to Russell Brown, City of Menifee
from Kent Norton, MIG Riverside
re Pemcor Business Park EIR – Response to City Council Appeal by GSEJA and SAFER
date January 7, 2026
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing on November 12, 2025, an appeal to the City Council was submitted for the Menifee (Pemcor) Business Park Project by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) dated November 19, 2025. A second appeal application submitted by Lozeau Drury on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) was received on November 20, 2025. It should be noted these two commenters each submitted two previous comment letters on the Pemcor project, one during the DEIR 45-day review period and one after the close of the review period and before the Planning Commission hearing. Responses to these previous letters were prepared and distributed per CEQA requirements.
The following are responses to the comments raised in the two appeal letters. The two appeal letters with comments marked in red are provided at the end of this memorandum. (1) Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Letter Response S-1: This comment provides general information on the requirements of CEQA and CEQA lead agencies, including the requirement for a lead agency to adequately respond, in good faith and with reasoned analysis, to specific comments or suggestions for ways to mitig ate or avoid a significant environmental impact. SAFER submits these comments in the context of the EIR’s purported failure to adopt all feasible mitigation measures for the project’s significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts; however, as described in more detail in Responses to Comments S-2, S-3, and S-4, the City has, in good faith, considered all specific comments related to the EIR, including SAFER’s November 12, 2025 appeal comments, and determined, with reasonable analysis, that all feasible mitigation measures have been incorporate d into the project, and that there are eight specific economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the project that outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable GHG impact. The appellant is referred to Menifee (Pemcor) Business Park Project EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings/SOC) for the description of these benefits.
2 MIG, Inc.
Response S-2: SAFER adequately summarizes EIR information on the magnitude and significance of the project’s GHG emissions sources and the mitigation measures incorporated into the EIR to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. SAFER asserts Mitigation Measure (MM) -GHG-1 an d GHG -3 are inadequate for several reasons; however, as described in more detail below, MM -GHG-1 and MM -GHG-3 establish enforceable performance standards and identifiable actions that would be implemented, monitored, and verified. EIR Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-3, therefore, are adequate. • Mitigation Measure GHG -1 is not deferred mitigation. It incorporates a clear performance standard for passenger vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and then provides flexibility and options for how to meet this standard. The standard - a
6.2% reduction in passen ger vehicle VMT - is to be achieved through the implementation of one or more of the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) transportation demand management (TDM) GHG reduction measures identified in the TDM Memorandum prepared for the project by the Ganddini Group and specifically called out in MM -GHG-1. Furthermore, the full implementation of these CAPCOA TDM Measures shall occur within one year of 90% project occupancy. This occupancy rate is considered necessary to support a sit e- wide TDM plan serving all tenants; however, the partial implementation of tenant- specific measures is not precluded prior to reaching 90% occupancy. Finally, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is fully enforceable. It requires the TDM measures to be managed by the applicant or subsequent developer until a property owners association (POA) is established for the project site. The managing party (i.e., applicant, POA, etc.) is required to submit to the City, for review and verification, initial and ongoing, annual re port that the TDM measures are being implemented and the corresponding VMT reductions estimated to be achieved by the measures.
If, during its review of these reports, the City determines the TDM plan is not achieving the established performance standard, MM-GHG-1 requires the project to implement additional TDM measures to achieve the performance standard. For these reasons, MM-GHG-1 establishes a clear, enforceable, performance standard that could be achieved, as necessary, by one or more actions that wou ld be monitored and enforced in accordance with the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Plot Plan PLN23-0245. The City will enforce the MMRP just as they will enforce all their Conditions of Approval (COAs). Thus, MM -GHG-1 satisfies the requirements of CEQA and does not constitute deferred mitigation. • MM-GHG-3 is not deficient. It requires all building energy systems, equipment, and appliances to be powered by electricity unless evidence is submitted to the City demonstrating that it is not technologically or economically feasible to do so. The fact that MM-GHG-3 requires structures to be dual plumbed does not directly reduce or avoid the requirement to use electric systems, nor the effectiveness of this
3 MIG, Inc.
measure. This is because the development of new non -residential buildings with natural gas infrastructure is consistent with the California 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (BEES, or the Energy Code), which Chapter 8.17 of the Menifee Municipal Code adopts by reference as the Menefee Energy Code. While the 2025 BEES includes requirements for heat pumps, battery energy storage systems, and other components that support all -electric construction, it allows new non - residential buildings to be plumbed for natural gas and requires new buildings to be pre -wired to support the future installation of electric building systems and appliances. MM-GHG-3 would both be consistent with the Menifee Energy Code and result additional GHG emissions reductions by requ iring electrification of systems and appliances that are not currently required to be so. Thus, MM -GHG-3 is not deficient.
Response S-3: SAFER asserts the EIR is deficient because it fails to consider additional feasible mitigation measures, specifically idling, solar panel, and other “best practices” recommended by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) in its guidance document “Warehouse Project: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” This comment is similar to comments submitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Golden State Environmental Ju stice Alliance (GSEJA), and Advocates for the Environment on the Draft EIR. As explained in Final EIR responses C-6, C-9, H-38, and I-9, the City has reviewed the referenced document and determined that many of the best practices in the document are commensurate with the requirements of existing regulations and/or the mitigation measures incorporated into the EIR. As described in more detail below, the EIR is not deficient, has incorporated feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions, and the additional recommendations made by the appellant are not considered feasible for the project. • SAFER asserts it is feasible to reduce truck idling times to less than the current 5- minute limit imposed on the project. While, as a general fact, it is possible to restrict trucks to idle for less than 5 minutes, such a restriction would be inconsistent with State legal requirements, is likely to be impractical, and would not be proportional to the magnitude of the GHG emissions impact, which is primarily the result of off- site truck travel emissions (and not on -site idling emissions). The City notes that the SCAQMD, in its comments on the Draft EIR (SCAQMD C -3), stated, “It is reasonable to expect that individual trucks may experience extended periods of idling due to on -site queuing, security checks, staging, loading, and unloading operations . . . As such, a 15-minute idling duration may underestimate actual on- site idling behavior . . .”. Furthermore, CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 248 5) has, since 2015, limited the idling of diesel fueled trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds to 5
4 MIG, Inc.
consecutive minutes within 100 feet of any real property zoned for residential, school, hotel, motel, hospital, senior care facilities, and child care facilities, or which has one or more such units on it. This restriction would only affect the part of the project area within 100 feet of its northern and western boundary. Finally, the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Emission Factor (EMFAC) 2021 database Volume III Technical Document indicates certain out-of-state registered trucks idle for up to five hours at a time, while in-state registered truck idling times can vary between approximately 13 minutes and 4 hours per day (i.e., not per stop).
Together, this data information indicates that the vast majority of the site would not be subject to idling restrictions. The City’s Condition of Approval (COA 28) limiting idling of diesel-fueled trucks to no more than 5 minutes throughout the site (see COA text below) , therefore, represents a substantial additional reduction in idling emissions from diesel -fueled trucks that is equitable by aligning the idling restrictions mandated by the State ACTM that are applicable to part of the site to the full site. For this reason, additional idling restrictions would not be proportionate to the magnitude of the project’s GHG emissions impact.
COA 28
AQMD Rule 402. The project developer shall implement the following measures to reduce the emissions of pollutants generated by heavy -duty diesel-powered equipment operation at the project site throughout the project construction phases. The project developer shall includ e in construction contracts the control measures as may be required under Rule 402, at the time of development, including the following:
a. Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
b. Use late model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment at the project site to the extent that it is readily available in the South Coast Air Basin (meaning that it does not have to be imported from another basin and that the procurement of the equipment would not cause a delay in construction activities of more than two weeks).
c. Use low -emission diesel fuel for all heavy -duty diesel -powered equipment operating and refueling at the project site to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin (meaning that it does not have to be imported from another basin, that the procurement of the equipment would not cause a delay in construction activities of more than two weeks, that the cost of the equipment use is not more than 20 percent greater than the cost of standard equipment (this measure does not apply to diesel -powered trucks traveling to and from the site).
5 MIG, Inc.
d. Utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas), if equipment is readily available and cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin (meaning that it does not have to be imported from another air basin, th at the procurement of the equipment would not cause a delay in construction activities of more than two weeks, that the cost of the equipment use is not more than 20 percent greater than the cost of standard equipment).
e. The developer shall post signage on -site limiting truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less.
f. Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible.
g. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.
• SAFER asserts that it is feasible to require solar panels on more than 15% of building rooftops, which is the current performance standard established by MM - GHG-4. The City notes that 2025 BEES establishes prescriptive and performance - based requirements for installed solar PV capacity for new non-residential buildings, such as the proposed project. In general, the installed capacity is dependent on the type of structure/occupancy, conditioned floor area, climate zone, roof slope, and other factors. In addit ion, the solar access roof area where PV panels could be installed must take into account shading, occupied roof areas, and other code - required roof access, pathway, ventilation requirements. In short, the number of PV panels that can be installed on any s ingle roof is contingent on specific design factors that are not known to the City at this time. The appellant is referred to Draft EIR Table 3 -2 (p. 3 -8), which indicates that each of the project’s 11 potential buildings would be relatively small, between approximately 23,000 and 38,000 square feet in size, which limits the overall roof area for solar PV and other equipment installations. The performance standard required by MM -GHG-4 is considered to be the minimum amount of solar PV installation that is feasible for all project buildings. As described in the FEIR (Appendix E, p. 6-8), it is based on the residential requirements of the 2022 BEES, which was the BEES in effect at the time the was prepared. It is not feasible for the C ity, at this time, to require the project to commit to the installation of solar PV panels on more than 15% of the roof area because of the additional information needed to guarantee such physical installed capacity would be feasible for individual project buildings. • SAFER to zero emission (ZE) yard equipment (e.g., forklifts) and trucks are feasible for the project.
6 MIG, Inc.
o With regard to ZE yard equipment, the City notes that the proposed project is not anticipated to involve the operation of any yard equipment and thus this recommendation is not relevant to the project.
o With regard to ZE trucks, as explained in the Final EIR (response C-8), the City has determined mandating the use of ZE trucks for the project is infeasible for legal and technological reasons. Goods movement is a complex process that may involve multiple stops. Trucks may be owned, operated, contracted, etc. as needed depending on each site’s operating characteristics, and neither the City nor future individual developers/tenants can regulate mobile emissions, which is within the purview of state regulator y agencies such as the CARB and local agencies, such as the SCAQMD. Those agencies can, and have, adopted regulations intended to reduce emissions from mobile sources, including trucks.
The Draft EIR, for example, summarized CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets Ru le, which was intended to accelerate the large-scale reduction of tailpipe emissions by focusing on ZE medium and heavy -duty vehicles. Although CARB recently repealed and or modified the requirements of this rule, its mandate continues to reflect what CARB considers to be feasible implementation schedules, reflecting technological availability and feasibility. Cars and trucks accessing the project in the future would be required to comply with applicable regulations; however, the appellants’ suggestion that the City require ZE trucks is not considered feasible due to logistical and technological reasons.
• SAFER asserts the DOJ’s recommendation to post signs identifying idling restrictions is feasible for the project. As noted in the Final EIR (p. 2 -18, response C-3), the City has conditioned the project to limit truck idling to no more than 5 consecutive minutes. Project conditions will be incorporated into development and lease agreements as appropriate, and the posting of signs on -site would not, in and of itself, be an action that would reduce idling emissions. The City will also include the following Condition of Approval with this Project’s approvals:
NEW COA: The developer shall post signage on-site limiting truck and equipment idling time to five minutes or less.
• SAFER asserts it is feasible to run conduits to support future electric truck charging stations is feasible for the project. As noted in the Final EIR (response H -38), the proposed project would have 22 docks, less than half the amount (50 docks) that the City determined, in its Industrial Good Neighbor Policies, was feasible to require the installation of a conduit for truck charging. Thus, it is not considered feasible to require the installation of electric infrastructure to support future electric trucks at the project site.
7 MIG, Inc.
• SAFER asserts it is feasible for standby emergency generators to be powered by non-diesel fuel ; however, the project does not include the installation of any emergency generators and thus this recommendation is not relevant to the project.
Furthermore, as noted in the Final EIR (response H -38), the use of non -diesel generators is not necessary for the Project because this measure would not reduce or avoid an identified significant impact.
• SAFER asserts it is feasible for the project to be designed to meet LEED green building certification standards. As noted by the appellant, the Final EIR (Appendix E, p. 6-4), discloses that building energy use accounts for approximately 14% of the project’s estimated GHG emissions. The City incorporated Mitigation Measure GHG-3 and GHG-4 into the project, which requires the installation of solar PV panels on building roof tops and the use of electric building systems (instead of natural gas). These measures are estimated to substantially reduce the project’s building energy GHG emissions by up to 21.5%. Requiring the project to achieve LEED certification when it will already achieve an estimated 21.5% reduction in building energy use and will be required to meet California Green Building Code requirements would not be proportionate to the building energy use impact identified in the EIR.
• SAFER asserts that the DOJ’s recommendation to provide meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and meal destinations is feasible for the project. While, as a general concept, on-site meal options may reduce off-site vehicle trips, there is no guarantee that providing this option would reduce vehicle trips. It is also not possible for the City to enforce this as a requirement since the feasibility of this action is contingent on market conditions that are outside the control of the City.
Response S-4: SAFER reiterates its assertion that the City cannot approve the Project and its EIR until all feasible GHG mitigation measures have been applied to the Project.
As described in Responses S-1, S-2, and S-3 above, the City has, in good faith, considered all specific comments related to the EIR, including SAFER’s November 12, 2025 appeal comments, and determined, with reasonable analysis and supported by substantial evidence as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15 384 (facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts), that all feasible GHG mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project. The EIR, therefore, does not require revision.
Response S -5: The commenter states the EIR references a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Assessment prepared by Ganddini Group on February 19, 2025 (“2025 Ganddini Report”) that has not been provided to the Planning Commission or the public. It should be noted the requested document (DEIR Appendix L-2, 2025 Ganddini
8 MIG, Inc.
VMT Report) was made available for public review on the State Clearinghouse website (see attached CEQAnet Excerpt).
Response S-6: As outlined in Responses S-1 through S-5 above, the City has considered expansion of existing or additional mitigation measures to help reduce GHG emissions.
In addition, the 2025 Ganddini VMT report was in fact included on the State’s CEQAnet website as Appendix L-2 (see attached CEQAnet Excerpt). Therefore, the EIR does not need to be revised and recirculated for additional public review.
9 MIG, Inc.
(2) Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) Letter Response G-1: GSEJA states its reasons for appeal and denial of the project, citing its September 24, 2025, comments on the Draft EIR, inclusive of expert comments prepared by Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) on the Draft EIR and September 19, 2025, and its November 11, 2025, comment letter on the Final EIR. The City has already provided detailed responses to these comments. The appellant is directed to Final EIR Responses H -1 to H-39 and the memorandum prepared by MIG, Incorporated (Inc.), “Pemcor Business park EIR – Response to Late GSEJA and SAFER Comment Letters,” dated November 12, 2025. This document is already part of the administrative record as part of the Planning Commission staff report materials.
Response G-2: GSEJA is re -submitting information regarding the existing pollution burden for the census tract (606043279) the Pemcor Business Park is located in. This information is substantially the same as GSEJA submitted in its November 11, 2025, comments on the Final EIR. As explained in the MIG memorandum responding to those comments, this information is substantially the same as that provided in the Draft EIR (pp. 4.3-7 to 4.3-11) and Draft EIR Appendix E (pp. 3 -11 to 3-14), which provided a detailed discussion on “Existing Health Risks and Disadvantaged Communities.” The EIR discussion includes not only information on the census tract’s CalEnviroScreen pollution burden, but also information on other existing and planned light industrial facilities within ¼ mile of the project site and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) V study. Importantly, the CalEnviroScreen pollution, health, and socioeconomic percentile data presented by GSEJA are the same as that disclosed in the EIR.
Furthermore, as a point of clarification, the City notes that, as described in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report, the CalEnviroScreen model assesse s cumulative impacts using both pollution burden and population characteristic data that are scored and combined to determine a single CalEnviroScreen score.1 This methodology accounts for differences in individual pollution burdens across geographic area so that no one single adverse environmental or public health effect or socioeconomic condition can render an area disadvantaged. Thus, while individual percen tile rankings provide useful information, they may or may not be representative of the total CalEnviroScreen score.
Finally, as another point of clarification, GSEJA has incorrectly referred to census tract 606043279 as an “Senate Bill (SB) 535 Disadvantaged Community designation, clearly identifying this as a disadvantaged community under state law.” As explained in the Draft EIR (p. 4.3 -10, emphasis added), “Communities that are within the top 25th percentile for total CalEnviroScreen scores are considered disadvantaged communities pursuant to SB 535. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
1 Office of Health Hazard Assessment, 2021. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. October 2021.
10 MIG, Inc.
(OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map, the proposed project is Census Tract 6065043279.
This area shows an average pollution indicator percentile of 41% based on the CalEnviroScreen indicators (e.g., exposure, environmental effects, population characteristics, socioeconomic factors) and has a population of 5,075 people . . . Table
4.3-3 summarizes the CalEnviroScreen indicators for census tract 6065043279. As shown in Table 4.3 -3, census tract 6065043279 is not within the top 25% of total CalEnviroScreen percentiles throughout the State and, therefore, is not considered a disadvantaged community pursuant to SB 535.” Thus, GSEJA has, again, failed to submit any information that was not already considered in the Draft EIR’s detailed analysis and evaluation of potential adverse air quality impacts.
Response G-2.1: There were no critical omissions of data or materials. When the City determined that one of the DEIR appendices had not been posted for public review, it issued a revised Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion through the State Clearinghouse which provided an extended and complete 45-day public review period after posting the “missing” appendix. Therefore, the critical air quality modeling data was made available to the public for the necessary period of time which was duly noted in the subsequent notices and DEIR document in the appropriate locations. In this way the document did not violate CEQA’s fundamental mandate for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure. The second notice is clearly posted on CEQAnet and all the necessary appendices are posted on that site as well.
The commenter also identified the following list of “legal compliance violations” supposedly committed by the EIR:
• CEQA 15121 – Informational Disclosure. DEIR Appendix E was provided to the public for the full 45 -day extended review period, as discussed in Response G-2.1 above.
• CEQA 15378 – Project Piecemealing. The EIR correctly evaluates the whole of the Pemcor project and the commenter incorrectly conflates the project with other non-related industrial projects in the surrounding area (cumulative project). • SB 1000 – Environmental Justice. The commenter is incorrect, the project site is not part of a disadvantaged community as outlined in Response G-3 below. • SB 330/SB 8 – Housing Crisis Act. As explained in the Final EIR response to comments and the response to supplemental comments to the Planning Commission, the Pemcor project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation for the site which allows mixed use but does not require residential uses to be built on any one particular project. Similarly, the Housing Element does not rely on or designate specific residential units on this site (see also Response G-4.1 below).
11 MIG, Inc.
• Govt Code 65302(h) – General Plan Env. Justice Element. Response G-5 below demonstrates the project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies cited by the commenter.
• Govt Code 1135 – Language Access. The Menifee community may have a 30% Hispanic population but the population of the area surrounding the proposed project does not have similar demographic and language characteristics (see Response G-10.1).
• CEQA 15131(c) – EJ Analysis. In 2021, as part of the City’s adoption of its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the City determined there were no disadvantaged communities identified within city limits that would trigger the preparation of environmental justice element. Nonetheless, the City voluntarily incorporated environmental justice goals and policies into its Land Use Element in 2021 (see Responses G-3 and G-4 for more information).
Response G-2.2: The commenter is incorrect – there is no “piecemealing” involved with this project, the entire Pemcor Business Park development was described and analyzed in the DEIR. The “segmentation” seems to refer to the cumulative projects list which identifies other industrial developments proposed by other developers o n other sites at distance from the proposed project. These various projects have no direct relationship to the proposed Pemcor project in terms of ownership or application so the CEQA terms piecemealing and segmentation simply do not apply.
Response G-3: GSEJA asserts that, despite census tract 6065043279 being an SB 535 Disadvantaged Community, the City has failed to conduct a required Senate Bill (SB) 1000 analysis of environmental justice. First, as a point of clarification, census tract 6065043279 is n ot an SB 535 Disadvantaged Community (see response G -2 above).
Second, GSEJA’s references to Government Code Section 65302(h) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 (c) as “requiring” a project -level environmental justice analysis is incorrect for the following reasons:
• SB 1000 was adopted in 2016 to promote environmental justice through local land use planning. The law requires local governments with disadvantaged communities in their planning areas to develop environmental justice policies as part of their general plans. This requirement is triggered when a local government adopts or revised two or more general plan elements concurrently. Since the Pemcor Business Park does not involve revisions to the Menifee General Plan, SB 1000 does not apply to the project. The City notes that, in 2021, as part of the City’s adoption of its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the City determined there were no disadvantaged communities identified within city limits that would trigger the preparation of environmental justice element. Nonetheless, in 2021, the City voluntarily incorporated environmental justice goals and policies into its Land Use Element.
12 MIG, Inc.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, Economic and Social Effects, states (emphasis added), “Economic or social information may be included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form the agency desires.” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15005, Terminology, the use of the word “may” identifies “a permissive element which is left fully to the discretion of the public agencies involved” in the CEQA proces s. Thus, this section does not require the City to include an environmental justice analysis in the EIR. Se parately, Subsection (c) sets forth that economic, social, and housing factors shall be considered together with technological and environmental factors “in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects.” As explained in Response G-1 and G -2 and referenced materials, the Menifee Pemcor Business Park EIR constitutes a. fact -based evaluation of the proposed Project that fully identifies and discloses the Project’s potential air quality and GHG impacts and identifies feasible measures given the project’s specific technological, environmental, economic, social, and other factors.
Response G-4: GSEJA asserts the project continues decades of environmental racism systematically concentrating pollution facilities in communities of color while protecting affluent areas, refers to the Inland Empire as a “sacrifice zone” for working class-families and communities of color, and provides CalEnviroScreen on environmental and health burdens for census tract 6065043279. This information is substantially the same as GSEJA submitted in its November 11, 2025, comments on the Final EIR. As explaine d in the MIG memorandum responding to those comments, the Draft EIR discloses pertinent environmental justice information, adequately evaluates all project emissions sources, and concludes, based on substantial evidence, that the project would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. Furthermore, GSEJA’s generalized comments on the land use patterns in the Inland Empire as whole may not be construed on the nature of development in Menifee, which incorporated in 2008, nor the project’s census tract, which is not a disadvantaged community, specifically.
Response G-4.1: The commenter assumes the site must be used for housing but in fact the EDC-SG designation allows housing but does not require it. This designation is primarily intended to generate jobs/employment with housing only helping to support those uses and help reduce trip lengths between residential and non-residential uses in the area. In addition, the City’s Housing Element does not depend on the maximum or any housing being constructed on parcels within the EDC -SG category and is only a small part of the City’s vacant land survey as part of the Housing Element. The Housing Element identifies more vacant land sites for potential residential units than are needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation from SCAG during the period of the most recently updated Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2021 to 2029). The City has complete discretion as to where it encourages or allows future
13 MIG, Inc.
housing to be built, as well as how it implements its approved Housing Element. Thus, the City may approve a development with anywhere from 487 down to zero residential units on the Project site under the mixed -use EDC-SG designation. There has been no zoning change to the mixed-use EDC-SG designation, there is no evidence that there is in fact a decrease on residential capacity in the EDC-SG zone, and therefore no violation of SB 330 or SB 8. Therefore, the project does not result in any “housing violations”.
Response G-5: GSEJA submits comments regarding the adequacy of the EIR’s evaluation of the project’s consistency with certain Menifee General Plan goals and policies, however, as described in more detail below, the project would not conflict with the General Plan policies identified by GSEJA.
• Policy S-7.1. GSEJA correctly identifies that asserts this policy calls for the City to “continue to require environmental analysis for proposed projects that may produce harmful levels of greenhouse gas”. Consistent with this policy, the Notice of Preparation prepared for the project identified greenhouse gases (GHG) as a potential environmental effect of the project, which was subsequently evaluated in project EIR.
Thus, the City has, in fact, conducted the environmental analysis required by Policy S-7.1.
• Policy EJ -3.6. This policy states, “Continue to collaborate with the [SCAQMD], California Air Resources Board (CARB), utility providers, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and nonprofit organizations, neighborhood groups, and other community organizations to improve air quality, food availability, renewable energy systems, sustainable land use and reduce [GHGs].” GSEJA purports the project conflicts with this policy because the project wo uld degrade air quality. GSEJA is mistaken. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3.4, Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures, the proposed Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Furthermore, as stated on Draft EIR page 6 -2, “In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD, 2003; page D-3). The proposed project’s construction and operatio nal emissions would be below applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants after the incorporation of recommended Mitigation Measure AQ -1. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in crite ria air pollutants.” Thus, the Project would not degrade air quality. Furthermore, the City provided each of the agencies and organizations identified in Policy EJ -3.6 with the opportunity to comment on the EIR and, therefore, did provide the SCAQMD and CARB with the opportunity to collaborate on the project. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with Policy EJ-3.6.
14 MIG, Inc.
• Goal OSC -10. GSEJA purports that Goal OSC -10 “mandates” GHG emissions reductions, which the project conflicts with because it increases GHG emissions. As a point of clarification, General Plan Goal OSC -10 states, “An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.” In the case of the proposed project, the City has incorporated Mitigation Measures (MM)-GHG-1 to GHG-4 to reduce the project’s GHG emissions levels. The project, therefore, is consistent with Goal OSC-10.
• Policy C-5.3. GSEJA purports that the project conflicts with this policy because it was add 239 daily truck trips; however, Policy C -5.3 states, “Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the negative environmental impacts of goods movement.” As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.17.4, the project would not result in any potentially significant transportation-related impacts, with Impact TRANS -1 finding the project would be consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. Thus, the project would not have any negative circulation effects that require mitigation. While the type and size of the project results in significant GHG emissions compared to the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, GHG mitigation measures are included to help reduce project GHG emissions while improving the city’s ability to move goods throughout the region.
Response G-5.1: The following responses regarding VMT are from the Final EIR as prepared by Ganddini:
FEIR Response H-18
This comment claims that the project VMT screening assessment is inaccurate because the WRCOG VMT Tool results for TAZ 1053 are based on conditions as of 2012, which would not have included any warehousing uses.
First, this comment incorrectly references a 2012 model scenario associated with the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM), which has now been superseded by the Riverside County Model (RIVCOM). The WRCOG VMT Tool used for the project screening assessment is based on a more recent update, which incorporates the latest RIVCOM data and includes 2018 and 2045 model scenarios.
Furthermore, additional review of the socio-economic data (SED) for the RIVCOM 2018 model scenario shows that TAZ 1053 includes 369 total employment, including 110 employees in the transportation and warehousing sector. Therefore, the latest WRCOG VMT Tool, as used for the project screening assessment, includes SED inputs associated with comparable land uses to the proposed land use such that it is expected to provide a reasonable estimate of the project VMT impacts and there is nothing unique about the
15 MIG, Inc.
project, or the project TAZ, that would otherwise be mis -represented by utilizing the data from the WRCOG VMT Tool.
FEIR Response H-20
This comment quotes the WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package, which was developed by WRCOG in 2019 as a guidance document to help member agencies implement SB 743. While this document may include general information, the City of Menifee, as the Lead Agency, has ultimate authority in establishing the applicable methodology and thresholds as set forth in the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (Adopted June 3, 2020, Updated January 2022).
The comment incorrectly describes the threshold of 33.6 VMT per service population as the Citywide average rather than the County average and omits the full quote from the WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package, which is as follows:
“OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold [emphasis added].” These omissions downplay the intent of the WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package to serve as an early guidance document for member agencies and that other thresholds may also be appropriate. The comment further omits that the WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package contains additional thresholds for consideration (see “Thresholds Assessment” included in the Executive Summary), as follows:
“Potential VMT thresholds were assessed within the context of the objectives of SB 743, legal opinions related to the legislation, proposed CEQA Guidelines updates, and the technical advisory produced by OPR. Fehr & Peers identified four threshold options for consideration by lead agencies.
1. Thresholds consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory, recommending that proposed developments generate VMT per person that is 15% below existing VMT per capita,
2. Thresholds consistent with Lead Agency air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals,
3. Thresholds consistent with RTP/SCS future year VMT projects by jurisdiction or subregion, and
4. Thresholds based on baseline VMT performance by jurisdiction or sub-region [emphasis added].”
16 MIG, Inc.
The City of Menifee elected to adopt a threshold of significance that is a variation of the fourth option recommended by the WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway Document Package. Therefore, the project’s VMT screening assessment provides substantial evidence in accordance with the appropriate methodology and thresholds established by the City of Menifee, as the Lead Agency, to support a finding of less than significant VMT impact; no revisions to the EIR are necessary.
Conclusion: As noted above and also in FEIR Responses H-18 through H-20, the VMT analysis was conducted in full conformance with City-established methodologies and no revisions to the EIR or VMT technical report prepared by Ganddini Group are necessary.
Response G-5.2: The project site is adjacent to Zeiders Road and the two access points created for the Project and shown on the site plan avoid sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The two access points were identified by City staff based on fire and police department emergency access requirements. The site was modeled using standard WB67 (72’) sized truck trailers to eliminate any site access limitations. The City Engineering Department evaluated truck turning radii in its review of the Project site plans and did not identify any conditions around any of the Project buildings requiring modifications to the site plan in terms of safe truck access. Project Plan Sheet C07 shows the fire truck radius and Sheet AS1 shows truck turning movements in grey scale.
Relative to emergency access, the site plan shows two full width driveways onto Zeiders Road capable of allowing access for emergency vehicles without the use of a Knox box which can incrementally slow response time. In addition, there is adequate travel lanes around all of the Project buildings wide enough to allow police and fire vehicles unrestricted access. FEIR Response H-24 indicates the site not only has unobstructed horizontal views of Zeiders Road but also no significant elevational (vertical) site distance issues as well. Therefore, the Project has no significant impacts relative to geometric design features and emergency access.
Response G-6: GSEJA re -submits comments on the potential cumulative impacts associated with the concentration of industrial parks in Menifee that are substantially the same as GSEJA submitted on November 11, 2025. The City notes that the Draft EIR discloses there are five existing and planned light industrial facilities within one-quarter mile of the project site, and fully evaluates the potential cumulative air quality, traffic, and other impacts of the proposed project. GSEJA has not submitted any new substantial evidence that demonstrates the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative environmental impact, has not clarified the geographic scope for its cumulative impact assumptions, and has not provided the sources for its employment growth projections.
The appellant is directed to the MIG memorandum responding to GSEJA’s November 11, 2025 comments for additional information on the EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis.
17 MIG, Inc.
Response G-7: GSEJA re-submits comments on the technical adequacy of the EIR’s air quality analysis that are substantially the same as SWAPE submitted on September 19, 2025.
• As explained in the Final EIR (Response H -35), changes to the project’s modeled fleet mix were made based on site -specific information from the traffic analysis prepared for the project.
• As explained in the Final EIR (Response H-34), the City revised the EIR’s air quality modeling to use a 25.4 mile haul trip distance as suggested by SWAPE. This change did not change the conclusions of the EIR’s air quality analysis.
• As explained in the Final EIR (Response H -36), the City revised the EIR’s health risk assessment to use a Fraction of Time at Home (FAH) of 1 for individuals from the third trimester to age 16 as suggested by SWAPE. This change did not change the conclusions of the EIR’s air quality analysis.
• As explained in the Final EIR (Response H-32), Phase I/II information compiled for the project indicates it is unlikely biosolids containing polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were deposited at the project site in the past. GSEJA has not submitted any new substantial evidence to indicate PFAS are present at the project site.
Response G-8: GSEJA states the health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the EIR is deficient because it did not consider multi -pollutant effects, elevated baseline conditions, vulnerable populations, and cumulative impacts. As noted in Response G-2, the EIR clearly discloses the project’s setting with regard to environmental burdens and socioeconomic conditions, and the City considered this information in its assessment of the project’s potential air quality impacts. Furthermore, the HRA is not deficient. The HRA was conducted in accordance with SCAQMD and OEHHA recommended guidance and reflects a conservative analysis of potential health risks on sensitive populations for the following reasons:
• As explained in the Draft EIR (p. 4.3 -25 and Appendix E, pp. 4 -5 and 4-8), the diesel HRA is based on estimated ground level concentrations of PM 10 instead of PM2.5. While PM 2.5 is a subset of PM 10, use of the PM 10 fraction results in the modeling and assessment of risks on a larger share of particulate pollutants than would occur using the PM2.5 fraction. It should be noted there would be other risks from other pollutants but that DPM is the primary pollutant of concern. This is the reason multi-pollutant risks are not addressed in this analysis.
18 MIG, Inc.
• As explained in the Draft EIR (Appendix E, Section 4.2.4) and Final EIR (Response C-5), construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions would be the primary driver of health risks when combining construction and operational related emissions. The excess cancer risk estimate at the MEIR assumes the receptor is an infant (including 3rd trimester) for the first 2 years of exposure and then develops to a child and finally to an adult over the next 28 years of exposure. As shown in Table 4 -18 of Appendix E, the modeled annual average DPM concentrations in construction years 1 and 2 are substantially higher than years 3 through 30. Thus, assuming all early life stages occur during these exposure years results in the most conservative estimate of potential adverse health risks.
• As noted in Response G-7, the FEIR revised the HRA to set the fraction of time at home to 1, even though this change was not required pursuant to SCAQMD or OEHHA guidance. Thus, the HRA conservatively assumes receptors are exposed to modeled pollutants 24 hours per day and nearly 365 days per year.
The above assumptions serve to provide a conservative (i.e., likely to overestimate) potential adverse carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks that could potentially be associated with project emissions. As documented in the EIR, the project’s potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks would be less than significant even with these health protective assumptions incorporated into the modeling and assessment methodology. Finally, the Draft EIR (p. 4.3 -26) included an evaluation of cumulat ive health risks impacts and concluded this impact would be less than significant. For these reasons, the appellant has not provided substantial evidence that supports the assertion that the EIR’s HRA is deficient.
Response G-9: GSEJA generally asserts that the City rejects feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions but does not provide any substantial evidence to support its assertion. GSEJA’s comments are substantially the same as that submitted by SWAPE on September 1 9, 2025, and by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) on November 12, 2025. The appellant is directed to the Final EIR Response H-38, and to Response S-3 above for detailed responses on why the measures suggested by GSEJA are not feasible for the project.
Response G-9.1: Alternatives. As outlined in FEIR Response H -25, the EIR did select a reasonable range of alternatives given the General Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the site, as well as the identified significant impacts of the proposed Project (air quality and greenhouse gas emissions). In addition to t he No Project – No Development Alternative, one of the alternatives is less intense development (Alternative 1, -25%) but similar development to the proposed Project which is in keeping with selecting alternatives that could reduce or eliminate the
19 MIG, Inc.
significant impacts of the Project but also meet all or at least to some degree the objectives of the Project.
The introductory sections go into detail about the possible range of alternatives that could have been studied (Section 5.2, No Project Alternatives and Alternatives Considered But Rejected). The General Plan designation for the site (EDC -SG) could allow a wide range of potential residential and non-residential land uses. However, many of these would be mixed use projects based on the General Plan land use designation for the site which does allow certain residential and other non -residential uses.
Alternative 2 – EDC Mixed Use (C/LI/MFR) 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). Alternative 3 – EDC Mixed Use (O/BP/R) 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).
City staff considered various mixes of these land uses but knowing that a substantial amount of commercial use would generate substantial amounts of traffic, and a substantial amount of residential units in this area would not be compatible with non - residential uses surrounding the project site. In the end the City selected these alternatives as the most reasonable range of alternatives that could reduce or eliminate one or more of the Project’s significant impacts. Due to the size of the site, no reasonable development-related project was found that could eliminate the one significant impact of the project (GHG emissions) and the two mixed use alternatives actually resulted in significant air quality impacts as well.
Based on the size of the site, it is likely no level of urban development allowed by the General Plan and zoning on this site would reduce potential GHG emissions to less than significant levels due to the City’s relatively low adopted GHG significance thr eshold (3,000 MTCO2e).
FEIR Alternative 1 would not achieve the goals of the Project to the same degree as the proposed Project, and FEIR Alternatives 2 and 3 even less so since they further reduce non-residential development in favor of added residential development. In the end Alternative 1 was selected as the “Environmentally Superior Alternative.” After reviewing this response, the commenter proceeded to suggest five different alternatives to reduce GHG emissions which w as the lone significant impact of the project:
• Zero-Emission Logistics Alternative: All-electric operations with solar canopies and battery storage. The primary objective of this project is to create a multi -tenant business park with a variety of uses (light industrial, manufacturing, office) to
20 MIG, Inc.
support a diverse employment base. Logistics warehousing is not consistent with that primary objective but certainly efforts to achieve or strive toward zero emissions would help reduce GHG emissions, possibly even below the City’s 3,000 MTCO2e significance threshold.
• Light Manufacturing Alternative: Lower truck traffic, higher employment density .
As stated above, the primary objective of this project is to create a multi -tenant business park with a variety of uses (light industrial, manufacturing, office) to support a diverse employment base. Focusing on only one aspect of this development category would unduly limit the diversity of future employment in this center, but any land use changes that would reduce truck traffic would incrementally reduce GHG emissions as well.
• Mixed-Use Transit -Oriented Alternative: Incorporating affordable housing near future transit. Zeiders Road will eventually have transit service so it would be possible to add market-rate or affordable housing in this area to take advantage of future transit. However, the DEIR did examine two alternatives that included different forms of housing and determined that the addition of residential uses would substantially increase anticipated traffic which in turn would increase air pollutant and GHG emissions.
• Phased Development Alternative: Allowing technology improvements before full buildout. The business park project has 11 separate buildings with a variety of potential uses (light industrial, manufacturing, office) which will practically result in a phased development or occupancy of future uses. However, it is more difficult to require multi-tenant developments to implement “future technology” since it is unknown what such technology will be and if or how various uses could implement such technology.
• Community-Serving Commercial Alternative: Retail, services, and amenities for residents. Section 5 of the DEIR explained that any alternatives that included a high proportion of commercial uses would substantially increase project traffic and thus increase GHG emissions. Therefore this is not a feasible alternative compared to the proposed project.
The commenter concludes that “the City's claim that no alternative could eliminate GHG impacts due to the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold is defeatist and incorrect -a zero-emission facility with renewable energy could achieve carbon neutrality. ” The EIR did propose mitigation measures to help reduce GHG emissions including a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for future uses to reduce their vehicle miles travelled (VMT) impacts. The project includes allowance for future rooftop photovolta ic solar panels depending on the specific future use/user.
21 MIG, Inc.
Response G-10: GSEJA submits a general assertion that the City has dismissed “California Department of Justice recommendations” without adequate analysis.
Assuming that GSEJA is referring to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) guidance document “Warehouse Project: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act,” this comment is similar to other comments submitted by the South Coast Air Quality Manageme nt District, the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA), and Advocates for the Environment on the Draft EIR. As explained in Final EIR Responses C-6, C-9, H-38, and I-9, the City has reviewed the referenced document and determined that many of the best practices in the document are commensurate with the requirements of existing regulations and/or the mitigation measures incorporated into t he EIR. The EIR has incorporated feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions, and the additional recommendations made by the appellant are either not feasible for the project or not necessary to address an identified significant impact.
Response G-10.1: The City provides Spanish language translation services at meetings and for critical public documents, however, the City has determined that CEQA documents are not essential public documents per state law. In this case, neither the project site nor the immediate surrounding area is consider ed a disadvantaged community in need of focused language services relative to this project (see Response G-2 above). In addition, it should be noted that no comments were received during the NOP/Scoping period, the Draft EIR review period, or subsequently at the Planning Commission indicating a need or desire for the CEQA documents for this project to be provided in Spanish.
Response G-10.2: The commenter stated the city’s public notices failed to:
• Identify the site as in a disadvantaged community. As discussed in Response G-2 above, the project site and immediate surrounding area are not within a disadvantaged community.
• Disclose the 93rd percentile cardiovascular disease burden. The appropriate area- specific information from the CalEnviroScreen website was provided in DEIR Section 3.3, Air Quality.
• Mention cumulative impacts from surrounding warehouses. Potential contributions of the proposed project to cumulative impacts were discussed in each of the environmental analysis sections of the DEIR (4.1 through 4.20) and, other than greenhouse gas emissions, the project was not found to make a substantial contribution to any significant cumulative regional impact. Specifically, the Draft EIR (p. 4.3 -26) included an evaluation of cumulative health risks impacts and concluded this impact would be less than significant.
22 MIG, Inc.
• Provide health risk information in lay terms . DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, describes the health effects of various air pollutants and goes into great detail about the potential health risks of the proposed project. • Offer resources for technical assistance to residents. It is not clear what “technical assistance” has not been made available to local residents regarding the planning or environmental processes for this project. The project planner, Russell Brown, was contacted by and discussed project characteristics with only one local resident during the NOP and EIR review process. No other related services were requested.
Response G-10.3: The commenter indicated the following regarding the City’s previous responses to their earlier comments on the DEIR:
• Dismissive tone toward environmental justice concerns . The commenter is not clear about this comment but the DEIR and FEIR both demonstrate the project is not within a disadvantaged community so that it is possible the commenter considered this a “dismissal” of its overall concerns regarding EJ. That is not t he case as the City has actually incorporated a number of EJ goals and policies into various elements of its recently updated General Plan.
• Reliance on technicalities rather than substantive analysis. It is not clear to which sections or analyses the commenter was referring but the City believes the DEIR and DEIR data, analyses, and conclusions are based on substantial evidence and not “technicalities” and opinions.
• Failure to provide requested data and calculations. Not clear what is meant but as indicated above, the City believes the DEIR and DEIR data, analyses, and conclusions are based on substantial evidence and not “technicalities” and opinions. The misposting of Appendices E and L -2 have been explained and the 45-day public review period was extended to allow full review time for the DEIR and its appendices once the appendices were posted. All of the calculations for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions were provided in the appendices and summarized in the DEIR sections.
• Mischaracterization of legal requirements. Again, the commenter did not explain particulars of this comment and all of their comments regarding various legal CEQA requirements were addressed in FEIR (response to comments and errata sections), and subsequent response to comments memos (including this one). • Refusal to consider feasible mitigation. The DEIR did consider feasible mitigation, and the FEIR and subsequent response to comments memos (including this one) indicate a desire to accommodate the recommended additional or expanded mitigation to the extent practical or feasible which is all expl ained in the various CEQA documents as appropriate.
23 MIG, Inc.
Response G -10.4: The commenter indicated t he FEIR fail ed to analyze economic impacts on the disadvantaged community. Again, it must be made clear the project site and surrounding properties are not located within a disadvantaged community (see Response G-2 above).
Job Quality Analysis Absent:
• No wage data for proposed 553 jobs. CEQA does not involve the evaluation of fiscal impacts such as wages unless a clear connection to adverse physical changes to the environment can be shown. In this case, the commenter did not suggest one other than a supposed link to a disadvantaged community. The DEIR and FEIR clearly indicated the site and surrounding properties are not within or part of a disadvantaged community. Even if such data was requ ested/required by the City and/or CEQA, it would be overly speculative to try to estimate specific wage data since this is a multi- tenant business park with no committed tenants yet.
• No comparison to living wage standards . As outlined above, specific wage data is not required by the City or CEQA and in this case is overly speculative since none of the actual tenants have been identified yet.
• No analysis of benefits availability. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning so no specific community benefits are required as part of development, and the commenter did not explain the purpose or content of such an analysis. • No local hire requirements. At most this is a potential planning consideration of the project approval process and not a CEQA-related issue. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and the City has no specific local hiring requirements for such projects.
• No job training partnerships. This is a potential planning consideration of the project approval process at most and not a CEQA-related issue. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and the City has no specific requirements for such projects regarding job training partnerships.
Displacement Impacts ignored:
• Property value impacts from industrial encroachment. There is no “encroachment” since the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations and only one vacant farmhouse is being removed by this project.
• Small business displacement from truck traffic . The commenter did not clarify the intent of this comment so it is not clear what if any displacement of small businesses might occur from project -related truck traffic. In any case, such financial effects of project planning are not considerations under CEQA which focuses on physical changes to the environment.
24 MIG, Inc.
• Residential displacement from cumulative impacts. No evidence was presented that critical housing, existing or planned, would be displaced by development of the project or other cumulative development.
• Loss of land for community -serving uses . The project site has a General Plan designation and zoning classification of “Economic Development Corridor -Southern Gateway” designation (EDC-SG) which allows for a mixture of specific uses as part of the “mixed use” land use grouping (i.e., light industrial, manufacturing, office, and residential in support of non -residential uses). The selection of land uses under the mixed use category necessari ly means some uses will be chosen over other uses.
Since the project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning, the General Plan EIR addressed the potential land use and other environmental impacts of this land use selection process.
Fiscal Impact omissions:
• Public health costs from increased pollution . The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site, and the potential environmental and health impacts of project air pollutant emissions were calculated and evaluated in DEIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, and the health risk assessment outlined in DEIR Section
4.3.4, Impacts b and c. CEQA does not involve the evaluation of fiscal impacts unless a clear connection to adverse physical changes to the environment can be shown. • Infrastructure wear from truck traffic . The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site. In addition, the commenter suggested no guidance on how such indirect impacts would be calculated or assessed. CEQA does not involve the evaluation of fiscal impacts unles s a clear connection to adverse physical changes to the environment can be shown.
• Emergency service demands . Potential impacts of the project on emergency services were addressed in DEIR Section 4.17, Public Services (police and fire) including fiscal impacts related to development impact fees to help fund such services.
• Lost property tax from residential prohibition . The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the site. In addition, the commenter suggested no guidance on how such indirect impacts would be calculated or assessed.
Finally, CEQA does not involve the evaluation of fiscal impacts such as these unless a clear connection to adverse physical changes to the environment can be shown and the commenter provided no such connection.
Response G-11: Climate Vulnerability. GSEGA asserts the DEIR fails to analyze general climate vulnerability factors such as heat island effects, extreme heat events, etc. The appellant is directed to Draft EIR p. 4.8-4 and 4.8-5 for a discussion of potential climate change effects in California, Section 4.10.4 for a discussion of the project’s potential
25 MIG, Inc.
hydrology, flooding, and water quality impacts, and Chapter 4.20 for setting and impact discussions related to wildfire. As a point of clarification, the EIR’s GHG analysis, including the project direct and indirect GHG emissions levels and consistency wit h applicable plans and policies adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions, is a fact-based analysis of the project’s potential GHG and related climate change impacts.
This is because, as explained in the Draft EIR (p. 4.8-2), “Gases that “trap” heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as ‘greenhouse gases’ . . .GHG that contribute to climate regulation are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate regulation is g lobal in scale, both in terms of causes and effects . . . GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., CO2) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosph ere, climate regulation, and global climate change . . . The effects of increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere include increasing shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns and amounts, reduced ice and snow cover, sea level rise, and acidific ation of oceans.
These effects in turn will impact food and water supplies, infrastructure, ecosystems, and overall public health and welfare.”
Response G-12: The City believes it has complied with the spirit (intent) as well as the legal and procedural requirements of CEQA and has made a good faith effort to provide a comprehensive detailed environmental information document for the public and decision-makers. The DEIR indicates the potential impacts of the project would not be unequally distributed onto at -risk populations or neighborhoods already bearing environmental burdens. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations, will only have one environmental impact that is significant and unavoidable even with mitigation (i.e., greenhouse gas emissions), and would benefit the community overall (see “Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations”) when viewed in relation to its environmental impacts.
Response G -13: The commenter made a number of r ecommendations which was essentially the following laundry list of “requirements” the project should implement. It should be noted that many of these items appear to be related to the project’s supposed impacts to a disadvantaged neighborhood, but as the DEIR and FEIR clearly demonstrate, the project and surrounding properties are not within a disadvantaged community:
Zero-Emission Operations Timeline:
• 50% zero-emission (ZE) trucks by 2030. This project is a multi-tenant business park which has no established tenants at present so the City cannot feasibly place a requirement on future buyers or tenants regarding their trucking fleet. This action would be implemented to the degree that new truck fleet operators will be required to buy zero emission trucks.
26 MIG, Inc.
• 100% zero-emission trucks by 2035. See response above regarding 50% ZE trucks by 2030. See response above relative to 50% zero emission trucks by 2030.
• Installation of charging infrastructure before occupancy . The project will install charging infrastructure required by the California Green Building Code and the City’s development requirements.
• Monthly emissions monitoring and public reporting. The project is not a logistics warehouse subject to the SCAQMD “Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Rule 2305 so monthly emissions monito ring and reporting is not required.
Community Health Protection:
• $5 million community benefit fund for health programs. The DEIR found no nexus or rough proportionality of project impacts that would require or suggest such a contribution since the air pollutant/health risk impacts of the project are less than significant under CEQA (only GHG emissions were found to be significant). • Indoor air filtration systems for nearby schools. As outlined in DEIR Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are no schools within a quarter mile of the project site and its air pollutant emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD or state (OEHHA) significance thresholds for health risks. Therefore, there is no nexus o r rough proportionality for imposing such a requirement on this project. • Community air monitoring network with real -time data. There is no nexus or rough proportionality to require such a measure for a project that is consistent with the GP and zoning and the EIR air quality assessment does not indicate it will result in significant air quality or health risk impacts. • Quarterly health impact assessments . See response above for community air monitoring network suggestion.
Local Hiring and Training:
• 50% local hire requirement (Menifee residents) . While the City may encourage new employers to hire local workers, it cannot mandate numerical hiring quotas.
In addition, the project is a multi -tenant business park which has no established tenants at present so the City cannot feasibly place a requirement on future buyers or tenants regarding their individual hiring practices. This is also not a CEQA issue but the City may work with the applicant and/or future tenants to encourage local hiring practices.
• Partnership with community colleges for job training . This is not a CEQA issue but the City may work with the applicant and/or future tenants to encourage partnering with local community colleges for job training. • Living wage requirement ($25/hour minimum). The City cannot legally mandate wage requirements for future businesses since at present none have been selected for this multi-tenant business park.
27 MIG, Inc.
• Healthcare benefits for all employees . The City cannot legally mandate future tenants to provide healthcare benefits to their workers as those business practices are regulated by state and federal agencies and private insurance corporations.
Operational Restrictions:
• No operations between 10 PM and 6 AM . The City will enforce whatever appropriate operational hours limitations are established in its Municipal Code.
Since no tenants are currently identified, it is not possible to restrict or preclude future users from overnight activities.
• No idling beyond 3 minutes . The project is already subject to a 5 -minute idling limitation by City Conditions of Approval (COAs) consistent with SCAQMD recommendations. The appellant/commenter did not provide any support for imposing a more strict idling limit and the air quality ass essment for the project did not recommend a more stringent idling limit since air pollutant emissions were estimated to be less than significant.
• Designated truck routes avoiding residential streets . The City has established truck routes and mapping so trucks/drivers utilizing the proposed project will access the designated streets. The City will also impose a Condition of Approval (COA) restricting project trucks to designated truck routes and to inst all the necessary signage on the site for drivers to follow.
• Maximum 100 truck trips per day . DEIR Section 4.17, Transportation, did not identify any significant traffic -related impacts of the project related to either vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or levels of service (LOS) which is no longer considered a CEQA significance criteria for traffic impa cts. Therefore, there is no nexus or rough proportionality for requiring a daily truck traffic limit on the project.
Environmental Justice Compliance:
• Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) with voting power. The City has an Environmental Justice Element (EJE) of its General Plan. However, CalEnviroScreen has not identified any disadvantaged communities within the City.
The EJE does not include an EJAC at this time and one would have to implemented at a City level and not for a particular development project. • Monthly compliance reports in English and Spanish. This would need to be a city- wide program as part of the EJE monitoring and it not currently in place. • Annual environmental justice impact assessment. This would need to be a city- wide program as part of the EJE monitoring and it not currently in place. • Community right to enforcement action . This would need to be a city -wide program as part of the EJE monitoring and it not currently in place.
Response G-14: The commenter/appellant states “the FEIR is fundamentally flawed and a new EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Appellant requests the City of Menifee City Council reverse the decision of the
28 MIG, Inc.
Planning Commission's certification of the project and require a new EIR. ” The City believes the DEIR and FEIR comply with the intent and legal requirements of CEQA and do not require revision and recirculation or preparation of a new EIR.
CONCLUSION
Staff’s conclusion is the two appeal letters do not provide significant new information or identify new significant impacts or information regarding the project or the DEIR analysis.
City staff concludes the information provided in the Draft EIR, its appendices (including Appendices E and L for which the public was provided adequate time to review), the Final EIR and all response to comments and supporting materials adequately address all the issues and comments raised. Therefore, the EIR meets the requirements of CEQA and it and its technical studies do not need to be revised and recirculated for additional public review.