promote multimodal transportation opportunities for employees and residents surrounding the Project site.
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.

Perimeter landscaping have been provided to visually screen the parking lots, truck court, and drive aisles from surrounding roadways.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 544

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1150 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center – Plot Plan
July 16, 2025
CD-3.9  Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.

The Project is required to include security cameras at the entrances as well as within the property and the site has been designed to limit concealed areas to allow 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.

The proposed Project utilizes industrial architecture which focuses on efficiency for processing goods and products. The building is designed to prioritize employee safety and functionality. Nonetheless, the building is still 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.

The architecture of the Project 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. Screen walls have also been designed to incorporate architectural elements from the building for compatibility.

Additionally, dense perimeter landscaping is proposed to reduce the visual height of the building and truck court walls from the public view and to provide a visually pleasing street scene.

Finding 2 - The proposed project meets all applicable standards for development and provisions of this title.

Per Section 9.80.020 “Applicability” of the Development Code, new construction of non-residential projects of more than 2,500 square feet of floor area requires the processing of a PP. The PP is for the site and architectural review, to allow for the construction of two warehouses totaling 398,041.

The Project was reviewed against the City’s Development Code, Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, and Design Guidelines. The design of the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies and Industrial Design Guidelines.

Under Section 9.215.070 of the City’s Development Code (“Alternative Programs for Parking”), an industrial project is allowed to provide for alternative programs which reduce parking demand in return for a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces required up to a Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 545

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1151 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center – Plot Plan
July 16, 2025
maximum reduction of 15 percent of the required parking standard. The Project Applicant is requesting a 10 percent reduction. A total of 389 spaces are required (352 spaces with the 10 percent reduction [37-space reduction]) and 352 passenger car parking spaces are provided. The Project implements multiple alternative programs allowed under Section

9.215.070 including the provision of lot consolidation (five percent) and roadway improvements and/or dedication that exceed those recommended by a traffic study (i.e., the Project’s southern westbound driveway).

Therefore, the proposed design and location of the PP meets all applicable standards of development and operation of the City’s Zoning Code, including any applicable specific use regulations.

Finding 3 - The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the general welfare of the City.

To ensure the Project would not affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the surrounding persons residing or working in the community. The EIR examined the Project including planning, construction and operation and determined potential impacts would all be less than significant with the necessary mitigation measures.

The proposed entitlements are not anticipated to create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the Project vicinity.

In addition, the Project incorporates quality architecture and landscaping which will enhance the surrounding area. The Project has been reviewed by a variety of Departments to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to City of Menifee Community Development, Engineering and Public Works, Office of the Fire Marshall, Police, Riverside County Environmental Health, Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County Flood Control District, California Department of Transportation, California Fish and Wildlife, and United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Some of these Departments have provided conditions of approval as appropriate to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The City of Menifee has two active conservation plans within the City’s boundary, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR-HCP). The subject site is within the jurisdiction of the SKR-HCP and the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Project site is located inside the SKR-HCP (Dipodomys stephensi) Fee Area. The proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP; however, the Project is not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell Group. The Project will be subject to the payment of fees consistent with Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 17.03 as adopted by the City of Menifee. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the provisions of the Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 546

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1152 of 2087

Northern Gateway Logistics Center – Plot Plan
July 16, 2025
adopted HCP, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan and the impact is considered less than significant.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee hereby approves the following:

1. That the City Council determine that the “Findings” set out above are true and correct.

2. That the City Council determine the environmental review has been completed for the Project in accordance with State and local laws, and CEQA guidelines.

3. That the City Council, pursuant to a separate Resolution, finds the facts presented within the public record provide the basis to certify the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project FEIR, adopt the Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which have been completed for the Project.

4. That the City Council finds the facts presented within the public record and within the Planning Commission Resolution provide the basis to approve PP No.

PLN23-0040, and that the Planning Commission approve said entitlements.

5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Community Development Department – Planning Division, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 16th day of July 2025. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:

Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 547

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1153 of 2087

EXHIBIT “A”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Application No.: Plot Plan No. PLN23-0040 Northern Gateway Logistics Center Project Description: The Project proposes the development of two new concrete tilt up warehouse and distribution buildings with associated office space on 20.17 acres of land. Building 1 is proposed to be 105,537 square feet (sq. ft.) consisting of 6,000 sq. ft. of office space and 99,537 sq. ft. of warehouse space and is located on the north side of the site.

Building 2 is on the southern end of the site and is proposed to be 292,715 sq. ft. consisting of 8,000 sq. ft of office space, 7,000 sq. ft. of mezzanine, and 277,715 sq. ft. of warehouse area . Project 1 and P roject 2 combined would consist of 398,252 sq. ft. of total building area.

Assessor's Parcel No.: 331-060-007, 331-060-008, 331-060-023, 331-060-020, 331-060- 030
MSHCP Category: Non-residential (Industrial)
DIF Category: Industrial

TUMF Category: Determined by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)

Quimby Category: N/A

Approval Date: July 16, 2025
Expiration Date: July 16, 2028

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 548

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1154 of 2087

Section I: Community Development Department Conditions of Approval

Section II: Engineering/Grading/Transportation Conditions of Approval

Section III: Building and Safety Department Conditions of Approval

Section IV: Riverside County Fire Department Conditions of Approval

Section V: Riverside County Environmental Health
Conditions of Approval

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 549

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1155 of 2087

Section I:

Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 550

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1156 of 2087

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Indemnification. Within 48 hours of project approval, the Applicant/developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Menifee and its elected city council, appointed boards, commissions, committees, officials, employees, volunteers, contractors, consultants, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, arising out of either the City’s approval of the Project or actions related to the Property or the acts, omissions, or opera tions of the applicant/developer and its directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the applicant/developer with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, a nd maintenance of the Project and the Property for which the Project is being approved.

2. Filing Notice of Determinatio n. Within 48 hours of project approval, the Planning Division will determine the appropriate fees for the Notice of Determination (NOD) filing and request the payment of fees to the City of Menifee in the form of a check or cash.

Upon receipt of payment, the Planning Division will file the NOD with the relevant agencies as required under Public Resources Code, California Code of Regulations and California Fish and Game Code.

3. Exhibits. The project shall be constructed as approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2025, and as shown in Attachment No. 1 in the accompanying staff report. Any subsequent changes shall be processed per Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.30.120 Modifications to Previously Approved Permits.

4. Ninety (90) Days. The applicant has ninety (90) days from the date of approval of these conditions to protest, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020, the imposition of any and all fees, dedications, reservations and/or other exactions imposed on this project as a result of this approval or conditional approval of this project.

5. Subsequent Submittals. Any subsequent submittals required by these Conditions of Approval, including but not limited to grading plan, building plan or mitigation monitoring review and appropriate fees paid as may be in effect at the time of submittal, as required by Resolution No. 22 - 1229 (Cost of Services Fee Study), or any successor thereto.

Each submittal shall be accompanied with a letter clearly indicating which condition or conditions the submittal is intended to comply with.

6. Expiration Date. This approval shall become null and void three (3) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Division inspection or an extension of time application has been submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date. Extensions may be granted per Menifee Municipal Code.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 551

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1157 of 2087

7. Modifications or Revisions. The applicant shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project.

8. Comply with Ordinances. This project shall comply with the applicable standards of the City of Menifee Development Code, City of Menifee Municipal Code, City of Menifee Design Guidelines and all other applicable ordinances and State and Federal codes and regulations.

9. Outside Lighting. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of-way and so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky.

10. Phases. Construction of this project may be done progressively in phases provided a phasing map is submitted with appropriate fees to the Planning Division and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.

11. Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed unless otherwise approved as part of the project. Parking of trucks and trailers shall not be considered outdoor storage when parked in designated areas.

12. Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact, Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

13. Outside Agencies. The applicant shall comply with all comments and conditions of approval from any responsible agencies as shown in the attached letters from associated agencies.

14. Anti-Graffiti Coating. An anti -graffiti coating shall be provided on all block walls constructed as part of any phase of the Project, and written verification from the developer shall be provided to the Community Development. Anti-graffiti coating shall be limited to the first 8’ in height.

15. Property Maintenance. All parkways, entryway medians, on-site and off-site landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, basins, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the owner or private entity or the City of Menifee Community Facilities District (CFD).

All landscaping and similar improvements not properly maintained by a property owners association, individual property owners, or the common area maintenance director must be annexed into a Lighting and Landscape District, or other mechanism as determined by the City of Menifee.

The land divider, or any successor-in-interest to the land divider, shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems within the land division until such time as those operations are the responsibility of a property owner’s association, or any other successor-in-interest.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 552

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1158 of 2087

The owners of each individual lot shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping between the curb of the street and the proposed sidewalk and side yard landscaping between the curb of the street and proposed fencing, unless the landscaping is included within a separate common lot maintained by an HOA or other entity acceptable to the City of Menifee.

16. Business Registration. Every person conducting a business within the City of Menifee, as defined in Menifee Municipal Code, Chapter 5.01, shall obtain a business license.

For more information regarding business registration, contact the Finance Department.

17. Natural Gas. Per the Environmental Impact Report Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan, Natural Gas is prohibited on -site without further review by the City.

Additional environmental review may be required if natural gas is proposed.

18. Point of Sale. Developer expects to obtain equipment and fixtures from construction contractors to complete the Project. Consistent with the requirements of applicable California law, the Developer agrees to cooperate with the City with respect to purchases of equipment and fixtures such that: (a) to the extent any such purchases of equipment and fixtures are from a construction contractor working for Developer at the Project site, Developer will, to the extent allowed by California law, require the construction contractor to secure the appropriate job -site sales tax permits such that such equipment and fixture purchases will be designated as having a point of sale within the City, such that the applicable sales tax will be collected and attributable to a purchase and sale within the City and (b) to the extent Developer is obligated to pay use tax on any such purchases of equipment and fixtures to be used at the Project site, Developer will, to the extent allowed by California law, secure the appropriate job -site use tax permits such that the applicable use tax will be collected and attributed to a Developer purchase within the City.

ARCHEOLOGY

19. Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

20. Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r)., parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to su ch reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 553

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1159 of 2087

21. Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). a. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. b. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropria te mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
c. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.
d. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through proje ct design, in - place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re- burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non -Disclosure of Reburial Condition.
e. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe.

Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.”

22. Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department:

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 554

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1160 of 2087

i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible.

Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report.

The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testi ng on sacred items, items of Native American Cultural Patrimony, burial goods and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.

23. Inadvertent Paleontological Find. In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within fifty (50) feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria se t forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the Community Development Department to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If in consultation with the paleontologist, the Project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval and the Project proponent shall implement the approval plan.

24. Interim Landscaping. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and/or blow sand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 555

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1161 of 2087

approved by the Community Development Department and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

25. Landscape Plans. All landscaping plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, and the appropriate maintenance authority.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

26. Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. a. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors.
b. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. c. In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
d. Project grading and development scheduling;
i. The Project archeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance.

The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in t he event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 556

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1162 of 2087

archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available
ii. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

27. Native American Monitoring (Pechanga/Soboba). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all ground-disturbing activities which are below the depths of the previous mass grading. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba band Luiseno Indians.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above-mentioned Tribe and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.

The Developer shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are of Native American origin, found in the project area for proper treatment and disposition to a curational facility that meets or exceeds Federal Curation Standards outlined in 36 CFR 79. The applicant shall be responsible for all curation costs.

28. Paleontologist Required. This site is mapped as having a high potential for paleontological resources (fossils) at shallow depth. Therefore, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:

The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City of Menifee to create and implement a project-specific plan for monitoring site grading/earthmoving activities (project paleontologist for any ground disturbance activities on-site during ground disturbing activities which are below the depths of the previous mass grading.

A cross section of grading depth will be required on the grading permit plans when submitted for review showing previous graded depth and proposed grading depth. If grading depth is determined to be below the previous mass grade depth, this condition will be required to be satisfied.

The project paleontologist retained shall review the approved development plan and shall conduct any pre-construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements as appropriate. These requirements shall be documented by the project paleontologist in a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP). This PRIMP shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.

Information to be contained in the PRIMP , at a minimum and in addition to other industry standard and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, are as follows:

• The project paleontologist shall participate in a pre-construction project meeting with development staff and construction operations Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 557

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1163 of 2087

to ensure an understanding of any mitigation measures required during construction, as applicable.

• Paleontological monitoring of earthmoving activities will be conducted on an as-needed basis by the project paleontologist during all earthmoving activities that may expose sensitive strata.

Earthmoving activities in areas of the project area where previously undisturbed strata will be buried but not otherwise disturbed will not be monitored. The project paleontologist or his/her assign will have the authority to reduce monitoring once he/she determines the probability of encountering fossils has dropped below an acceptable level.

• If the project paleontologist finds fossil remains, earthmoving activities will be diverted temporarily around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated and recovered. Earthmoving will be allowed to proceed through the site when the project paleontologist determines the fossils have been recovered and/or the site mitigated to the extent necessary.

• If fossil remains are encountered by earthmoving activities when the project paleontologist is not onsite, these activities will be diverted around the fossil site and the project paleontologist called to the site immediately to recover the remains.

• If fossil remains are encountered, fossiliferous rock will be recovered from the fossil site and processed to allow for the recovery of smaller fossil remains. Test samples may be recovered from other sampling sites in the rock unit if appropriate.

• Any recovered fossil remains will be prepared to the point of identification and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible by knowledgeable paleontologists. The remains then will be curated (assigned and labeled with museum* repository fossil specimen numbers and corresponding fossil site numbers, as appropriate; places in specimen trays and, if necessary, vials with completed specimen data cards) and catalogued, an associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data will be archived (specimen and site numbers and corresponding data entered into appropriate museum repository catalogs and computerized data bases) at the museum repository by a laboratory technician. The remains will then be accessioned into the museum* repository fossil collection, where they will be permanently stored, maintained, and, along with associated specimen and site data, made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators.

* The City of Menifee must be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material prior to being curated.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 558

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1164 of 2087

• A qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of findings made during all site grading activity with an appended itemized list of fossil specimens recovered during grading (if any). This report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to building final inspection as described elsewhere in these conditions.

• All reports shall be signed by the project paleontologist and all other professionals responsible for the report's content (eg. Professional Geologist, Professional Engineer, etc.), as appropriate. A signed original copy of the report shall be submitted directly to the Community Development Department along with a copy of this condition, deposit based fee and the grading plan for appropriate case processing and tracking.

29. Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director or review and approval demonstrating compliance with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project which must be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance.

30. Pre-Grading Meeting. The qualified archaeologist shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program, including a cultural sensitivity training component.

31. Burrowing Owl Pre -Construction Survey. The Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owl within 30 days prior to the start of construction. The results of the single one -day survey shall be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. If Burrowing Owl are not detected during the pre -construction survey, no further mitigation is required. If Burrowing Owl are detected during the pre -construction survey, the Project applicant and a qualified consulting biologist will be required to prepare and submit for approval a Burrowing Owl relocation program.

32. Nesting Bird Pre -Construction Survey. Prior to vegetation clearance, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre -construction nesting bird survey in accordance with the following:

a) The final walkover survey shall be conducted no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work; b) If pre-construction surveys indicate that bird nests are not present or are inactive, or if potential habitat is unoccupied, no further mitigation is required;
c) If active nesting birds are found during the surveys, a species -specific no-disturbance buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist around active nests until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged (i.e., no longer reliant upon the nest).
d) It is recommended that close coordination between the developer of the site, the City of Menifee, the project engineer, and the consulting qualified biologist to consider vegetation clearance outside of the normal bird Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 559

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1165 of 2087

nesting season (usually February 1 – August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds which would potentially violate the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It should be noted that bird nesting season is increasingly less-definitive for some year -round residen t species such as hummingbirds and raptors. Further, ground -dwelling birds such as burrowing owls, can be affected nearly any time of the year if present. It is therefore advisable to conduct a preconstruction bird survey no matter the time of year.
e) Removal of vegetation necessitates installation of appropriate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan “SWPPP” measures, particularly if development subsequent to grading is not undertaken immediately, therefore careful timing of the project schedule and imp lementation measures is necessary to avoid water quality impacts.

33. Stockpiling/Staging. During construction, best efforts shall be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from existing residential dwellings.

PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE

34. Processing Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Community Development Department shall determine if the deposit based fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the applicant.

35. Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director or review and approval demonstrating compliance with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project which must be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance.

36. Lighting. Light fixtures shall be decorative and consistent with the City of Menifee Design Guidelines and included in the Building and Safety plans. Architecturally appropriate themed lighting fixtures shall be located along the project roads, project entrances, walkways, open space areas and other focal points on the project site and shall be subject to Community Development Department review and approval.

37. Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact Fee (DIF), Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees (Perris Union High School District, and Romoland School District), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

38. Roof-Mounted Equipment Plans. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, Community Development staff will verify that all roof mounted equipment will be screened in compliance with approved plans.

39. Electrical Cabinets. All electrical cabinets shall be located inside a room that is architecturally integrated into the design of the building.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 560

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1166 of 2087

40. Screening of Accessory Structures. Screening of accessory structures (including mechanical equipment) shall be compatible in color and materials to primary structures.

41. Security Systems. Prior to the issuance of tenant Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare a security plan for each site. The security plan for this project shall include a comprehensive security camera system that clearly depicts the parking field associated with the proposed use. This security camera system shall be based in each building for this development, or inside a security office located within one of the retail buildings or other place acceptable to the Menifee Police Department, that is accessible to law enforcement at all times of the day and night. This security camera system shall have a recording capacity to minimally save footage for the period of one month or as approved by the Menifee Police Department. The plan shall be approved prior to issuance of tenant Building Permits.

42. Utilities Underground. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33 kV or greater, shall be installed underground. If the applicant provides to the Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division a definitive statement from the utility provider refusing to allow underground installation of the utilities they provide, this condition shall be null and void with respect to that utility.

43. Cold Storage. Cold Storage is not contemplated in the Environmental Impact Report.

If Cold Storage is proposed, further analysis (technical memorandum) illustrating there are no significant impacts will be required prior to building permit issuance.

Landscaping

44. Landscaping Submittals. Final landscape plan submittals are divided into two different processes. All on-site landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The on-site landscaping shall include any basins, streetscape, open space and planters on private property that is maintained by the property owner or private entity (HOA or Common Maintenance Entity/Association). All off-site landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Engineering and Public Works Department for review and approval. Off-site plans shall include landscaping in areas maintained by the Community Facilities District (CFD) and are located within the City of Menifee Right-of-Way which can include streetscape, basins or slopes.

45. Construction Plot Plans. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit the following construction plan applications to the Planning Division (pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code) for review and approval. The fee for each submittal will be determined by Resolution No. 24-1423 Cost of Services Fee Study and Planning Division Fee Schedule at the time of application submittal. Construction Plan Submittals include:

A. On-Site Landscaping – all Property Owner maintained landscaping and irrigation.

Performance Securities will be required prior to approval of this minor plot plan.

Additional submittal requirements can be found in the minor plot plan submittal checklist found on the Community Development Department’s website. All minor plot plans must be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 561

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1167 of 2087

46. Landscape Inspections. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall open a Landscape Deposit Based Fee case and deposit the prevailing deposit amount to cover the pre-installation inspections, installation inspections, Six Month Post Establishment and One Year Post Establishment Landscape Inspections.

47. Performance Securities (Bonds). Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development to guarantee the installation of plantings and irrigation system in accordance with the approved plan, shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. Securities may require review by City Attorney and City staff. The applicant holder is encouraged to allow adequate time to ensure that securities are in place. The performance security may be released one year after structural final, inspection report, and the One-Year Post Establishment report confirms that the planting and irrigation components have been adequately installed and maintained. A cash security shall be required when the estimated cost is $2,500.00 or less.

48. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees.

49. Interim Landscaping. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and/or blown sand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Community Development Department.

PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION

50. Processing Fees. Prior to final inspection, the Planning Division shall determine if any fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the applicant.

51. Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director or review and approval demonstrating compliance with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project which must be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance.

52. Paleontological Monitoring Report. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, an electronic copy of the Paleontology Monitoring Report. The report shall be certified by a professional paleontologist listed on Riverside County’s Paleontology Consultant List.

A deposit for the review of the report will be required.

53. Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact Fee (DIF), Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees (Perris Union High School District, and Romoland School District), Transportation Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 562

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1168 of 2087

Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

54. Final Planning Inspection. The applicant shall obtain final occupancy sign-off from the Community Development Department for each building permit issued by scheduling a final Planning inspection prior to the final sign-off from the Building Department. Planning staff shall verify that all pertinent conditions of approval have been met, including compliance with the approved elevations, site plan, parking lot layout, decorative paving, public plazas, etc. The applicant shall have all required paving, parking, walls, site lighting, landscaping and automatic irrigation installed and in good condition.

Landscaping

55. Soil Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a Soil Management Plan (Report) to the Community Development Department before the Landscape Installation Inspection. The report can be sent in electronically. Information on the contents of the report can be found in the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping page 16, #7, “What is required in a Soil Management Plan?”

56. Landscaping. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed and inspected in accordance with approved exhibits and Menifee Municipal Code.

57. Processing Fees. Prior to issuance of occupancy/final inspections, the Community Development Department shall determine if the deposit-based fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the applicant.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 563

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1169 of 2087

Section II:

Engineering/Grading/Transportation
Conditions of Approval

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 564

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1170 of 2087

The following are the Public Works / Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project which shall be satisfied at no cost to the City or any other Government Agency. All questions regarding the intent of the following conditions shall be referred to the Public Works / Engineering Department, Land Development Section. The developer / property owner shall use the standards and design criteria stated in the following conditions, and shall comply with all applicable City of Menifee standards and o rdinances. Should a conflict arise between City of Menifee standards and design criteria, and any other standards and design criteria, those of the City of Menifee shall prevail.

A. GENERAL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

54. Project Description – The proposed development includes construction of two concrete tilt- up industrial warehouse buildings on five parcels located south of Ethanac Road, east of Evans Road, west of Barnett Road, and north of McLaughlin Road. Building 1, which will be located on the north side of the project, has a footprint of 105,537 square feet in total area.

Building 2, which will be located on the south side of the project, has a footprint of 292,715 square feet in total area. The project site will have access from Barnett Road and Evans Road, and it will include frontage improvements along Evans Road, Barnett Road, and a future road along the southern property line for westbound semi-truck traffic.

55. Lot Line Adjustment – Prior to any proposed development, the developer / property owner shall process the required Lot Line Adjustment or approved equivalent establishing the lots as shown on the provided site plan.

56. Storm Drain Re-Alignment – In the existing condition, RCFC Line A-8 has been constructed running through the project site where a proposed building is to be constructed. Prior to building permit issuance, the storm drain must be relocated away from the building footprint, and receive approval from Riverside County Flood Control.

57. Subdivision Map Act - The developer / property owner shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act.

58. 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 registered civil engineer and / or other registered/licensed professional as required.

59. Bond Agreement, Grading and Improvement Security – To guarantee the construction of all required grading and improvements, the developer / property owner shall enter into bond agreements and post security or bonds in accordance with applicable City policies and ordinances. The improvements shall include, but not limited to, the following: onsite / offsite grading, erosion control, street improvements, streetlights, traffic signals, traffic signing and striping, public landscape improvements, water / sewer / recycled water improvements, water quality best management practices (BMPs), and drainage facilities. Bond posting and bond agreements shall be required prior to map recordation, grading, building, or construction permit issuance, whichever is applicable. It should be noted that all bond posting and bo nd agreements, with the exception of grading bonds and grading agreements, require City Council approval. Therefore, it shall be the responsibility of the developer / property owner to coordinate their project timing with the City Council meeting calendar when requesting City approvals of bonds and bond agreements.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 565

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1171 of 2087

60. Bond Replacement, Reduction, and Releases – All requests for bond replacements (such as in the case of a change of property ownership), reductions (such as in the case of partial completion of improvements), releases (such as in the case of completion of improvements), shall conform to City polic ies, standards and applicable City ordinances. It shall be the responsibility of the developer / property owner to notify the City in a timely manner when any of these bond actions are necessary. The City shall revi ew all changes in Bond Agreements and the accompanying bonds or security. Similarly, with the exception of grading bond agreements, all other agreement changes require City Council approval. Therefore, it shall be the responsibility of the developer / property owner to coordinate their project timing with the City Council meeting calendar when requesting changes to the bond agreements.

61. Existing and Proposed Easements - The final grading plan shall correctly show all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses. Any omission or mis -representation of these documents may require said plan to be resubmitted for further consideration.

62. Plan Check Submittals - Appropriate plan check submittal forms shall be completed and a submittal checklist 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 Computer Aided Design (CAD) layers of all improvements to be maintained by the City (pavement, sidewalk, street light s, 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 fo rmats: (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.

63. 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 a pplicable 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 (Flood Control District), improvement plans must receive district approval prior to Building permit issuance or as determined by the District.

64. 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 baseline 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.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 566

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1172 of 2087

65. 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 located within one-fourth 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 8.01.010. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless 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 m ay 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 start of any construction activities for this site.

66. Dry Utility Installations – Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, and cable television lines shall be placed underground in accordance with current City ordinances, or 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 still 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 / Cit y Engineer or as directed by the City Council. Improvements shall include traffic signal interconnect conduit along General Plan Circulation Element roadways in accordance with City standards.

B. GRADING

67. Introduction – Improvement such as grading, filling, over excavation and re-compaction, and base or paving which require a grading permit are subject to the Public Works / Engineering Department conditions of approval stated herein.

68. Grading Regulations – Any construction activity that requires a grading permit, such as over excavation, re-compaction, cut, fill, base or paving shall conform to the requirements of the City’s Grading Ordinance. Additionally grading permits are subject to the Public Works / Engineering Department conditions of approval stated herein.

Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 567

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1173 of 2087

69. Regulations and Ordinance on Grading Within the City – In addition to compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinance, 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 fr om 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 po tential for adverse impacts upon drainage, sensitive environmental features, or to protect property, health safety, and welfare.

70. Grading Permit for Disturbed Soil – City ordinances on grading require a grading permit prior to clearing, grubbing or any topsoil disturbances related to construction grading.

71. 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.

72. 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.

73. Slope Setbacks – Observe slope setbacks from buildings and property lines per the California Building Code and City ordinances on grading.

74. 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. Drip irrigation shall be used for all irrigated slopes.

75. 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 registered landscape architect and bonded per applicable City ordinances.

76. Slope Stability Report – A slope stability report shall be submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department for all proposed cut and fill slopes steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or over 20 feet in vertical height, unless addressed in a report that has been approved by the City.

77. 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 sh owing 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 Syst em (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit from the California State Water Resources Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 568

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1174 of 2087

Control Board (SWRCB). Additional Erosion protection may be required during the rainy season.

78. Water Quality Management Plan - All grading plans shall require an approved copy of the Water Quality Management Plan sheet per the approved WQMP report. The developer / property owner shall comply with the requirements of the WQMP report, and City standards and specifications. The WQMP Maintenance agreement shall be recorded prior to plan approval.

79. Design Grade Criteria – Onsite parking areas shall be designed in accordance with City standards and specifications. Non -compliance may require a redesign of the project.

Significant redesigns may require a revised Plot Plan.

80. Drainage Grade - Minimum drainage design grade shall be 1.5% on asphalt concrete pavement and 1.0% on Portland Cement Concrete surfaces. In areas of concentrated flow on Portland Cement Concrete, the minimum grade shall be 0.4%. The engineer of record must submit a variance request for design grades less than those above with a justification for a lesser grade.

81. Finish Grade – Finish grades shall be sloped to provide proper drainage away from all exterior foundation walls in accordance with City standards.

82. Use of Maximum and Minimum Grade Criteria – Actual field construction grades shall not exceed the minimum and maximum grades for compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and approved project grading design, to allow for construction tolerances. Any improvement that is not in complianc e with 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.

83. 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 erosi on resistant vegetation, as the native soils are susceptible to erosion by running water. All cut and fill slopes shall have a maximum 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) grade.

84. 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.

85. Licensed Geotech - A licensed geotechnical engineer shall perform the final determination of the foundation characteristics of soils within on-site development areas.

86. Retaining Walls – Areas or sections for which retaining walls are proposed will require separate permits. These permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of any other building Item Title: 11.1
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Warehouse Project Item Page Number: 569

Menifee Mayor and City Council
July 16, 2025
Page
1175 of 2087

permits – unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. The retaining walls shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and conform to City standards.

Prior to Grading Permit Issuance:

87. Geotechnical Report – The following geotechnical report was reviewed and approved by the City:
a. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Industrial Development, Evans Road, Menifee, CA, prepared by LGC Geotechnical, Inc., dated July 28, 2022.