Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 1
October 30, 2025
Menifee (Pemcor) Business Park Project EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Draft October 30, 2025
1 OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
Thes
e Findings of Fact and this Statement of Overriding Considerations are made with respect to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2024071016) for the Menifee Business Park Project (the “Project”) considered by the approving authority (Planning Commission) of the City of Menifee (the “City”) relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project.
The fol
lowing Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), California Public Resources Code Section 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and Title 14, California Code of Regulations (the “CEQA Guidelines”) Sections 15091 through 15093, for the Project.
Thi
s document provides the findings required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and the specific reasons for finding the Project acceptable notwithstanding that the Project results in significant adverse and unavoidable impacts that are infeasible to mitigate. Section 7 of this document addresses these unavoidable adverse impacts through a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
E
nvironmental Impact Report (EIR)
A
ccording to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, “t he most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” This City Council concludes that the Menifee Business Park Project meets the definition of a project under CEQA so the Menifee Business Park Project EIR is a project- level EIR as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and contains all the sections and information required in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132.
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The
proposed business park involves the development of 337,770 square feet of building area, which would be spread across 11 buildings. The entire 20.03-acre site would be graded and the portions of the site not developed with buildings would either be hardscaped (e.g., parking or sidewalks) or landscaping. The 11 buildings will be massed into five primary groupings. Two buildings will face Howard Way and three buildings will front on to Zeiders Road. The buildings range in size from 23,100 square feet to 37,840 square feet and feature two truck dock bays each that would be oriented toward the center of the site (a total of 22 truck docks at the site) and will not be visible from adjoining streets or neighboring properties. Building heights are 38 to 40 feet above ground level.
2.1 – P
ROJECT BACKGROUND
The C
ity of Menifee (City or Lead Agency) has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Menifee Business Park Project (“proposed Project or “the Project”). The adoption EXHIBIT "C" -
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
and implementation of the Project is discretionary and defined as a “project” and is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.). Accordingly, the City has prepared this environmental impact report (EIR) to assess the short term, long term and cumulative environmental consequences that could result from adoption and implementation of the prop osed Project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines and with the City’s local rules and procedures for implementing CEQA. It was prepared by professional planning consultants under contract to the City. The City is the Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2024071016), as defined by CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21067, as amended), because it has primary discretionary authority with respect to the adoption and implementation of the proposed Project. The content of this document reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The approach to the analysis presented in this EIR is at a project level because specific development information is available regarding the proposed Project. Each environmental issue is analyzed at a similar project level, starting with a discussion of the existing environmental setting, including physical conditions of the site and surrounding area, pertinent City General Plan goals, and policies and City Municipal Code requirements. Thresholds of significance are then defined and are used to measure the proposed Project’s potential impact to the environment.
Thresholds of significance are based on a broad list of questions and impact topics set forth in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the typical CEQA thresholds used by the City.
The impact analysis provided for each the 20 topical areas examines the specific short- and long- term environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed industrial development Project, including compliance with applicable General Plan goals and policies and City Municipal Code requirements. The assessment of impacts focuses on how the impact in question could occur and whether aspects of the proposed Project would reduce or ameliorate such impacts.
The presence of sensitive environmental resources, hazards onsite or in the immediate area, and the broad implications of the General Plan relative to the proposed Project are considered in the determination of impact significance. If the analysis indicates that a significant impact could occur, then mitigation measures are specified.
2.2 – PROJECT LOCATION
The 20.03-acre project site is located at 33521 Zeiders Road, between Howard Way and Zeiders Road, in the southern portion of the City of Menifee, in Riverside County. The project site is a rectangular-shaped parcel of land comprising Assessor’s Parcel Num ber (APN) 384 -150-001.
The project site is approximately 0.25-mile west of Interstate 215 (I-215) and 0.5 mile south of Scott Road. The site is located within USGS 7.5-minute Romoland Quadrangle (1979) and within Township 6 South, Range 3 West, Section 22 (San Bernardino Base and Meridian).
2.3 – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the nation's largest metropolitan planning organization (MPO), representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 19 million residents. SCAG is currently the MPO of six of the ten counties in Southern California, serving Imperial County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and Ventura County.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 3
October 30, 2025
The SCAG Regional Council adopted the 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), now called “Connect SoCal”, in September 2020. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes goals and policies applicable to transportation and land use projects.
The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which is under South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. The SoCAB includes portions of San Bernardino County, Los Angeles County, and Riverside County, and all of Orange County. The SCAQMD is the entity responsible for mitigating emissions from stationary, mobile and indirect sources.
SCAQMD utilizes a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) that contain rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Ai r Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
The entire Southern California region contains many regional and local faults which results in the area being subject to moderate to high levels of groundshaking from earhquakes. Menifee lies in the Perris block, a fault -bounded, internally undeformed and tectonically stable region in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges province. Although the Perris block is tectonically stable, the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and the Santa Ana Mountains to the southwest are rising due to movement along the San Jacinto and Elsinore faults, respectively.
The project site is within San Jacinto River Watershed and the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin.
Menifee Valley and the surrounding Perris Valley drains to the South Fork of the San Jacinto River. There are no FEMA flood zones mapped in the project area. Some of the drainages in the southern portion of the City are in Riverside County Flood Hazard Zones. However, the project site is not within or adjacent to a County Flood Hazard Zone.
The general area supported agriculture mainly dry farming since the late 1800’s but now it is largely suburbanized. Past agricultural uses used hazardous chemicals in some locations for pesticides, fungicides, etc.
The mountain foothills to the south and west and some of the drainages out of the foothills support native vegetation but much of the flatter land has been covered over by development and supports mainly weedy invasive species and wildlife tolerant of human activity. The region has been occupied by Native Americans for thousands of years and grading activities sometimes yield historical and archaeological artifacts.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by rural residences to the north, west, and south, and light industrial land uses to the west. The lands to the north, east, and south of the site are eventually planned to support non-residential development as part of the “Economic Development Corridor-Southern Gateway” designation (EDC -SG). The land east of the site supports a recently developed light industrial warehouse with vacant land to the south. The land north and south of the site currently support agricultural ranches but are also planned for non-residential development within the EDC- SG designation. The General Plan indicates “areas designated EDC are envisioned to develop primarily as nonresidential uses, with residential uses playing a supporting role.” In additi on, the City has discussed eventually processing a Specific Plan (SP) that would encompass the project site and the surrounding EDC -SG properties at some point in the future. The intent of that SP would be to create an “innovation district” that will drive economic development by diversifying the City's economy and prioritizing job creation. The land to the west of the site supports vacant
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
land and rural residences and businesses and is designated in the General Plan as Rural Residential 2.
Onsite Conditions
The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence that is currently occupied with a detached garage and other associated structures. The majority of the site is undeveloped although until recently the project site was in agricultural use which began in 1938. At that time, the site contained two north-south trending ephemeral drainages and was bounded on the east side by a dirt road which eventually became Zeiders Road (built in the 1950’s). The site is bounded by rural residential land uses on the north, south, and west, and light industrial land uses to the east. Zeiders Road and Howard Way (dirt road) run along the eastern and western sides of the site, respectively. The site also contains a number of mature introduced trees around the farm buildings and several clusters of trees along the two onsite drainages which are unimproved.
Onsite elevations range from 1,558 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast corner of the site up to 1,578 feet amsl in the southwest corner of the site. The site slopes down to the north-northeast at approximately 1.5 percent. Piped utility lines are located in Zeiders Road while overhead electrical and telephone lines are located on utility poles along the east side of Zeiders Road and along the northern property boundary.
3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project is intended to implement the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The purpose of this Project is to implement the vision laid out in the Project objectives. The Project would generally increase the City’s production capacity and further fortify the economic base of the City. The project is proposed to be developed to accomplish the following objectives:
• To make efficient use of underutilized property in the City of Menifee by adding to its potential for employment-generating uses.
• To attract new business and employment to the City of Menifee and thereby promote economic growth.
• To reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the project vicinity to work.
• The institutional quality development will attract high end users and enhance the aesthetics of the underutilized vacant land.
• Participate in backbone infrastructure that will help facilitate transportation throughout the corridor and increase public safety/traffic flow with new roads, signs, and striping. • To develop an underutilized property consistent with the current General Plan and zoning that is conveniently located near freeways and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within Southern California.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 5
October 30, 2025
4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
4.1 – LEAD AGENCY, CITY OF MENIFEE
The entitlement process will require review and approval from the City’s Planning Commission.
The Project involves a Master Plot Plan and following discretionary actions/approvals:
• Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2024071016)
• Major Plot Plan (PLN23-0245)
• Building Permit (including mechanical, electrical and plumbing)
• ROW Encroachment Permits or driveways, sidewalks, and utilities
• Demolition permits
• Tenant improvement permits
• Security and parking area lighting
• Final Grading Plan
4.2 – OTHER AGENCIES
Federal Agencies
• None
State and Regional Agencies
• Subsequent permitting for removal of 3.0 acres of resources under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with offsite compensation for the loss
Local Agencies
• Connection permits and approvals by various local utility providers
5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists, without limitation, of the following documents:
• A Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; in this case dated July 24, 2024 and August 22, 2024; • All comments submitted by public agencies or member s of the public during the 30-day public comment period for the NOP that began on July 24, 2024 and ran through August 22, 2024;
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
• The Menifee Business Park Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (sometimes referred to herein as the “DEIR,”) dated August 31, 2025; • All comments submitted by public agencies or members of the public during the 45-day public comment period for the DEIR that began on September 2, 2025 , and ended on October 16, 2025;
• The Menifee Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report (including Response to Comments), dated October 30, 2025;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project which is included as Section 4.0 of the FEIR;
• All findings and resol utions adopted by City decision-makers in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; • All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations, diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the City , or by consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies that were submitted to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s actions on the Project;
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project;
• Minutes, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
• Matters of common knowledge within the City, including, but not limited to those cited above; and
• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project. The Draft EIR, Final EIR, and administrative record for the Menifee Business Park Project are available for review upon request at:
City of Menifee Planning Department
29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 9586
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 7
October 30, 2025
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant impacts on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
With respect to significant effects which were subject to finding (3) above, the public agency must find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
References for discussion of environmental impacts within the Final EIR are noted with each finding. Impact numbers refer to the section number and the threshold letter referenced in the Draft EIR where the full discussion of impacts is included. The Findings of Fact are presented on the following pages.
A. Effects Determined to Have No Impact or a Less than Significant Impact
The evaluation prepared in the Menifee Business Park Project EIR found and provided substantial evidence that certain environmental issues related to the Menifee Business Park Project would have no impact or have impacts that are less than significant. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the FEIR with respect to all of the Menifee Business Park Project impacts identified as resulting in “no impact” or “less than significant” impacts and finds that those impacts have been described and analy zed accurately and are supported by substantial evidence as described in the FEIR, including the Draft EIR. Reference should be made to the DEIR and FEIR for a more complete description of the findings regarding these impacts.
This finding applies to the evaluation of the potential impacts for the following item s, as further described in the DEIR, that the project will either have no impact or a less than significant impact.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
Aesthetics
• AES-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• AES-2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
• AES-3: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site/planning area or its surroundings.
• AES-4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime.
• AES-5: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics.
Agricultural Resources
• AG-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
• AG-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson act contract.
• AG-3: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g)).
• AG-4: Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
• AG-5: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
• AG-6: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
Air Quality
• AIR-1: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin is designated non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• AIR-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• AIR-4: Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 9
October 30, 2025
• AIR-5: Would the project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to air quality.
Biological Resources
• BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect 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.
• BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• BIO-6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
• BIO-7: Cause substantial adverse impacts with respect to biological resources.
Cultural Resources
• CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
• CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5.
• CUL-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
• CUL-4: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources.
Energy
• ENG-1: Significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
• ENG-2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
• ENG-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to energy.
Geology and Soils
• GEO-1: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
o Strong seismic ground shaking.
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
o Landslides.
• GEO-2: Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil.
• GEO-3: Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
• GEO-4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
• GEO-5: 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.
• GEO-6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
• GEO-7: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to geology and soils, including paleontological resources.
Greenhouse Gases
• GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.
Hazardous and Hazardous Materials
• HAZMAT-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• HAZMAT-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
• HAZMAT-4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• HAZMAT-5: For projects located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
• HAZMAT-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 11
October 30, 2025
• HAZMAT-7: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
• HAZMAT-8: Cause substantial cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
• HYD-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
• HYD-2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• HYD-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would; (a) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (b) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or offsite; ( c) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; (d) provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (e) impede or redirect flood flows.
• HYD-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
• HYD-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
• HYD-6: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality.
Land Use and Planning
• LAND-1: Physically divide an established community;
• LAND-2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
• LAND-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning.
Mineral Resources
• MIN-1: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
• MIN-2: Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land-use plan.
• MIN-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to mineral resources.
Noise
• NOISE-2: Would the project result in generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• NOISE-3: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels.
• NOISE-4: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels.
• NOISE-5: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to noise or vibration.
Population and Housing
• POP-1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
• POP-2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
• POP-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing.
Public Services
• PS-1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
o Fire protection
o Police protection
o Schools
o Parks
o Other public facilities.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 13
October 30, 2025
• PS-2: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to public services.
Recreation
• REC-1: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
• REC-2: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
• REC-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to parks and recreation facilities.
Transportation
• TRANS-1: Conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• TRANS-2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3(b) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
• TRANS-3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• TRANS-4: Result in inadequate emergency access.
• TRANS-5: Would the Project cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to transportation and traffic.
Tribal Cultural Resources
• TCR-1: Could the project result in a significant impact if it causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
• TCR-2: Could the project result in a significant impact if it causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
• TCR-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources.
Utilities and Service Systems
• UTS-1: 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.
• UTS-2: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
• UTS-3: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
• UTS-4: Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
• UTS-5: C omply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statut es and regulations related to solid waste.
• UTS-6 Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to Utilities and Service Systems.
Wildfire
• WIL-1: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuated plan.
• WIL-2: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
• WIL-3: Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
• WIL-4: Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream floodi ng or landslides, as a result of runoff post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• WIL-5: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to wildfire.
In addition, the EIR determined that potential impacts with respect to growth-inducing effects and irreversible environmental changes would be less than significant.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 15
October 30, 2025
B. Impacts Determined to Be Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The Final EIR (including the Draft EIR) identifies the following significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. Based on the environmental analysis of the Project and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigates or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” The descriptions of the impacts in these findings are summary statements. Mitigation Measures are numbered to correspond to listings in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Reference should be made to the Draft EIR and Final EIR for a more complete description.
AIR QUALITY
IMPACT AIR-2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin is designated non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
The EIR found that within this impact category, regional construction emissions were found to be potentially significant for VOCs during construction.
Substantial Evidence:
A detailed air quality impact assessment (AQIA) was prepared for the Project (DEIR Appendix E).
Section 4.3 .4 of the DEIR states the proposed project would generate both short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. The Project’s potential emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, V. 2022.1. The AQIA indicated that the Project’s unmitigated emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) during construction may exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold during the Summer of 2026 (DEIR Table 4.3-6). However, DEIR Table 4.3- 8 demonstrated that these emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AQ-1. The other construction -related emissions and all operational air pollutant emissions would be less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate short -term or long- term emissions that exceed SCAQMD-recommended pollutant thresholds after the incorporation of recommended Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measures to help reduce potential VOC emissions during project construction:
MM-AQ-1: Reduce Construction VOC Emissions. To reduce VOC emissions associated with the application of architectural coatings, the construction contractor for the Project shall be required to utilize “Super -Compliant” VOC architectural coatings for interior and exterior paint applications at the proposed business park during construction. Consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s definition, “Super -Compliant” architectural coatings shall have a maximum VOC content of 10 grams of VOC per liter.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
Finding:
The EIR found that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1 the project would have less than significant impacts for regional construction emissions of VOCs (DEIR pages 4.3-22 and 4.3-23)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Substantial Evidence:
Detailed biological surveys were conducted on the Project site (DEIR Appendix F). Section 4.4.4 of the DEIR states that the Project site is not located inside or immediately adjacent to any Criteria Area, Criteria Cell, Public/Quasi -Public Conserved Lands, or Conservation Area identified for conservation potential by the MSHCP so there are no impacts in this regard. The Project would result in permanent impacts to 19.31 acres of field croplands (not currently used for agriculture) and 2.25 acres of residential/urban/exotic land. These are not types of native habitat so their loss is not considered a significant impact to biological resources. However, payment of a Low Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) is required as regulatory compliance under the MSHCP and included as Standard Condition of Approval SC -BIO-1 by the City. Therefore, no mitigation is required for this impact.
The Project may result in impacts to burrowing owl as a result of vegetation removal, grading, and construction. This impact requires a pre-construction survey as mitigation under the MSHCP (see Mitigation Measure MM -BIO-1). With the implementation of the pre-construction survey in MM - BIO-1, the proposed Project would be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2 regarding burrowing owl and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Direct impacts to nesting and migratory birds, including horned lark, could potentially result if onsite vegetation removal or grading occurs during the general avian breeding season of February 1 to September 15. These nesting and migratory bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, and potential direct impacts to nesting birds require mitigation ( see Mitigation Measure MM -BIO-2).
With the implementation of the pre-construction survey in MM BIO-2, the proposed project would be consistent with MSHCP regarding migratory and nesting birds and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The onsite habitat assessment and survey for Crotch’s bumblebee found no individuals of the species onsite and very limited habitat that could potentially support overwintering of the species.
Therefore, the project would have no significant impacts on thi s species and no mitigation is required. The project would result in disturbance to 20.03 gross acres of land within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Fee Area which requires payment of the SKR HCP development impact fee.
Payment of this fee is included in Standard Condition of Approval SC -BIO-23 of the City of Menifee. It is considered regulatory compliance and not unique mitigation under CEQA.
The site is within an MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) Survey Area (NEPSSA) so the potential for six NEPS was assessed. The biological assessment concluded that, due to the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 17
October 30, 2025
lack of suitable habitat and soils for these NEPSSA plants, site- specific surveys for NEPSSA species were not conducted, no impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation was required.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measures to help reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds prior to grading:
MM-BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey. A 30 -day pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted prior to initial ground-disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, grading, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging) to ensure that no owls have col onized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the Project boundary prior to the initiation of ground- disturbing activities, the Project proponent wil l immediately inform the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies and will need to coordinate further with RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey must again be conducted to ensure that burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.
If burrowing owls have colonized the Project boundary prior to the initiation of construction, the Project proponent shall immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies and the WRCRCA. Approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan by the Wildlife Agencies prior to initiating ground disturbance would be required. Translocation of any owls present on-site would be required to occur within the nonbreeding season. With implementation of the 30-day preconstruction survey and the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, if warranted, impacts to burrowing owl, including possible take of active nests, would be avoided. If ground-disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre -construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that burrowing owl have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.
MM-BIO-2: Nesting Bird Pre-Construction Survey. Habitat clearing, grubbing, grading, and associated construction actions will be timed to avoid the avian breeding season of January 15 to August 31. if vegetation clearing cannot be avoided during the bird nesting season, a pre - construction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and occur no more than seven days prior to vegetation removal. Additionally, raptors (birds of prey) are known to begin nest building in January or February. If vegetation clearing is to occur between January 1 and February 15, a nesting raptor survey will be conducted within the survey area.
If active bird nests are confirmed to be present during the pre-construction survey, a buffer zone, restricting ground disturbance, grading and construction activities, will be established by a qualified biologist until it has verified by the biologist that the young have fledged or the nest has otherwise become inactive.
Finding:
The EIR found that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 prior to grading, the Project would have less than significant impacts relative to candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or state/federal regulatory agencies (DEIR page 4.4-14).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
IMPACT BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect 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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Substantial Evidence:
Detailed biological surveys were conducted on the Project site (DEIR Appendix F). DEIR Section
4.4.4 stated that the assessments of biological resources found no evidence of wetlands or riparian habitat on the site. However, they did identify 0.70 -acre of riparian/riverine resources (1,810 linear feet) onsite which triggers the need for preparation of a DBESP Report. The DBESP Report recommended the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -BIO-3 to address potential impacts to the two onsite ephemeral drainage channels. Although the proposed project would not avoid impacts to (i.e., removal of) these ephemeral drainages, the current condition of these drainages is poor and they are heavily disturbed from regular disking activities. With implementation of actions outlined in MM BIO -3 the DBESP concluded the project would be biologically superior to the existing conditions and consistent with the requirements for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Requirements in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO -3 will reduce potential impacts to onsite riverine resources to less than significant levels.
In addition, the biological surveys found no evidence of vernal pools, basins, ponding areas, or vernal pool indictor plant species within or immediately adjacent to the Project site.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measures to help reduce potential impacts to jurisdictional resources prior to grading:
MM-BIO-3: Regulatory Permitting. Consultation with and subsequent permitting through affected environmental regulatory agencies is required to address potential impacts to the 0.70- acres of riverine features (i.e., 1,810 feet of ephemeral drainages) on the site. A pre-application meeting will be held with the Western Riverside County Resource Conservation Agency, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Menifee to discuss the impacts to riverine features and regulated waters issues.
Permanent impacts to 0.70 acre (1,810 linear feet) of potentially jurisdictional features would be mitigated at the Riverpark Mitigation Bank, Riverside Legacy Mitigation Bank, or another bank approved by the involved agencies listed above. An agreement for sale of credits from the approved bank will be submitted to the City of Menifee prior to grading permit issuance. In compliance with the no-net-loss policy, impacts to non-wetland waters would likely require mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio but actual m itigation ratios will be determined during the permitting process.
An alternative option is the implementation of 3.0 acres of permittee-responsible rehabilitation within one of the Warren Road Partners parcels [Phase 1 (APN 455-130-059) or Phase 2 (APNs 455-130-058 and -030)] in the Hemet Vernal Pool Complex within the S an Jacinto Watershed at a ratio of 4:1, to cover the net loss of habitat at a ratio of 3:1 and the temporal loss of habitat during the rehabilitation at a 1:1 ratio (or as agreed to by the Agencies).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 19
October 30, 2025
Prior to grubbing, clearing, or grading permit issuance, no impacts shall occur to onsite drainages until appropriate permits have been obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401 Water Quality Certificate or Waste Discharge Requirements and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement).
IMPACT BIO-4: Interfere substantially with 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.
Substantial Evidence:
Section 4.4.4 of the DEIR states that wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. 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 3.9 miles north of the project site in association with the San Jacinto River. As outlined in Impact BIO -1 above, development of the site could have potentially significant impacts on burrowing owl and nesting birds, some of which may be migratory. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 are also recommended to address potential impacts to wildlife corridors and related resources.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measures to help reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds prior to grading:
MM-BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey. See Impact BIO-1 above
MM-BIO-2: Nesting Bird Pre-Construction Survey. See Impact BIO-1 above
Finding:
The EIR found that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, the Project would have less than significant impacts relative 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 (DEIR page 4.4-16).
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT HAZMAT-2: 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.
Substantial Evidence:
Section 4.9.4 of the DEIR stated that, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), demolition of older buildings and structures may pose a hazard regarding asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint. It should be noted that asbestos -containing materials and lead based paint do not represent a significant public health hazard when they are left undisturbed. However, site development requires demolition of the existing farmhouse building prior to grading. The farmhouse was built in 1961 and buildings of that age often contain these materials. The Phase I ESA did not include a specific assessment for these materials, but acknowledged that, due to their age, the existing farmhouse building and related buildings could have asbestos-containing materials and lead based paint. Therefore, the EIR concluded a survey
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
needs to be conducted prior to demolition of the farmhouse but not the garage or other structures for ACMs and/or LBP. In this regard, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 was recommended to be implemented prior to any demolition activities.
In addition, project construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and architectural and other coatings used in construction. Accidental releases of such materials could result in hazards to the public or the environment or as a result of the exposure of contaminated soil during grading activities. Searches of governmental databases did not reveal any registered leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), or above ground storage tanks (ASTs) located on the project site. Visual inspection of the site revealed one small above ground water storage tank and one 500-gallon above ground propane storage tank associated with the farmhouse on the site. However, the project site itself is not on the Cortese List (registered sites with contamination by hazardous materials) nor has the site been cited or issued violation notices by any environmental regulatory agency for improper use or disposal of hazardous materials. Although the likelihood of finding onsite areas contaminated by hazardous materials is low, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 was recommended to assure there will be no significant impacts related to potentially finding unanticipated contamination by hazardous materials or any buried structures during grading. With mitigation, potential impacts related to unanticipated contamination will be reduced to less than significant levels.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measures to help reduce potential impacts from accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
MM-HAZ-1: Pre-Demolition Surveys. Prior to demolition of any structures on the Project site, the developer shall retain qualified licensed environmental contractor(s) to survey the existing onsite farm buildings and any related structures for asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs). If the survey finds the presence of any ACMs or LBPs on the site, the contractor(s) shall follow all relevant guidance from affected regulatory agencies (e.g., CalEPA, SCAQMD, DTSC, County Health Department, etc.) in terms of safe remov al and disposal of the contaminated materials as appropriate. The contractor(s) shall prepare and submit a final report to the City Planning Department within 30 days after completion of demolition/removal for ACMs and LBPs on the project site.
MM-HAZ-2: Inadvertent Hazmat Discovery. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental professional (QEP) experienced with remediating hazardous materials from infill urban construction sites. The QEP must be on-call and summoned to the site i mmediately if any potentially hazardous materials are found during grading. Grading must be halted within 100 feet of an area that appears to contain hazardous materials. The QEP will halt grading as necessary to effectively identify the potential contaminated materials, including directing any sampling and laboratory testing that may be required.
If soils are found to be contaminated at levels that are only slightly in excess of applicable residential standards, the QEP shall exercise professional discretion and have the option to coordinate with the grading contractor and developer to either remov e contaminated soil and/or mix the contaminated soil with clean soil from either onsite or offsite to dilute any contaminants to below applicable exposure standards for residential development.
Remediated areas must be retested to assure potential contaminant levels are below applicable commercial standards. The results of any testing shall be provided to the City or other agencies as appropriate. Any contaminated soil that must be removed from the site shall be done by a
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 21
October 30, 2025
licensed contractor and hauled to a landfill approved for such materials. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
Finding:
The EIR found that with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2, the Project would have less than significant impacts relative to accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (DEIR page 4.9-16).
NOISE
IMPACT NOISE-1: Would the project generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.
Substantial Evidence:
A comprehensive noise assessment of the Project was conducted (DEIR Appendix K). Section
4.13.4 of the DEIR states the proposed project’s potential construction noise impacts were estimated using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Version 1.1. The RCNM is a computer program that uses empirical data and sound propagation principles to predict noise levels associated with a variety of constructi on equipment and operations. DEIR Table 4.13-8 demonstrates that the proposed project’s potential construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s daytime (7 AM to 10 PM) noise criterion of 80 dBA Leq at modeled sensitive receptor locations. This is because construction activities would occur at least approximately 200 feet from all modeled sensitive receptor locations. Although temporary noise levels at modeled sensitive receptor locations would not exceed 80 dBA Leq, the proposed project’s construction activities could generate noise levels that may be up to approximately 15 dBA to 30 dBA higher than at modeled sensitive receptor locations. It is also noted that the proposed project would result in increases in noise levels of up to approximately 40 dBA at dog training facilities, a horse corral, and a secondary exterior use area all west of the Project site. The noise assessment determined the project could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise that would have the potential to annoy residential receptors and/or interfere with the receptors’ norm al use and enjoyment of their property. This is considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce the potential for project construction activities to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of residential properties, the City shall require the pr oject to incorporate Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 would require the project to provide advanced notification of construction activities, restrict work hours to daytime periods when humans are less sensitive to elevated noise levels, and implement equipment noise control measures. By providing advanc ed notice of loud construction activities and implementing equipment control measures, the potential for noise levels to surprise, annoy, or interfere with sensitive residential receptors and land uses would be s ubstantially reduced. Thus, the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI -1 would reduce the proposed project’s potential construction noise levels and impacts to a less than significant level.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measure to help reduce potential impacts related to construction noise (i.e., substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of local standards):
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
MM-NOI-1: Reduce Potential Construction Noise Levels. To reduce potential construction noise levels generated by the development of rezone sites, the City shall require future development projects to:
A. Notify Nearby Land Uses of Planned Construction Activities. This notice shall be provided at least two (2) weeks prior to the start of any construction activities, describe the noise control measures to be implemented by the Project, and include the name and phone number of the designated developer’s or contractor ’s representative responsible for handling construction-related noise complaints. This notice shall be provided to all properties that directly border the Project site.
B. Restrict Work Hours: Unless otherwise authorized by the City, all construction-related work activities, including material deliveries, shall be conducted 6:30 AM through 7:00 PM on Mondays through Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and nationally recognized holi days. The Project shall post a sign at all entrances to the work site informing contractors, subcontractors, other workers, etc. of this requirement.
C. Construction Staging and Equipment Noise Control Measures:
1. Construction site access and staging activities such as receipt of deliveries, equipment and material storage, etc., shall occur as far away from adjacent residential land uses as possible given site and active work constraints.
2. All stationary noise generating equipment shall be shielded and located as far as possible from residential land uses given site and active work constraints. Shielding may consist of trailers, stored materials, or a three- or four-sided enclosure provided the structure/barrier breaks the line of sight between the equipment and the receptor, provides for proper equipment ventilation and operations, and complies with all other applicable occupational safety and health requirements.
3. Heavy equipment shall include standard noise suppression devices such as mullers, engine covers, and engine/mechanical isolators, mounts, etc. Equipment and noise suppression devices shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations while on-site.
4. Pneumatic tools shall include a suppression device on the compressed air exhaust
5. Connect to existing electrical service to power stationary and portable equipment (e.g., pumps, generators, compressors, and welding sets). This measure shall be subject to the approval of the local electric utility. If it is not feasible to connect to electrical service and/or extend electrical service to all work sites, Mitigation Measure NOI-1, section C.2, shall be implemented.
6. No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site.
Finding:
The EIR found that with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1, the Project would have less than significant impacts relative to construction noise (DEIR page 4.13-19).
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 23
October 30, 2025
C. Effects Determined to Be Significant, Adverse, and Unavoidable
As presented in the Menifee Business Park Project EIR, the City finds that adverse impacts identified below pertaining to Greenhouse Emissions cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels even with implementation of all feasible mitigation recommended in the DEIR.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IMPACT GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Substantial Evidence:
A detailed air quality impact assessment (AQIA) was prepared for the Project (DEIR Appendix E) which included greenhouse gases. DEIR Section 4.8.5 states the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from both short-term construction and long-term operational activities.
Construction activities would generate GHG emissions primarily from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the project site during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities.
Construction activities would cease to emit GHG upon completion, unlike operational emissions that would be continuous year after year until the project is decommissioned. Accordingly, the SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction GHG emissions over a 30-year period and including them with operational emissions estimates. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational emissions and compared to appropriate thresholds, plans, etc . GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.25. There is no established threshold for construction GHG emissions but instead a portion of them are incorporated into the estimate of long-term GHG emissions during operation. Once operational, the proposed Project would generate emissions of GHG from area, energy, mobile, water/wastewater, and solid waste sources. DEIR Table 4.8-4 demonstrates the proposed Project’s operational GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD GHG interim threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year which is also the City of Menifee’s adopted GHG significance threshold. The primary source of the project’s unmitigated GHG emissions (8,537 MTCO2e or approximately 82% of overall emissions) are from mobile sources (i.e., passenger vehicles and truck trips) . Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM -GHG-1 was recommended to reduce the ongoing Project operational GHG emissions to the greatest extent feasible.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce these greenhouse gas emission impacts to less than significant levels:
MM-GHG-1: VMT/TDM Reduction Plan. To reduce GHG emissions, the proposed Project shall implement a commute trip reduction program consisting of transportation demand management (TDM) measures that reduce annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for non-truck Project-related vehicles. The VMT reduction measure shall be quantified in accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (December 2021). Per the Pemcor Commercial Industrial Business Park Project Transportation Demand Management Assessment Memorandum prepared by
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
Ganddini Group dated February 19, 2025 (MND Appendix L), the project shall provide the following to the satisfaction of City Planning staff:
• Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program (CAPCOA Measure T-5) • Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (CAPCOA Measure T-7) • Ridesharing Program (CAPCOA Measure T-8)
• Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (CAPCOA Measure T-9) • End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (CAPCOA Measure T-10)
• Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (CAPCOA Measure T-11)
• Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (CAPCOA Measure T-14) It should be noted that CAPCOA Measures T-7 through T-11 are required as part CAPCOA Measure T-5 as part of the VMT/TDM program. For more details on the specifics of each measure refer to the TDM assessment memorandum prepared by Ganddini Group in 2025.
Implementation Parameters
In lieu of a VMT/TDM Program, the Project may participate in a regional VMT mitigation exchange/banking program (if one has been established) to reduce VMT from the Project or other land uses to achieve stated levels.
If the VMT/TDM Reduction Plan cannot implement all CAPCOA requirements for the indicated actions of the measure (T-5, T-7 through T-11, and T-14), the project shall implement one or more of the following additional actions to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department:
1) Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; 2) Improve or increase access to transit;
3) Offer programs or incentives to further reduce transportation requirements such as work from home and flexible work schedules.
The project is not limited to these measures but must describe the planned VMT/TDM reduction measure(s) and subsequently demonstrate their successful implementation to the City in its annual report.
This VMT/TDM Reduction Plan shall be managed by the applicant/developer until such time as a Property Owners Association (POA) is formed and active on behalf of the onsite uses/users.
The VMT/TDM Program is intended to achieve a 5% reduction goal starting one year after 90% occupancy is achieved. The developer or POA, whichever is in control at that time, shall submit an annual report showing what programs it is
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 25
October 30, 2025
offering and that it is achieving the 5% VMT reduction goal. If in the first year they do not achieve the reduction goal, the developer or POA shall expand existing or add new programs the following year to increase employee participation. The applicant/developer or POA shall submit an annual report to the City documenting its success in implementing the VMT/TDM Program.
Finding:
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -GHG-1, the operational GHG emissions of the Project would not be reduced to less than significant levels and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. This impact is significant and unavoidable.
IMPACT GHG-3: Cause substantial adverse cumulative impacts with respect to GHGs.
Substantial Evidence:
Global climate change is the result of GHG emissions worldwide; individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change. Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is by nature, an inherently cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. As described under Impacts GHG-1 and GHG -2, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions but would generate GHG emissions that exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO
2e per year non-residential industrial
significance threshold applied in this EIR. Accordingly, the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable and significant GHG emissions contribution even after the incorporation of the recommended mitigation.
The EIR recommended the following mitigation measure in an attempt to reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts to less than significant levels:
MM-GHG-1: VMT/TDM Reduction Plan. (see Impact GHG-1 above).
Finding:
Even with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Project would not be reduced to less than significant levels and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Impacts are significant and unavoidable. 6 ALTERNATIVES
This section contains a discussion of the alternatives considered and rejected in the Menifee Business Park Project DEIR, including the No Project – No Development; Less Intense Development ( -25%)(Alternative 1) ; EDC Mixed Use (Commercial/Light Industrial/Multi -Family Residential)(Alternative 2) ; and EDC Mixed Use (Office/Business Park/Residential) (Alternative 3). For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)). The significant impacts of the proposed Project (NOx and GHG emissions) are based on the type and size of the proposed use so this project on any other site would still result in significant impacts identified in the EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a), this EIR does not evaluate every conceivable alternative. A feasible range of alternatives that will allow decision-makers to make a reasoned choice and that meet most of the Project’s guiding principles has been evaluated.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
Project Objectives
The Project is intended to implement the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The purpose of this Project is to implement the vision laid out in the Project objectives. The Project would generally increase the City’s economic base of the City in the Southern Gateway area consistent with the General Plan. The Project is proposed to be developed to accomplish the following objectives:
• To make efficient use of underutilized property in the City of Menifee by adding to its potential for employment-generating uses.
• To attract new business and employment to the City of Menifee and thereby promote economic growth.
• To reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the project vicinity to work.
• The institutional quality development will attract high end users and enhance the aesthetics of the underutilized vacant land.
• Participate in backbone infrastructure that will help facilitate transportation throughout the corridor and increase public safety/traffic flow with new roads, signs, and striping. • To develop an underutilized property consistent with the current General Plan and zoning that is conveniently located near freeways and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within Southern California.
Selection of Alternatives
To provide a basis for further understanding of the environmental effects of a proposed project and possible approaches to reducing its identified significant impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to also “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” DEIR Section 5 explains the No Project-No Development Alternative which is essentially continuation of existing conditions on the site. This alternative would have no impacts related to new development. In addition, the EIR also examined two “No Project – General Plan Consistent Alternatives” which are represented by Alternatives 2 and 3 s described below. Since the proposed Project has one significant impact (GHG emissions), a less intense development alternative was developed in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the significant impact. In addition, the General Plan indicates “areas designated EDC are envisioned to develop primarily as nonresidential uses, with residential uses playing a supporting role.” General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit LU -4 states, “The EDC allows a maximum residential density of 24 du/acre.” Average density was calculated as being 18 units/acre.” Therefore, the City selected two mixed use alternatives to evaluate.
The following three alternatives were selected for detailed evaluation in comparison to the proposed Project:
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 27
October 30, 2025
Alternative 1 - Less Intense Development proposes a business park development like the proposed project but with 25% less square footage (253,330 square feet vs. 337,770 for the proposed project).
Alternative 2 – EDC Mixed Use (Commercial/Light Industrial/Multi-Family Residential) would provide 75,000 square feet of retail commercial space, 150,000 square feet of light industrial space, and 400 apartments (20 acres x 20 units/acre). Per the City’s General Plan, residential mixed use development in the EDC shall be vertically integr ated with the residential uses not being located on the ground floor. Note that this is a type of No Project - General Plan Consistent Alternative described above.
Alternative 3 – EDC Mixed Use (Office/Business Park/Residential) would provide 100,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of business park uses, and 300 “for ownership” condominiums (20 acres x 15 units/acre). Per the City’s General Plan, residential mixed use development in the EDC shall be vertically integrated with the residential uses NOT being located on the ground floor. Note that this is a type of No Project - General Plan Consistent Alternative described above.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Substantial Evidence:
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative represents existing conditions on the site and would have no impacts or less than significant impacts compared to those of the proposed Project due to the fact there would be no new development and only a continuation of uses under this Alternative, and it would result in no significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions . It would also not achieve any of the Project Objectives which would involve some type of new development on the site.
Alternative 1: Less Intense Development
DEIR Section 5.5 concluded this alternative has equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project for environmental issues related to development of the entire site such as biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, agriculture, hydrology/water quality, hazards, geology, soils, paleontological resources, mineral resources, and wildfire risks. Other issues like aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, land use, noise, traffic, public services, and public utilities would be incrementally less than those of the proposed project due to this alternative having 25% less square footage and expected employees compared to the proposed project. In addition, the reduced square footage and estimated new jobs means that this alternative would not achieve the project objectives to nearly the same degree as the proposed project. Under this alternative there would still be one significant and unavoidable impact (greenhouse gas emissions) similar to the impacts of the proposed project.
Alternative 2: EDC Mixed Use (Commercial/Light Industrial/Multi-Family Residential)
DEIR Section 5.6 concluded Alternative 2 has equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project for environmental issues related to development of the entire site such as biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, agriculture, hydrology/water quality, hazards, geology, soils, paleontological resources, mineral resources, and wildfire risks. Other issues like
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 28 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, land use, noise, traffic, public services, and public utilities would be higher than those of the proposed project due to this alternative having a mix of land uses consistent with the General Plan and zoning that generate more vehicular traffic compared to the proposed project. In addition, the reduced square footage but the addition of a residential use (apartments) introduces residents to the site in addition to new jobs (although the number of j obs is less than under the proposed project). In addition, this alternative would not achieve the project objectives to nearly the same degree as the proposed project by reducing the amount of non-residential square footage and introducing high density residential uses to the site. Under this alternative development would have two significant impacts (air quality and greenhouse gas emissions) compared to one significant impact for the proposed project (greenhouse gas emissions).
Alternative 3: EDC Mixed Use (Office/Business Park/Residential)
DEIR Section 5.7 concluded Alternative 3 has equivalent impacts compared to the proposed project for environmental issues related to development of the entire site such as biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, agriculture, hydrology/water quality, hazards, geology, soils, paleontological resources, mineral resources, and wildfire risks. Other issues like aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, land use, noise, traffic, public services, and public utilities would be higher than those of the proposed project due to this alternative having a mix of land uses consistent with the General Plan and zoning that generate more vehicular traffic compared to the proposed project. In addition, the reduced square footage but the addition of a residential use (condominiums) introduces residents to the site in addition to new jobs (although the number of jobs is less than under the proposed project). In addition, this alternative would not achieve the project objectives to nearly the same degree as the proposed project by reducing the amount of non-residential square footage and introducing high density residential uses to the site. Under this alternative development would have two significant impacts (air quality and greenhouse gas emissions) compared to one significant impact for the proposed project (greenhouse gas emissions).
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines (section 15126[e][2]) stipulate, "If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project (no development)” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in increased air quality impacts compared to the proposed project, while Alternative 1 would result in reduced or similar less than significant air quality impacts compared to the project. All three of the alternati ves would have significant impacts related to greenhouse gases even with the implementation of all feasible TDM measures identified for the proposed project (MM -GHG- 1).
Even though Alternative 1 still has the same significant impact as the proposed project (greenhouse gas emissions), it would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the project and would therefore be the “environmentally superior alternative.” This conclusion is based on the comparative impact analyses and conclusions in DEIR Section 5, as summarized in DEIR Table 5-16. However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives to nearly the same degree as the proposed project.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Menifee Business Park Project EIR 29
October 30, 2025
Findings:
DEIR Section 5.10 found Alternative 1 to be environmentally superior to the Project although it did not eliminate or reduce the significant impact of the Project (greenhouse gas emissions) to less than significant levels. In addition, Alternative 1 does not meet the Project Objectives to nearly the same degree as the proposed Project because it provides less space to adequately manufacture and distribute products and services on the scale envisioned by the Project. For these reasons, the City determines that Alternative 1 is less desirable than the proposed Project and therefore rejects the alternative per Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15091(a)(3).
7 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires that a Lead Agency balance the benefits of a project against its adverse and unavoidable effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). CEQA requires that a Lead Agency support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or els ewhere in the administrative record pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b). The Lead Agency’s written reasons are referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations. For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the L ead Agency is required to find that the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant impacts on the environment.
Regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following:
1. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
2. When the lead agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its ac tion based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
3. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
The City will approve the Menifee Business Park Project and has prepared a Final EIR that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the project are considered
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 Menifee Business Park Project EIR
October 30, 2025
significant and unavoidable based on the analysis in the Draft EIR (DEIR), Final EIR (FEIR), and the Findings of Fact.
• Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Impact GHG -3: Cause a substantial adverse cumulative impact with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (Cumulative Impact).
The City has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above are acceptable because those impacts are outweighed by the economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, listed below.
• Develop an underutilized property consistent with the current General Plan and zoning that is conveniently located near the freeway and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within Southern California.
• Construct a high quality development which will attract high end users and enhance the aesthetics of the underutilized vacant land.
• Attract new business and employment to the City of Menifee and thereby promote economic growth.
• Augment the City’s economic viability and productivity over the long term by encouraging efficient and sustainable reuse of a former farming site that is presently vacant.
• Provide 11 buildings which will support a variety of manufacturing-related employment generating uses thereby increasing employment opportunities within Menifee.
• Create a business park of light industrial /manufacturing uses with ready access to Interstate 215 and other major transportation arterial roadways, to support the production of consumer goods and the distribution of manufactured goods throughout the region.
• Reduces the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the project vicinity to work.
• Includes energy efficiency and conservation systems and measures that reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible given the size and nature of the planned uses.
Based on the authority delegated by the City Council, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval of the p roject outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated. The Planning Commission finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Planning Commission further finds that no feasible alternative exists that both would provide all of the foregoing benefits to the public and reduce environmental impacts when compared to the Project.