Menifee City Council
June 17, 2026

WHEREAS, at the May 13, 2026 Planning Commission public hearing, based upon the materials in the staff report and accompanying documents, public comments, and Planning Commission discussion, the City of Menifee Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve GPA No. PLN24-0197, SPA No. PLN24-0199, ZC No. PLN24-0198, and PP No. PLN24-0195; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project, which hearing was publicly noticed in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, on-site posting, notice to property owners within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menifee does ordain as follows:

Section 1: The City of Menifee’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for SPA No. PLN24-0199 in accordance with Title 9, Article 2, Chapter 9.100.70, “Findings for Approval” of the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code:

Finding 1 - The specific plan is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan and is not inconsistent with any element thereof.

As mentioned in Section 1 above, some parcels of the Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities, such as manufacturing uses, that can generate significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances. The proposed amendment would seek to change the General Plan land use designation to SP, more specifically the Menifee North SP, and designating it as Planning Area 2 – Industrial. The proposed amendment is to create consistent development standards for the Project as it is bisected by both designations. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan as both designations are similar and are intended for industrial uses.

In addition, the SP is consistent with the following City of Menifee General Plan policies:
• LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options.

The proposed SPA will help to ensure that industrial
development will happen where it was envisioned by facilitating the standards for the Project site. This area was already identified under the General Plan and SP as a strategic area for Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 199

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
548 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center – ZC, SPA
June 17, 2026

industrial development to occur.
• ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations.

The proposed Project will expand the local economy and provide increased employment opportunities for local residents.

Finding 2 - The specific plan prescribes reasonable controls and standards for affected land uses to ensure compatibility and integrity of those uses with other established uses.

As previously mentioned, the Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of SP and HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities. Changing all of the Project site to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial, would be compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations which consist of Industrial and Commercial zoning designations. The established uses which surround the Project site are vacant lots, industrial uses. The proposed change will not be substantially different from the exiting land use and will have to comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal requirements.

Finding 3 - The specific plan provides reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

The proposed amendment is proposed to create more cohesive development standards and to help facilitate development on the Project site. To ensure the Project would not affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC) was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the surrounding persons residing or working in the community. Impacts that were found to be significant were able to be mitigated to a level less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated with the exception of effects to Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and Transportation. These effects were mitigated to the greatest extent feasible but would still surpass the set thresholds, this is related to the development of the logistics facility and not directly because of the ZC, SP or GPA.

Finding 4 - The specific plan provides for the protection of the health, safety, and/or general welfare of the community.

The SPA will not result in conditions detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare as designed and conditioned. The associated entitlements have been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Menifee Community Development Department, Engineering Department, Office of the Fire Marshal, and other applicable agencies Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 200

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
549 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center – ZC, SPA
June 17, 2026

to ensure that it will not create conditions materially detrimental to the surrounding uses. Conditions of approval include landscaping, roadway improvements consistent with the General Plan, expanded sidewalks and a network of bike lanes to encourage non-vehicular travel, fire infrastructure, and drainage improvements that will benefit the Project site and surrounding areas.

As previously mentioned, in addition, environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project and associated SPA have been analyzed in the EIR that was prepared for the Project.

Section 2: The City of Menifee’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for ZC No. PLN24-0198 in accordance with Title 9, Article 2, Chapter 9.115.70, “Findings for Approval” of the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code:

Finding 1 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan.

The Project site currently has three parcels with a zoning designation of HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities, such as manufacturing uses, that can generate significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances. The proposed amendment would seek to change the zoning designation to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial. The proposed amendment is to create consistent development standards for the Project as it is bisected by both designations. The proposed amendment will be consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan as both designations are similar and are intended for industrial uses.

In addition, the SP is consistent with the following City of Menifee General Plan policies:
• LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options.

The proposed amendment will help to ensure that industrial development will happen where it was envisioned by facilitating the standards for the Project site. This area was already identified under the General Plan and SP as a strategic area for industrial development to occur.
• ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations.

The proposed Project will expand the local economy and provide increased employment opportunities for local residents.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 201

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
550 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center – ZC, SPA
June 17, 2026

Finding 2 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title prescribes reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses.

The Project site currently has a zoning designation of Menifee North SP and HI which is intended for more intense industrial activities. Changing the Project site to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial, would be compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations which are also in Planning Area 2 to the north, south, east, and west. The established uses which surround the Project site are vacant lots, industrial uses, and three rural homes to the west. The proposed change will not be substantially different from the exiting land use and will have to comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal development standards and policies.

Finding 3 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title provides reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species.

As mentioned above, the proposed amendment is proposed to create more cohesive development standards and to help facilitate development on the Project site. To ensure the Project would not affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community, an EIR, MMRP, and SOOC was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the surrounding persons residing or working in the community. Impacts that were found to be significant were able to be mitigated to a level less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated with the exception of GHG and Transportation. These two categories were not able to be feasibly mitigated below the adopted thresholds. Most of these impacts were a result of commuting to the site. These impacts are related to the establishment of the logistics facility and not the Zone Change, General Plan, or Specific Plan Amendment.

Finding 4 - The proposed zone or amendments to this Title ensures protection of the general health, safety and welfare of the community.

The zone change will not result in conditions detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare as designed and conditioned. The associated entitlements have been reviewed and conditioned by the City of Menifee Community Development Department, Engineering Department, Office of the Fire Marshal, and other applicable agencies to ensure that it will not create conditions materially detrimental to the surrounding uses. Conditions of approval include landscaping, roadway improvements consistent with the General Plan, expanded sidewalks and a network of bike lanes to encourage non-vehicular travel, fire infrastructure, and drainage improvements that will benefit the Project site and surrounding areas.

As previously mentioned, in addition, environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project and associated SPA have been analyzed in the EIR that was prepared for the Project.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 202

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
551 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center – ZC, SPA
June 17, 2026

Section 3: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance. An EIR, MMRP, and SOOC has been completed for the Project and accepted by the City Council pursuant to a separate Resolution. The ZC and SPA are consistent with the EIR, which the City Council has considered as part of its proceedings.

Section 4: Approval of the Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment. The City Council finds that the facts present within the public record and within this Ordinance provide the basis to approve ZC No. PLN24-0198 and SPA No. PLN24-0199.

Section 5: Effective Date. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and operation 30 days after its second reading and adoption.

Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivision, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 7: Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published within 15 days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933(a) or, cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by law using the alternative summary and posting procedure authorized under Government Code Section 36933(c).

Section 8: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance has been based are located at the Community Development Department – Planning Division, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 203

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
552 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center – ZC, SPA
June 17, 2026

This ordinance was introduced and read on the 17 th day of June 2026 and PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July 2026. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________
Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_________________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 204

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
553 of 1562

EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN

PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
EXHIBIT “A” SPA PLN24-0199
N
N
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 205

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
554 of 1562

EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED ZONING
EXHIBIT “B” ZC PLN24-0198
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 206

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
555 of 1562

RESOLUTION NO. 26-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. PLN24-0195 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 829,755 SQUARE-FOOT

WAREHOUSE AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING KNOWN AS THE

HERITAGE VILLAGE BUSINESS CENTER
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2024, the applicant, Jon Kelly with Core5 Industrial Partners, LLC (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. PLN 24-0197 to change the land use designation of one parcel APN 331-110-024, 025, and 026 from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Specific Plan (SP) more specifically the Menifee North SP, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. PLN24-0199 to increase the height limit of Planning Area 2 to 60 feet and to change the boundary of the Menifee North SP to include APN 331-110-024, 025, and 026 and designate it as Planning Area 2 - Industrial, Change of Zone (ZC) No. PLN24-0198 to change to zoning designation of APN 331-110-024, 025, and 026 from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Menifee North SP, and Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN24-0195 for the construction of an approximately 829,755 square-foot warehouse/industrial building that includes 10,000 square feet of office space and 819,755 square feet of warehouse space on an 41.16-acre site. The Project site is generally located north of McLaughlin Road, south of Ethanac Road, east of Trumble Road, and west of Sherman Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (APNs: 331-110-023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 031, 035, 038, 039, and 041); and
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Heritage Valley Business Center”; and
WHEREAS, Conditions of Approval for GPA No. PLN24-0197, SPA No. PLN24- 0199, CZ No. PLN24-0198, and PP No. PLN24-0195 have been prepared and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” of the resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC) has been prepared for the Transportation and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions which could not be mitigated to less than significant; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents to recommend City Council adopt the EIR for GPA No. PLN24-0197, SPA No. PLN24-0199, CZ No. PLN24-0198, and PP No. PLN24- 0195 which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notices placed on the Project site, notice to property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, notice to all relevant agencies and to persons requesting notification; and WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the City Council of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents to adopt the EIR for GPA No. PLN24-0197 and Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 207

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
556 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center - Entitlements
June 17, 2026
5 2
4 8
9 approve SPA No. PLN24-0199, CZ No. PLN24-0198, and PP No. PLN24-0195 which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notices placed on the Project site, notice to property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, notice to all relevant agencies and to persons requesting notification; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menifee, California: hereby finds, determines, and orders as follows:

Section 1: The City of Menifee’s City Council hereby makes the following findings for PP No. PLN24-0195 in accordance with Title 9, Article 2, Chapter 9.80.70, “Findings for Approval Major Plot Plan” of the City of Menifee Comprehensive Development Code:

Finding 1 - The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The Project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of HI for three parcels which is intended for more intense industrial activities, such as manufacturing uses, that can generate significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances, but is also proposing an amendment which seeks to change the General Plan land use designation to the Menifee North SP Planning Area 2 – Industrial, the designation of the majority of the parcels. Once completed, the Project will still be consistent with the proposed development and surrounding General Plan land uses. The proposed amendment is to create consistent development standards for the Project as it is bisected by both designations. The change in designation will be consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan as both designations are similar and are intended for industrial uses.

In addition, the Project is consistent with the following City of Menifee General Plan policies:
LU-1.1: Concentrate growth in strategic locations to help preserve rural areas, create place and identity, provide infrastructure efficiently, and foster the use of transit options.

The proposed industrial project is in close proximity to Ethanac Road, a designated truck route per the City’s General Plan. Ethanac Road directly connects to the I-215 freeway interchange. The location is well suited for industrial development to promote easily accessible routes for employees and delivery personnel and the location helps concentrate activity and development near the major transit corridors of the City as opposed to the rural areas or traveling through residential areas.
• ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 208

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
557 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center - Entitlements
June 17, 2026
5 2
4 8
9 The proposed Project will expand the local economy and provide increased employment opportunities for local residents by expanding Menifee’s industrial base and helping diversify employment sectors. CD-3.5  Design parking lots and structures to be functionally and visually integrated and connected; off-street parking lots should not dominate the street scene.

Perimeter landscaping has been provided to visually screen the parking lots, drive aisles, and compliment the building design from surrounding roadways. One of the proposed office locations will also face Wheat Street to create a greater architectural impact.
CD-3.9  Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.

The Project is required to include security cameras at the entrances as well as within the property and the site has been designed to limit concealed areas to allow for greater visibility and security. CD-3.12: Utilize differing but complementary forms of architectural styles and designs that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area.

The architecture of the Project incorporates varied colors, recesses, material changes, varied roof lines, wall plane changes, accent materials, and other architectural treatments that break up wall areas to avoid any long expanses of blank, monotonous walls. The building is designed to prioritize employee safety and functionality. Nonetheless, the building is still designed to meet the City’s Design Guidelines such as building form, roof form, massing and articulation, materials and colors, windows, doors, and entries. Landscaping along the building edges will also help to compliment the design.
CD-3.14 Provide variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences.

The architecture of the Project incorporates varied colors, recesses, material changes, varied roof lines, wall plane changes, accent materials, and other architectural treatments that break up wall areas to avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls. Screen walls have also been designed to incorporate architectural elements from the building for compatibility.

Finding 2 - The proposed project meets all applicable standards for development and provisions of this Title.

Per section 9.80.020 “Applicability” of the Development code, new construction of non-residential projects of more than 2,500 square feet of floor area requires the processing of a Plot Plan. The Plot Plan is for the site and architectural review, to allow for the construction of a warehouse Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 209

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
558 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center - Entitlements
June 17, 2026
5 2
4 8
9 building that surpasses this threshold. The proposed Project meets all applicable standards of development and operation of the City’s Zoning Code (Title 9), including but not limited to, parking requirements, setbacks, landscape coverage, floor area ratio, and height requirements of the applicable development standards not specified in the Menifee North SP Planning area 2. Moreover, the Project was reviewed against and meets all the regulations in the Citywide Design Guidelines, SP requirements, and General Plan.

Finding 3 - The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the general welfare of the City.

To ensure the Project would not affect the general health, safety and/or welfare of the community, an EIR was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the surrounding persons residing or working in the community.

Most impacts that were found to be significant were able to be mitigated to a level less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated where possible. Two areas remained significant and unavoidable even with mitigation measures which include Transportation and GHG Emissions.

For these areas a SOOC was adopted.

In addition, the Project incorporates quality architecture, landscaping, and public improvements which will enhance the surrounding area. The Project has been reviewed by a variety of Departments to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to City of Menifee Community Development, Engineering and Public Works, Office of the Fire Marshall, Police, Riverside County Environmental Health, Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County Flood Control District, California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Some of these Departments have provided conditions of approval as appropriate to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menifee, California: hereby finds, determines, and orders as follows:

1. That the City Council determine that the “Findings” set out above are true and correct.

2. That the City Council determine the environmental review has been completed for the Project in accordance with State and local laws, and CEQA guidelines.

3. That the City Council, pursuant to a separate Resolution, finds the facts presented within the public record provide the basis to recommend the City Council approve and certify the EIR, which has been completed for the Project.

4. That the City Council finds the facts presented within the public record and within the Planning Commission Resolution provide the basis to recommend City Council approve said entitlements: PP No. PLN24-0199.

5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 210

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
559 of 1562

Heritage Valley Business Center - Entitlements
June 17, 2026
5 2
4 8
9 this Resolution has been based are located at the Community Development Department – Planning Division, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this the 17th day of June 2026. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 211

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
560 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 EXHIBIT “A”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: – General Plan Amendment No. PLN24-0197, Specific Plan Amendment No. PLN24-0199, Change of Zone No. PLN24-0198, and Plot Plan No. PLN24-0195 “Heritage Valley Business Park” Project Description: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. PLN24-0197 proposes an amendment to the General Plan by changing the land use
designation of APNs 331-110-024, 025, and 026 from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Specific Plan (SP), more specifically the Menifee North SP.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. PLN24-0199 proposes to change the boundary of the Menifee North SP by adding APNs 331- 110-024, 025, and 026 and designating it as Planning Area 2 – Industrial and increase the building height of Planning Area 2 to 60 feet.

Change of Zone (ZC) No. PLN24-0198 proposes to change APNs 331-110-024, 025, and 026 from HI to Menifee North SP.

Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN24-0195, proposes to construct an 829,755 square foot warehouse facility on a 41.16-acre site. The warehouse will consist of 10,000 square feet of office space and 819,755 square feet of warehouse space. The proposed development will have 503 parking spaces and 258 trailer parking spaces along with landscaping improvements.

Assessor's Parcel No.:331-110-023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 031, 035, 038, 039, and 041 MSHCP Category:Non-residential (Industrial)
DIF Category:Industrial
TUMF Category:Determined by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Quimby Category:N/A
Approval Date:June 17, 2026
Expiration Date: June 17, 2029
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 212

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
561 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Section I: Community Development Department Conditions of Approval
Section II: Engineering/Grading/Transportation Conditions of Approval
Section III: Building and Safety Department Conditions of Approval
Section IV: Riverside County Fire Department Conditions of Approval
Section IV: Landscaping Review Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 213

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
562 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Section I:

Community Development Department
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 214

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
563 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 GENERAL CONDITIONS

1.Indemnification. Within 48 hours of project approval, the Applicant/developer shall submit the necessary agreements to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Menifee and its elected city council, appointed boards, commissions, committees, officials, employees, volunteers, contractors, consultants, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, arising out of either the City’s approval of the Project or actions related to the Property or the acts, omissions, or operations of the applicant/developer and its directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the applicant/developer with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the Project and the Property for which the Project is being approved.

2.Filing Notice of Determination. Within 48 hours of project approval, the Planning Division will determine the appropriate fees for the Notice of Determination (NOD) filing and request the payment of fees to the City of Menifee in the form of a check or cash.

Upon receipt of payment, the Planning Division will file the NOD with the relevant agencies as required under Public Resources Code, California Code of Regulations and California Fish and Game Code.

3.Exhibits. The project shall be constructed as approved by the City Council on June 17, 2026 and as shown in Attachment No. 1 in the accompanying staff report. Any subsequent changes shall be processed per Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.30.120 Modifications to Previously Approved Permits.

4.Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall comply with, prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this Project which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit for review and approval. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance.

5.Ninety (90) Days. The applicant has ninety (90) days from the date of approval of these conditions to protest, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020, the imposition of any and all fees, dedications, reservations and/or other exactions imposed on this project as a result of this approval or conditional approval of this project.

6.Subsequent Submittals. Any subsequent submittals required by these Conditions of Approval, including but not limited to grading plan, building plan or mitigation monitoring review shall include appropriate fees paid as may be in effect at the time of submittal, as required by Resolution No. 24-1423 (Cost of Services Fee Study), or any successor thereto. Each submittal shall be accompanied with a letter clearly indicating which condition or conditions the submittal is intended to comply with.

7.Expiration Date. This approval shall become null and void three (3) years from the date of approval, unless the appropriate permits have been obtained and construction, defined as permit obtainment, commencement of construction of the primary building on site, and successful completion of the first Building and Safety Division inspection, or an extension of time application has been submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date.

Extensions may be granted per Menifee Municipal Code.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 215

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
564 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 8.Place of Sale. The General Contractor/Developer is requiring that all contractors and subcontractors on the site participate in directing local tax to (City of Menifee) wherever possible. This direction will not increase the contractor’s tax liability; however, it will increase the percentage amount of tax revenue the City will receive. The Developer is requiring the contractors and subcontractors work together with the City officials and consultants to achieve an equitable outcome.

The Developer will require the contractors and subcontractors to exercise their option to obtain a California Department of Tax & Fee Administration sub-permit for the job site and allocate all eligible use tax payments to the City of Menifee. This condition applies to only those contractors/sub-contractors with individual contracts over $5 million. Prior to any construction on-site, the developer will require the contractor and subcontractor to provide (the City of Menifee) with either a copy of their sub-permit that shows their CDTFA account number or a signed statement that sales and use tax does not apply to their portion of the project. The Developer/Contractor will provide the City/County and their consultant with a list of subcontractors associated with the project.

9.Modifications or Revisions. The applicant shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code Section 9.30.120 (Modifications to Previously Approved Permits), and such requests.

10.Comply with Ordinances. This project shall comply with the applicable standards of the City of Menifee Development Code, City of Menifee Municipal Code, City of Menifee Design Guidelines and all other applicable ordinances and State and Federal codes and regulations.

11.Causes for Revocation. In the event the use hereby permitted under this permit, a) is found to be in violation of the terms and conditions of this permit, b) is found to have been obtained by fraud or perjured testimony, or c) is found to be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or is a public nuisance, this permit may be subject to the City’s authority to initiate applicable permit revocation procedures.

12.Reclaimed Water. The permittee shall connect to a reclaimed water supply for landscape watering purposes if secondary reclaimed water is available to the site at the time of grading permit issuance or as required by Eastern Municipal Water District.

13.Outside Lighting. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way and so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky.

14.Phases. Construction of this project may be done progressively in phases provided a phasing map is submitted with appropriate fees to the Planning Division and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.

15.Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact (DIF), Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Quimby, Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

16.Outside Agencies. The applicant shall comply with all comments and conditions of approval from any responsible agencies.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 216

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
565 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 17.Anti-Graffiti Coating. An anti-graffiti coating shall be provided on all block walls constructed as part of any phase of the Project, and written verification from the developer shall be provided to the Community Development Department.

18.Property Maintenance. All parkways, entryway medians, on-site and off-site landscaping, walls, fencing, recreational facilities, basins, and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the owner or private entity or the City of Menifee Community Facilities District (CFD).

All landscaping and similar improvements not properly maintained by a property owners association, individual property owners, or the common area maintenance director must be annexed into a Lighting and Landscape District, or other mechanism as determined by the City of Menifee.

19.Business Registration. Every person conducting a business within the City of Menifee, as defined in Menifee Municipal Code, Chapter 5.01, shall obtain a business license. For more information regarding business registration, contact the Finance Department.

20.Loading Areas. Loading and/or unloading of goods/supplies shall occur in designated loading areas as shown on the approved exhibits. No loading or unloading is allowed within drive aisles, parking areas, or on adjacent public streets. Loading areas shall be kept free of debris and clean throughout the life of this plot plan.

21.Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed unless otherwise approved as part of the project.

22.Screening. Sliding gates into loading areas visible from the street shall be constructed with wrought iron or tubular steel and perforated metal screening or equivalent durable material. The gate shall be painted to complement adjacent walls.

23.Sound Dampening. The design of dock-high loading doors shall minimize noise through installation of devices such as rubber seals and/or other sound-dampening features, and shall be included on the tenant improvement building permit plans.

Landscaping

24.Interim Landscaping. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and/or blow sand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Community Development Department and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

25.Landscape Plans. All landscaping plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, and the appropriate maintenance authority.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT

26.Processing Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Division shall determine if any deposit-based fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the applicant.

27.Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact Fee (DIF), Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Quimby, Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees (Perris Union High School District, and Romoland School District), Transportation Uniform Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 217

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
566 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

28.Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director or review and approval demonstrating compliance with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project which must be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance.

Archeology

29.Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours). Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

30.Non-Disclosure of Location Reburials. It is understood by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and Lead Agencies, will be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254 (r).

31.Inadvertent Archeological Find. If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). a. All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find.
b. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources.
c. Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 218

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
567 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 d. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re-burial on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Condition.
e. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.

32.Cultural Resources Disposition. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
a. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Menifee Community Development Department:
i. Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following: Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. iii. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, items of Native American Cultural Patrimony, burial goods and Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 219

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
568 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report.

33.Archeologist Retained. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project applicant shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. a. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s) shall manage and oversee monitoring for all initial ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, mass or rough grading, trenching, stockpiling of materials, rock crushing, structure demolition and etc. The Project Archaeologist and the Tribal monitor(s), shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources in coordination with any required special interest or tribal monitors.
b. The developer/permit holder shall submit a fully executed copy of the contract to the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Upon verification, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition.
c. In addition, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the contractor, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation pursuant to the definition in AB52 to address the details, timing and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1) of AB52. Details in the Plan shall include:
d. Project grading and development scheduling;
i. The Project archeologist and the Consulting Tribes(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors and will conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the Project archaeologist and Consulting Tribe(s) shall make themselves available
ii. The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

34.Native American Monitoring (Pechanga/Soboba). Tribal monitor(s) shall be required on-site during all ground-disturbing activities which are below the depths of the previous mass grading. The land divider/permit holder shall retain a qualified tribal monitor(s) from the Pechanga Band of Indians and Soboba band Luiseno Indians. Prior to issuance of a Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 220

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
569 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 grading permit, the developer shall submit a copy of a signed contract between the above- mentioned Tribes and the land divider/permit holder for the monitoring of the project to the Community Development Department and to the Engineering Department. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt the ground-disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.

The Developer shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are of Native American origin, found in the project area for proper treatment and disposition to a curational facility that meets or exceeds Federal Curation Standards outlined in 36 CFR 79. The applicant shall be responsible for all curation costs.

Paleontology

35.Paleontologist Required. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to create and implement a Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program (PRIMP). The project paleontologist would review the grading plan and conduct any pre-construction work necessary to render appropriate monitoring and mitigation requirements, to be documented in the PRIMP. The PRIMP would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Information contained in the PRIMP would minimally include:
a. Description of the project site and proposed grading operations. b. Description of the level of monitoring required for earth-moving activities. c. Identification and qualifications of the paleontological monitor to be employed during earth moving.
d. Identification of personnel with authority to temporarily halt or divert grading to allow recovery of large specimens.
e. Direction for fossil discoveries to be reported to the developer and the City. f. Means and methods to be employed by the paleontological monitor to quickly salvage fossils to minimize construction delays.
g. Sampling methods for sediments that are likely to contain small fossil remains, if any.
h. Procedures and protocol for collecting and processing of samples and specimens, as necessary.
i. Fossil identification and curation procedures.
j. Identification of the repository to receive fossil material. k. All pertinent maps and exhibits.
l. Procedures for reporting of findings.
m. Acknowledgment of the developer for content of the PRIMP and acceptance of financial responsibility for monitoring, reporting, and curation

36.Inadvertent Paleontological Find. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within fifty (50) feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, evaluate the potential Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 221

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
570 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the Community Development Department to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If in consultation with the paleontologist, the Project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval and the Project proponent shall implement the approval plan.

37.Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey. The Project Developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owl within 30 days prior to the start of construction. The results of the single one-day survey would be submitted to the City prior to obtaining a grading permit. If at any time there is a lapse of Project activities for 30 days or more, another burrowing owl survey shall be conducted and submitted to the City. If Burrowing Owl are not detected during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgment and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with CDFW, or the Project Developer shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the nest is no longer active.

The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the MSHCP.

Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.

38.Nesting Bird Pre-Construction Survey. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no- disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer (generally 300 feet for migratory and non-migratory songbirds and 500 feet raptors and special-status species) will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 222

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
571 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 39.Stockpiling/Staging. During construction, best efforts shall be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from existing residential dwellings.

PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE

40.Processing Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Community Development Department shall determine if the deposit-based fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the applicant.

41.Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact Fee (DIF), Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Quimby (Parks and Rec), Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees (Perris Union High School District, Menifee Union School District and Romoland School District), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

42.Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director or review and approval demonstrating compliance with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for this project which must be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance.

43.No Building Permit Prior to Final Map. No building permit shall be issued until the Final Map described above has been recorded.

44.Lighting. Light fixtures shall be decorative and consistent with the City of Menifee Design Guidelines and included in the Building and Safety plans. Architecturally appropriate themed lighting fixtures shall be located along the project roads, project entrances, walkways, open space areas and other focal points on the project site and shall be subject to Community Development Department review and approval.

45.Roof-Mounted Equipment Plans. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, Community Development staff will verify that all roof mounted equipment will be screened in compliance with approved plans.

46.Electrical Cabinets. All electrical cabinets shall be located inside a room that is architecturally integrated into the design of the building.

47.Screening of Accessory Structures. Screening of accessory structures (including mechanical equipment) shall be compatible in color and materials to primary structures.

48.Double Detectors. Double detector check valve assemblies (backflow preventers) for landscape irrigation and domestic water shall not be located at visually prominent locations (such as the end of drive aisles or at site entries) and shall be well-screened with shrubs, berming, or low screen walls.

49.Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Guidelines. All plants, landscaping and foliage shall fall within current CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) guidelines.

50.Security Systems. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare a security plan for the site and submit to the Menifee Police Department for review and approval. The security plan for this project shall include a comprehensive security camera system that clearly depicts the entire parking field. This security camera system shall be 4k quality with High-Definition Resolution based in the building containing the Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 223

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
572 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 management office for this development, or inside a security office or other place acceptable to the City of Menifee Police Department, that is accessible to law enforcement at all times of the day and night. The security camera system shall have a recording capacity to minimally save footage for a period of 30 days or as approved by the Police Department. While not required for all developments, the integration of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology at vehicle entrance and exit points is strongly recommended. This technology serves as a powerful investigative tool for law enforcement agencies when investigating criminal activity. ALPR cameras are cameras specifically designed to read and record vehicle license plates as they enter and exit this complex. It should be noted that high quality day/night vision LPR cameras are relatively inexpensive. The plan shall be approved prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Police Department and/or Community Development Department shall verify that the security system has been installed prior to final occupancy.

In addition, the trash enclosure shall be properly secured and have a lock as well as a covering to keep unauthorized persons from entering the dumpster area.

51.Utilities Underground. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33 kV or greater, shall be installed underground. If the applicant provides to the Building and Safety Division and the Planning Division a definitive statement from the utility provider refusing to allow underground installation of the utilities they provide, this condition shall be null and void with respect to that utility.

Landscaping

52.Landscaping Submittals. Final landscape plan submittals are divided into two different processes. All on-site landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The on-site landscaping shall include any basins, streetscape, open space and planters on private property that is maintained by the property owner or private entity (HOA or Common Maintenance Entity/Association). All off-site landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Engineering and Public Works Department for review and approval. Off-site plans shall include landscaping in areas maintained by the Community Facilities District (CFD) and are located within the City of Menifee Right-of-Way which can include streetscape, basins or slopes.

53.Construction Plans. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit the following construction plan applications to the Planning Division (pursuant to Menifee Municipal Code) for review and approval. The fee for each submittal will be determined by Resolution No. 24-1423 Cost of Services Fee Study and Planning Division Fee Schedule at the time of application submittal. Construction Plan Submittals include:

Additional submittal requirements can be found in the submittal checklist found on the Community Development Department’s website. All Landscape Construction Plans must be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit.

54.Landscape Inspections. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall open a Landscape Deposit Based Fee case and deposit the prevailing deposit amount to cover the pre-installation inspections, installation inspections, Six Month Post Establishment and One Year Post Establishment Landscape Inspections.

55.Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 224

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
573 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees.

56.Interim Landscaping. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and/or blown sand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Community Development Department.

PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION

57.Processing Fees. Prior to final inspection, the Planning Division shall determine if any fees for the project are in a negative balance. If so, any outstanding fees shall be paid by the applicant.

58.Development Impact Fees. The applicant shall pay all applicable development impact fees including but not limited to Development Impact Fee (DIF), Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Quimby (Parks and Rec), Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (KRAT), School Fees (Perris Union High School District, Menifee Union School District and Romoland School District), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), and Area Drainage Plan (ADP).

59.Mitigation Monitoring. The applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director or review and approval demonstrating compliance with the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project which must be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to ensure such compliance

60.Archaeology Report – Phase III and IV. Prior to final inspection of the first building permit associated with each phase of grading, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the Project Archaeologist to submit two copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the Project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department’s requirements for such reports.

The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Community Development Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

61.Paleontological Monitoring Report. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department, an electronic copy of the Paleontology Monitoring Report in accordance with the procedures outlined in the PRIMP. The report shall be certified by a professional paleontologist listed on Riverside County’s Paleontology Consultant List. A deposit for the review of the report will be required.

62.Final Planning Inspection. The applicant shall obtain final occupancy sign-off from the Community Development Department for each building permit issued by scheduling a final Planning inspection prior to the final sign-off from the Building Department. Planning staff shall verify that all pertinent conditions of approval have been met, including compliance Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 225

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
574 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 with the approved elevations, site plan, parking lot layout, decorative paving, public plazas, etc. The applicant shall have all required paving, parking, walls, site lighting, landscaping and automatic irrigation installed and in good condition.

Landscaping

63.Soil Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a Soil Management Plan (Report) to the Community Development Department before the Landscape Installation Inspection.

The report can be sent in electronically. Information on the contents of the report can be found in the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping page 16, #7, “What is required in a Soil Management Plan?”

64.Landscape Inspections. The applicant shall obtain a final certificate of completion from the Planning Division’s Landscape Inspector for each building permit issued by scheduling a final landscape inspection prior to the final occupancy from the Planning Division.

65.Landscaping. All landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed and inspected in accordance with approved exhibits and Menifee Municipal Code.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 226

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
575 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Section II:

Engineering/Grading/Transportation
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 227

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
576 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 The Following are the Public Works / Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project which shall be satisfied at no cost to the City or any other Government Agency. All questions regarding the intent of the following conditions shall be referred to the Public Works Engineering Department, Land Development Section. The developer / property owner shall use the standards and design criteria stated in the following conditions and comply with all applicable City of Menifee standards and ordinances. Should a conflict arise between the City of Menifee Standards and design criteria, and any other standards and design criteria, those of the City of Menifee shall prevail.

PLN24-0195 TPM39292 Heritage Valley Business Center proposes to consolidate ten existing parcels into a single parcel to be used for a proposed industrial development via parcel map. All public improvements will be required in one construction phase prior to any issuance of occupancies, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer / Public Works Director.

It is understood that the tentative parcel map must correctly show acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, cross sections, and drainage courses with appropriate drainage flows. Any omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. If there is a conflict between what is shown on the tentative tract map and these conditions, these conditions will supersede what is shown on the tentative tract map and any attachments to the tentative tract map, including the site plan and other plans or exhibits. All questions regarding the true meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Public Works / Engineering Department. Engineering Design exceptions to City design standards and policies must be specifically requested in writing and approved by City Engineer/PW Director. Any design exceptions shown on the tentative map and associated engineering documents that are not specifically requested shall be redesigned to meet city standards.

66.Backbone Infrastructure. The development of this project is dependent upon the following drainage infrastructure being in place. In the event where these improvements have not been adequately constructed, the project shall be required to either construct these improvements themselves, or improve adequate interim improvements as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.
a. Trumble Road Storm Drain – Line A-21 Storm Drain improvement on Trumble road from the existing Line A Romoland Channel to the southwest limits of the proposed project, or an approved equivalent improvement, as reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer
b. Sherman Road Utility Infrastructure – Project sewer main, electrical and communication lines, recycled water line, and water connections to project site. c. Sherman Road Offsite Flows – Project drainage studies shall include mitigation for any unmitigated offsite flows entering into the proposed project site in the existing condition at the time of development.

67.Drainage Study. The following report was reviewed and approved by the City:
a.Heritage Valley Business Center PP2024-0195 City of Menifee, Riverside County, California Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, dated September, 2024. Last Revised January 2026.
b. The project shall comply with all mitigation recommended by the approved drainage study, and in accordance with City Standards. The design of drainage facilities will need to be revised if it does not adhere to City Standards.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 228

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
577 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Two copies of a final drainage study (also referred to as Hydrology/Hydraulics Report) shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The study shall analyze at a minimum the following: project site drainage flow; all future improvements drainage flow; Q10, Q100, pre- and post- condition flow rates; anticipated total drainage flow into existing storm drain; and existing storm drain capacity. A fee for review of the Drainage Study shall be paid to the City, the amount of which shall be determined by City at first submittal of report. c. Per current design, it is noted that the full mitigation for the 100-year storm is not required as the proposed downstream facilities to be maintained by RCFC are sized adequately. Prior to approval of the Final Hydrology Report, the project shall be responsible for obtaining written approval from RCFC for the acceptance of the additional Q100 flows. In the event where the developer / property owner is unable to obtain said approval, the proposed drainage facilities will be revised to ensure mitigation for the full 100-year storm.

68.Final Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Final WQMP). The following report was reviewed and approved by the City:
a.Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Heritage Valley Business Center PLN24-0195 WQ-0371, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, dated September, 2024. Last Revised January, 2026
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a FINAL project specific WQMP in substantial conformance with the approved PRELIMINARY WQMP, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Department. Final construction plans shall incorporate all the structural BMPs identified in the approved FINAL WQMP.

The final developed project shall implement all structural and non-structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL WQMP. One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department. The FINAL WQMP submittal shall include at the minimum the following reports/studies:
i. Hydrology/hydraulics report
ii. Soils Report that includes soil infiltration capacity iii. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, as may be required by an approved Phase I ESA Report
Final construction plans shall incorporate all the structural BMPs identified in the approved FINAL WQMP. The final developed project shall implement all structural and non-structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL WQMP. One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department.

69.Geotechnical Report. The following documentation was reviewed and approved by the City:

Update Geotechnical Investigation Heritage Valley Business Center – Building 2 Project no. 25G144-1R, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, dated August 4, 2025.

Two copies of City-approved geotechnical/soils report, no more than three (3) years from date of application for grading permit, shall be provided to the City Public Works / Engineering Department with initial submittal of a grading plan. If there is no approved report and/or said report is past three (3) years from date of application, a new geotechnical/soils report and/or update letter, respectively, shall be prepared and Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 229

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
578 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 submitted to City for review and approval. The geotechnical/soils, compaction and inspection reports will be reviewed in conformance with the latest edition of the Riverside County Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports. A fee for review of the geotechnical/soils report and/or update letter shall be paid to the City, the amount of which shall be determined by the City at the first submittal of the report.

Geotechnical Report - A geotechnical/soils report was submitted to the City and reviewed by staff. The geotechnical/soil report was reviewed in conformance with the latest edition of the Riverside County Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, two copies of the City approved geotechnical/soils report shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department.

The developer/property owner shall comply with the recommendations of the report, and City standards and specifications. All grading shall be done in conformance with the recommendations of the report, and under the general direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer. An updated report may be required if deemed necessary by the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of any grading permit.

70.Off-Site Dedications. Prior to the approval of any improvement plans and the commencement of any construction associated with the development, the Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary dedications of rights-of-way for offsite infrastructure improvements, right-of-entry for offsite grading, and easements for ingress, egress, drainage, utilities and other legal requirements for impacts associated with the development of this project, as determined and directed by the City Engineer. If the Developer cannot acquire a property interest in property required for off-site improvements, Government Code § 66462.5 shall apply and the City retains the right to:
a. The Developer shall enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code § 66462 at such time as the City acquires an interest in the land that will permit the improvement to be made. b. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with acquiring the offsite real property interests required in connection with the development.
c. In the instance where the developer and the city has made all reasonable efforts to negotiate the acquiring of said land, the developer may request that the city enter into the process of eminent domain, which shall be done in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and at the discretion of City Approval.

71.Sherman Road Street Dedication. The developer / property owner shall dedicate the necessary Sherman Road (Major divided Roadway per City Circulation Element) right of way fronting the development on a final map or through another acceptable recordable instrument prior to issuance of any building permit.

72.Trumble Road Street Dedication. The developer / property owner shall dedicate the necessary Trumble Road (Collector Roadway per City Circulation Element) right of way fronting the development on a final map or through another acceptable recordable instrument prior to issuance of any building permit.

73.Traffic Study Report. The following reports were reviewed and approved by the City:

Heritage Valley Business Center (PLN24-0195 PLN24-0197, PLN24-0198, PLN24-0199), prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated February 24, 2026.

Heritage Valley Business Center Truck Routing Plan Technical Memorandum Job No. 16568-01, prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated December 16, 2025.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 230

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
579 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 The Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the Traffic Study and has generally concurred with its findings. The developer/property owner shall be responsible for all improvements and mitigations, required or identified in the approved traffic study and according to these Conditions of Approval, such as but not limited to right- of-way frontage improvements, , and fair share fees. All required improvements and mitigation measures identified in the study shall be included in all improvement plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department. Improvements identified in the Traffic Study are the absolute minimums recommend by the consultant traffic engineer.

The City Engineer/PW Director may require traffic or street improvements beyond those identified in said study to address public safety and welfare, or to construct improvements eligible for DIF credits or reimbursement that front the project, as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

74.Summary of Frontage Improvements. The following is a summary of improvement requirements for the project. Construction of said improvements required prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
a.Sherman Road – Project shall improve Sherman Road frontage to the ultimate half-width plus 12’ in accordance with City of Menifee Major Roadway Standard Plan No. 110, including offsite transitions back to existing roadway conditions, as approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director.
i.Northern Driveway – Project shall improve northern driveway to the City of Menifee Driveway Standard 208, full access. Radii of the curb returns shall be consistent with the following driveway Radii section.

1.Northbound Left – The Sherman Road northbound left into the northern driveway shall have a minimum storage length of 100’.

2.Curb Return – Sections of this curb return on the northern radius shall cross into the Right-of-Way for the adjacent Northern project. ii.Southern Driveway – Project shall improve the southern driveway to the City of Menifee Driveway Standard 208, full access. Radii of the curb returns shall be consistent with the following driveway Radii sections

1.Northbound Left – The Sherman Road northbound left into the southern driveway shall have a minimum storage length of 100’. b.Trumble Road – Project shall improve Trumble Road frontage to the ultimate half- width plus 12’ in accordance with the City of Menifee Collector Roadway Standard Plan No. 113, including offsite transitions back to existing roadway conditions, as approved by the City Engineer / Public Works Director
i.Truck Routing Plan – As shown in the Heritage Valley Business Center Truck Routing Plan, Trumble Road shall be restricted to passenger vehicles only. Appropriate signage and striping shall be placed and enforced.
ii.Northern Driveway – Project shall improve northern driveway to the City of Menifee Driveway Standard 208, full access
iii.Southern Driveway – Project shall improve southern driveway to the City of Menifee Driveway Standard 208, full access
c.Driveway Radii – Driveway Radii have been adjusted on the site to insure adequate ingress/egress into the project site. The following Radii shall be applicable:
i.Sherman Road Northern Driveway: 60’ Radius for Northern Half, 30’ for southern half. No Right out for Truck Egress
ii.Sherman Road Southern Driveway: 60’ Radius for Northern Half, 30’ for Southern. No Right out for truck egress.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 231

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
580 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 iii.Trumble Road Northern Driveway – 60’ Radius for Northern Half, 30’ for southern half. No truck access, passenger vehicles only iv.Trumble Road Southern Driveway – 60’ Radius for Northern Half, 30’ for southern half. No truck access, passenger vehicles only

75.Reconstruction or Resurfacing of Frontage Roads. The public Works Director / City Engineer may consider reconstruction or resurfacing of frontage road paving fronting the development to meet existing conditions, provided the road is found to meet the minimum City standards for pavement conditions at the time of project construction. If it is determined during project construction that the existing road is found to be substandard, then the Public Works Director / City Engineer will require the developer / property owner to provide full reconstruction as provided for in these conditions of approval. The existing pavement shall be cored during project construction to confirm the structural section, and any findings shall be incorporated into project design. The Public Works Director / City Engineer shall have the final approval for all road conditions.

76.Raised Landscaped Median. In the ultimate conditions of Sherman Road, there shall be a 12’ raised median along the roadways centerlines, with adequate openings and storage for turning movements. In the event where Sherman Road to the east of the centerline has full improvements constructed at the time of this project coming in, the developer / property owner shall improve the median along Sherman Road centerline, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. a. In the event where the project is proposing interim improvements along the project frontage that does not include the Sherman Road raised median, the developer / property owner shall pay in-lieu of fee for the improvement of the median, as approved by the Public Works Director / City engineer.

77.Offsite Improvements. The following offsite improvements are required in order for the proposed project to function adequately:
a. Sherman Road and Ethanac Road – The developer / property owner shall improve the intersection of Sherman Road and Ethanac Road to construct the following improvements
i. Install a Traffic Signal
ii. Add NB Left Turn
iii. Add SB Left Turn
iv. Add EB Left Turn
v. Add WB Left Turn
vi. Any additional pavement required on the NW and SW corners to ensure adequate truck movements through the intersection.
b. Sherman Road – The condition of Sherman Road connecting to Ethanac Road shall be at a minimum satisfactory condition that permits the project’s truck ingress/egress circulation.

78.Perris Encroachment. In the event where required improvements encroach into the City of Perris, the project shall make every reasonable effort to obtain and all necessary encroachment permits, Right-of-Way, and/or easements to complete said improvements.

In the event where necessary easements are unable to be obtained, City of Menifee may review and approve an adequate equivalent improvement to satisfy the Truck Circulation conditions

79.Road RBBD Reimbursement. In the event where an RBBD (Road Bridge and Benefit District) is established that includes improvements constructed by this project, the Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 232

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
581 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 developer / property owner may enter into an RBBD Agreement with the City of Menifee providing reimbursement for applicable improvements in the form of credit to required RBBD payments. If the owner / developer constructs RBBD eligible improvements through another project that exceeds its RBBD obligation, those credits, at the approval of the Public Works Director / City Engineer, may be applied to other projects that the owner / developer is constructing via agreement.

80.Fair Share Contributions. In addition to the required physical improvements listed in the previous conditions, the developer / property owner shall provide the following fair share contributions prior to any certificates of occupancy, if required improvements have not yet been constructed.
a. I-215 SB Ramp & Ethanac Road – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 1.9% for the recommended improvements listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The recipient of these fees would be Perris/Caltrans. b. I-215 NB Ramp & Ethanac Road – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 3.9% for the improvements listed in the Traffic Impact Analyis. The recipient of these fees would be Perris/Caltrans.
c. Encanto Drive & Ethanac Road – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 5.1% for the following improvements. The improvements fall within the City of Perris, and shall be the recipient of these fees
i. Add 2 nd and 3rd EB through lanes
ii. Add 2 nd and 3rd WB through lanes
iii. Restrict access to right in / right out only
d. Trumble Road & Ethanac Road – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 5.1% for the following improvements. The improvements fall within both Perris and Menifee City Limits
i. Add 2 nd and 3rd EB through Lanes
ii. Add 2 nd and 3rd WB through lanes
iii. Add 2 nd NB Left Turn Lane
e. Ethanac Road Segment (Encanto Drive to Trumble Road) – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 3.4% of the following improvements i. Add 2 nd and 3rd EB Through Lanes
ii. Add 2 nd and 3rd WB Through Lanes
f. Ethanac Road Segment (Trumble Road to Sherman Road) – The project shall contribute fair share costs equal to 5.1% of the following improvements i. Add 2 nd and 3rd EB Through Lanes
ii. Add 2 nd and 3rd WB Through Lanes
g. Prior to Final Map Recordation, the developer / property owner may submit a traffic fair share memorandum proposing any adjustments to these fair share percentages. Any variation from these given fair share contributions must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer / Public Works Director.

81. Per the project’s VMT mitigation, the project developer / owner shall a. Prepare a marketing strategy that promotes the project site employer’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, and biking. The following features (or similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness:
i. On-site or online commuter information services
ii. Employee transportation coordinators
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 233

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
582 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 iii. On-Site or online transit Pass sales
iv. Guaranteed ride home services
b. Provide tenant’s employees material and online resources as a means to promote the CTR. The CTR marketing strategy shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit and incorporated into the project’s CC&Rs if applicable.
c. Provide a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing will encourage carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips.

Ridesharing must be promoted through a multifaceted approach. Examples include the following
i. Designating a certain percent of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles
ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles
iii. Provide and app or website for coordinating rides
d. Install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, and personal lockers.

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

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

General Conditions.

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

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

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

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

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 234

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
583 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 a. Survey Monuments – This includes protecting all survey monuments, replacing destroyed monuments and filing necessary survey documents with the County such as pre and post construction corner records, and/or Records of Survey

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

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

90. The Public Works Director may require the dedication and construction of necessary utilities, streets, or other improvements outside the area of any particular map phase if the improvements are needed for circulation, drainage, parking, and access or for the welfare and safety of the public.

91.Bond Replacement, Reduction, and Releases. All requests for bond replacements (such as in changes of property ownerships), reductions (such as in partial completion of improvements), releases (such as in completion of improvements), shall conform to City policies, standards, and applicable City ordinances. It shall be the responsibility of the developer / property owner to notify the City in time when any of these bond changes are necessary. The City shall review all changes in Bond Agreements and the accompanying bonds or security.

92.Existing and Proposed Easements. The final grading plan and improvement plans shall correctly show all existing easements, traveled ways, drainage courses, and encumbrances. Any omission or misrepresentation of these documents may require said plan to be resubmitted for further consideration.

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

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

95.Final Map Submittal Process. Appropriate final map plan check submittal forms shall be completed and appropriate fees or deposits paid. Prior to approval of the final map by the City Council, the developer / property owner shall provide along with the final map mylars, electronic files of the final map on Compact Disc (CD), in one of the following formats: (a) Auto CAD DXF, (b) GIS shapefile (made up of ESRI extensions .shp, .shx and .dbf) and Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 235

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
584 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 (c) Geodatabase (made up of ESRI extension .gdb). CAD files created with the latest version shall only be accepted if approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

96.Plan Approvals. Improvement plans and grading plans shall be submitted with necessary supporting documentation and technical studies (hydrology, hydraulics, traffic impact analysis, geotechnical studies, etc.) to the Public Works / Engineering Department for review and approval. All submittals shall be signed and date stamped by the Engineer of Record. The plans must receive Public Works / Engineering Department approval prior to issuance of any construction permit, grading permit, or building permits as applicable and as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. All submittals shall include a completed City Fee or Deposit Based Worksheet and the appropriate plan check. For improvements proposed to be owned and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, improvement plans must receive district approval prior to Building permit issuance or as determined by the District.

All required improvement plans and grading plans must be approved by the Public Works Engineering Department prior to recordation of a final map for which the improvements are required, or prior to issuance of any construction and/or grading permit, whichever comes first and as determined by the PW Director. Supporting City approved studies including, but not limited to, hydrologic and hydraulic studies and traffic studies must be provided prior to approval of plans. All required CFD landscape plans must be approved prior to building permit issuance.

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

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

8.01.020. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless prior approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
b. Removal of spoils, debris, or other construction materials deposited on any public street no later than the end of each working day.
c. The construction site shall accommodate the parking of all motor vehicles used by persons working at or providing deliveries to the site. Violation of any condition or restriction or prohibition set forth in these conditions shall subject the owner, applicant to remedies as set forth in the City Municipal Code. In addition, the Public Works Director / City Engineer or the Building Official may suspend all construction related activities for violation of any condition, restriction or prohibition set forth in these conditions until such a time it has been determined that all operations and activities are in conformance with these conditions.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 236

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
585 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 d. A Pre-Construction meeting is mandatory with the City’s Public Works Inspection team prior to permit issuance and the start of any construction activities for this site.

99.Dry Utility Installations. Electrical power, telephone, communication, traffic signal, street lighting, and cable television conduits and lines shall be placed underground in accordance with current City Ordinances 460 and 461, and as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. This applies also to existing overhead lines which are 33.6 kilovolts or below along the project frontage and within the project boundaries. In cases where 33.6kV or below lines are collocated with high voltage lines (for example, 115kV), the low voltage lines shall be placed underground even when the high voltage lines are exempt from relocation or undergrounding in accordance with City standards and ordinances. Exemption from undergrounding low voltage lines shall only be by the Public Works Director / City Engineer or as directed by the City Council. 100. All grading activities shall conform to the latest adopted edition of the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, applicable City design standards and specifications, City ordinances, policies, rules and regulations governing grading in the City. 101.Regulations and Ordinance on Grading Within the City. In addition to compliance with City Grading Ordinance, grading activities shall also conform to the latest edition of the California Building Code, City General Plan, other City Ordinances, City design standards and specifications and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing grading in the City of Menifee. Prior to commencing any grading, clearing, grubbing or any topsoil disturbances, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Public Works / Engineering Department. Grading activities that are exempt from a grading permit as outlined by the City ordinance may still require a grading permit by the Public Works Director / City Engineer when deemed necessary to prevent the potential for adverse impacts upon drainage, sensitive environmental features, or to protect property, health safety, and welfare.
102.Dust Control. All necessary measures to control dust shall be implemented by the developer during grading. Fugitive dust shall be controlled in accordance with Rule 403 of the California Air Quality Control Board.
103.2:1 Maximum Slope. Graded slopes shall be limited to a maximum steepness ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless otherwise approved by the Public Works / Engineering Department.
104.Slope Setbacks. Observe slope setbacks from buildings and property lines per the California Building Code and City ordinance on grading. 105.Slope Landscaping and Irrigation. All slopes greater than or equal to 3 feet in vertical height shall be irrigated and landscaped with grass or ground cover. All manufactured slopes shall be irrigated and landscaped with grass or approved ground cover, and shall have some type of drainage swale at the toe of the slope to collect runoff. Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall be irrigated and planted with shrubs and/or trees per City Grading Ordinance . Drip irrigation shall be used for all irrigated slopes. 106.Slope Erosion Control Plan. Erosion control and/or landscape plans are required for manufactured slopes greater than 3 feet in vertical height. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed landscape architect and bonded per applicable City ordinances. 107.Slope Stability Report. A slope stability report shall be submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department for all proposed cut and fill slopes steeper than 2:1 Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 237

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
586 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 (horizontal:vertical) or over 20 feet in vertical height, unless addressed in a previously city approved report.
108.Erosion Control Plans. All grading plans shall require erosion control plans prior to approval. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Plans showing erosion control measures may be included as part of the grading plans or submitted as a separate set of plans for city review and approval.

Graded but undeveloped land shall provide, in addition to erosion control planting, any drainage facilities deemed necessary to control or prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control BMPs are required year-round in compliance with all applicable City of Menifee Standards and Ordinances and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Additional Erosion protection may be required during the rainy season.
109.Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). All grading plans shall require an approved copy of the Water Quality Management Plan sheet per the approved WQMP, executed report. The developer / property owner shall comply with the requirements of the WQMP report, the NPDES municipal permit in force, and City standards and specifications.
110.Design Grade Criteria. Onsite parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the current version of City of Menifee Standards and Specifications. Non-compliance may require a redesign of the project. Significant redesigns may require a revised Plot Plan.

Design Grade Criteria:
a. On-Site Parking – Where onsite parking is designed, such as in common areas, parking stalls and driveways shall not have grade breaks exceeding 4%. A 50’ minimum vertical curve shall be provided where grade breaks exceed 4%. Five percent grade is the maximum slope for any parking area. Where ADA requirement applies, ADA requirement shall prevail.
b. Down Drains - Concrete down drains that outlet onto parking lot areas are not allowed. Drainage that has been collected in concrete ditches or swales should be collected into receiving underground drainage system, or should outlet with acceptable velocity reducers into BMP devises.
c. Pavement - Permeable pavement requires the layers of filter material to be installed relatively flat. As such, the permeable pavement areas should have a maximum surface gradient of 2%,or approved by the PW Director/City Engineer.
111.Drainage Grade. Minimum drainage design grade shall be 1% except on Portland cement concrete surfaces where 0.35% shall be the minimum. The engineer of record must submit a variance request for design grades less than 1% with a justification for a lesser grade. 112.Finish Grade. Shall be sloped to provide proper drainage away from all exterior foundation walls in accordance with City of Menifee Standard Plan 300. 113.Use of Maximum and Minimum Grade Criteria. Actual field construction grades shall not exceed the minimum and maximum grades for ADA and approved project grading design, to allow for construction tolerances. Any improvement that is out of the minimum and maximum values will not be accepted by the City Inspector and will need to be removed and replaced at developer’s or owner’s expense.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 238

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
587 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 114.Licensed Geotechnical Engineer. A California licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall perform final determination of the foundation characteristics of soils within on-site development areas, and per the approved geotechnical report reviewed and approved by the City.
115.Retaining Walls. Sections, which propose retaining walls, will require separate permits.

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

Prior to approval of the grading plans or issuance of any grading permit, the developer/property owner shall obtain a GCP from the SWRCB. Proof of filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City; and the WDID number issued by the SWRCB shall be reflected on all grading plans prior to approval of the plans.

For additional information on how to obtain a GCP, contact the SWRCB. 122.SWPPP. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the developer/property owner shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the development. The developer/property owner shall be responsible for uploading the SWPPP into the State’s SMARTS database system and shall ensure that the SWPPP is updated to constantly reflect the actual construction status of the site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be made Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 239

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
588 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 available at the construction site at all times until construction is completed. The SWRCB considers a construction project complete once a Notice of Termination has been issued by SWRCB. The City will require submittal of NOTs for requests to fully release associated grading bonds.
123.SWPPP for Inactive Sites. The developer/property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that any graded area that is left inactive for a long period of time has appropriate SWPPP BMPs in place and in good working conditions at all times until construction is completed and the Regional Board has issued a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the development.
124.Import/Export. In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the developer/property owner shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Public Works / Engineering Department. If an Environmental Assessment did not previously approve either location, a Grading Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and comment and to the Public Works Director / City Engineer for approval. Additionally, if the movement of import/export occurs using City roads, review, and approval of the haul routes by the Public Works / Engineering Department will be required. Import or export materials shall conform to the requirements of the City of Menifee Grading Ordinance. 125.Offsite Grading Easements. Prior to recordation of a final map phase, or the issuance of a grading permit within a phased map whichever occurs first, the developer/property owner shall obtain all required easements and/or permissions to perform offsite grading, from affected land owners. Notarized and recorded agreement or documents authorizing the offsite grading shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department. 126.Offsite Property and Right of Way. The developer / property owner shall be responsible for acquiring any offsite real property interests that may be required in connection with the development project. Prior to recordation of a final map, or the issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall obtain all required ROW, easements and / or permissions to perform offsite grading, from all affected landowners. 127.Increased Runoff Criteria. The development of this site would increase peak flow rates on downstream properties. Mitigation shall be required to offset such impacts. An increased runoff basin should be shown on the exhibit and calculations supporting the size of the basin shall be submitted to the District and the City for review. The entire area of proposed development will be routed through a detention facility(s) to mitigate increased runoff. All basins must have positive drainage; dead storage basins shall not be acceptable.

A complete drainage study including, but not limited to, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for the proposed detention basin shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. For design purposes, the proposed detention basin shall be sized using the 6- hour/100-year frequency storm event. Detention basin(s) and outlet(s) sizing will ensure that this storm event does not produce higher peak discharge in the "after" condition than in the "before" condition. For the 100-year event, an AMC II shall be used together with a constant loss rate.

Low Loss rates will be determined using the following:
i. Undeveloped Condition --> LOW LOSS = 90%
ii. Developed Condition --> LOW LOSS = .9 - (.8x%IMPERVIOUS) iii. Basin Site --> LOW LOSS = 10%
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 240

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
589 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Where possible and feasible the onsite flows should be mitigated before combining with offsite flows to minimize the size of the detention facility required. If it is necessary to combine offsite and onsite flows into a detention facility two separate conditions should be evaluated for each duration/return period/before-after development combination studied; the first for the total tributary area (offsite plus onsite), and the second for the area to be developed alone (onsite). It must be clearly demonstrated that there is no increase in peak flow rates under either condition (total tributary area or onsite alone), for each of the return period/duration combinations required to be evaluated. A single plot showing the pre-developed, post-developed and routed hydrographs for each storm considered, shall be included with the submittal of the hydrology study.

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

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

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

A viable maintenance mechanism, acceptable to the City should be provided for any flood control facilities to be owned and maintained by the City. Any facilities proposed to be owned by the District, should be provided with a viable maintenance mechanism acceptable to the City and the District. For the City this would be the citywide CFD.

Facilities to remain private shall be maintained by commercial property owners association or homeowners associations.
128.Site Drainage. Positive drainage of the site shall be provided, and water shall not be allowed to pond behind or flow over cut and fill slopes. Where water is collected and discharged in a common area, protection of the native soils shall be provided by planting erosion resistant vegetation, as the native soils are susceptible to erosion by running water. All cut and fill slopes shall have a maximum 2:1 (H:V) grade, 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
129.Alteration of Drainage Patterns. Prior to grading permit issuance or approval of improvement plans, the final engineering plans submitted by the applicant shall address the following: The project drainage system shall be designed to accept and properly convey all on- and off-site drainage flowing on or through the site. The project drainage system design shall protect downstream properties from any damage caused by alteration of drainage patterns such as concentration or diversion of flow. Concentrated drainage on commercial lots shall be diverted through parkway drains under sidewalks. 130.FEMA Flood Zone Requirements. In the event where the project falls within a FEMA Floodplain (Zones A, V, A99) / Regulatory Floodway (Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR), the project shall be required to either process a CLOMR/LOMR or a “No Rise Certificate”. If applicable, CLOMR / “No Rise Certificate” shall be required to be approved prior to grading permit issuance, and the LOMR shall be required to be approved prior to building permit issuance.
131.100 Year Storm. The 100-year storm flow shall be contained within the street top of curb.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 241

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
590 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 132.100 Year Drainage Facilities. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100-year storm flows as approved by the City of Menifee Public Works / Engineering Department.
133.100 Year Design Criteria. In final engineering and prior to grading permit issuance, subsurface storage systems shall be designed with emergency overflow inlets to mitigate flows in excess of the 100-year storm event in a controlled manner to the satisfaction of the Public Works / Engineering Department.
134. 100 Year Sump Outlet - Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. Additional emergency escape shall also be provided.
135.Coordinate Drainage Design. Development of this property shall be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed, and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the PW Engineering Department for review.
136.Comingling of Flows. Site restrictions may require the comingling of onsite and offsite flows. A treatment device approved by the City of Menifee Public Works Director shall be utilized to pretreat the flows before entering Private facilities. The WQMP will need to show these catch basin inserts. This comingling of flows and the easement shall also be clarified in the CC&Rs for the project. If site restrains and existing conditions require said comingling, it will be the obligation of the property owner to accept this water and maintain the system, as well as performing maintenance on the associated filter inserts. The developer shall provide a storm drain and flowage easement, or other applicable document approved by the city of Menifee, providing the right of the city to drain onto the private property.
137.Interceptor Drain Criteria/Guidelines. The criteria for maintenance access of terrace/interceptor is as follows: flows between 1-5 cfs shall have a 5-foot wide access road, flows between 6-10 cfs shall be a minimum 6-foot rectangular channel.

Terrace/interceptor drains are unacceptable for flows greater than 10 cfs. Flows greater than 10 cfs shall be brought to the street. These guidelines may be modified by the City Engineer/PW Director.
138.BMP. Energy Dissipators: Energy Dissipators, such as rip-rap, shall be installed at the outlet of a storm drain system that discharges runoff flows into a natural channel or an unmaintained facility. The dissipators shall be designed to minimize the amount of erosion downstream of the storm drain outlet.
139.Trash Racks. Trash Racks shall be installed at all inlet structures that collect runoff from open areas with potential for large, floatable debris.
140.Perpetuate Drainage Patterns. The property's street and lot grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage areas, outlet points and outlet conditions. Otherwise, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 242

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
591 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 141.Perpetual Drainage Patterns (Easements). Grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns and conditions with respect to tributary drainage areas and outlet points. Where these conditions are not preserved, necessary drainage easements shall be obtained from all affected property owners for the release onto their properties of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the PW Engineering Department for review. 142.Protection of Downstream Properties. The developer/property owner shall protect downstream properties from damages that can be caused by alteration of natural drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and securing necessary drainage easements.
143. Storm Drain Lines 36” and larger. All proposed storm drain lines greater than 36" in diameter may be considered for ownership and maintenance by the Flood Control District. The applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the Flood Control District regarding the terms of the design, construction and operation of facilities proposed for ownership by the Flood Control District.
144.No Building Permit without Legal Lot. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer / property owner shall ensure that the underlying parcels for such buildings are complying with City Ordinances, Codes, and the Subdivision Map Act. 145.No Building Permit Prior to Subdivision Map Recordation. Prior to issuance of building permit for any occupied structure, the developer / property owner shall record the Subdivision Map. Model Homes are exempt from this requirement. 146.No Building Permit without Grading Permit. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any new structure or appurtenance, the developer/property owner shall obtain a grading permit and/or approval to construct from the Public Works Engineering Department. 147.Final Rough Grading Conditions. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the developer/property owner shall cause the Civil Engineer of Record and Soils Engineer of Record for the approved grading plans, to submit signed and wet stamped rough grade certification and compaction test reports with 90% or better compaction. The certifications shall use City approved forms and shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department for verification and acceptance.
148.Conformance to Elevations/Geotechnical Compaction. Rough grade elevations for all building pads and structure pads submitted for grading plan check approval shall be in substantial conformance with the elevations shown on approved grading plans.

Compaction test certification shall be in compliance with the approved project geotechnical/soils report.
149.Final Grade Certification. The developer/property owner shall cause the Civil Engineer of Record for approved grading plans, to submit signed and wet stamped final grade certification on City-approved form, for each building requesting a certificate of occupancy.

The certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department for verification and acceptance.
150.Conform to Elevations. Final grade elevations of all building or structure finish floors submitted for grading plan check approval shall be in substantial conformance with the elevations shown on the approved grading plans. Compaction test certification shall be in compliance with the approved project geotechnical/soils report.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 243

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
592 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 151.Plant & Irrigate Slopes. All manufactured slopes shall be irrigated and landscaped with grass or approved ground cover and shall have some type of drainage swale at the toe of the slope to collect runoff. Slopes greater than or equal to 3’ in vertical height shall have erosion control measures provided. Slopes that exceed 15’ in vertical height are to be planted with additional shrubs and trees as approved by the Public Works / Engineering Department. Drip irrigation shall be provided for all irrigated slopes. 152.Common Area Maintenance. Any common areas identified on the tentative map shall be owned and maintained through a permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for the project, to assume maintenance responsibility for all common areas.

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

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 244

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
593 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 b. As part of the CC&R document submittal, exhibit(s) identifying the areas or improvements that will be maintained by the POA, the CFD or other entities shall be provided. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the City. c. Once approved, the developer / property owner shall provide a hard copy of the CC&R’s wet-signed and notarized to the Public Works / Engineering Department.

The Public Works / Engineering Department shall record the original declaration of CC&R’s prior to building permit issuance.
d. A deposit to pay for the review of the CC&Rs pursuant to the City’s current fee schedule at the time the above-referenced documents are submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department.
156.Street Design Standards. Street improvements shall conform to all applicable City Design Standards and Specifications, the City General Plan, Ordinances, and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing street construction in the City. 157.Concrete Work. All concrete work including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, catch basins, manholes, vaults, etc. shall be constructed to meet a 28-day minimum concrete strength of 3,250 psi.
158.Intersection Geometrics. All final intersection geometrics may be modified in final engineering as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. 159.Intersection / 50-Foot Tangent. All centerline intersections shall be at ninety (90) degrees, plus or minus five (5) degrees, with a minimum fifty (50) foot tangent, measured from flow line / curb face or as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. 160.Street Improvements. Street improvements shall conform to all applicable City Design Standards and Specifications, the City General Plan, and all other relevant laws, rules and regulations governing street construction in the City.
161.Soils and Pavement Report. Street pavement structural designs shall comply with the recommendations in the City approved project soils and pavement investigation report, and must meet minimum City standards and specifications, as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. R-Values shall be provided in said report and the Engineer of Record shall provide pavement calculations to the City. 162.Driveways. Final driveway geometrics may be modified in final engineering as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. Driveways shall meet current standard radii on all existing and proposed commercial drive approaches used as access to the proposed development. The developer shall adhere to all City standards and regulations for access and ADA guidelines.
163.Acceptance of Public Roadway Dedication and Improvements. Easements and right- of way for public roadways shall be granted to the City through acceptable recordable instrument. Onsite easements and right-of way for public roadways shall be granted to the City of Menifee through the final map, or other acceptable recordable instrument. Any off- site rights-of-way required for access road(s) shall be accepted to vest title in the name of the public if not already accepted. Any shared access roads necessary for the adequate circulation of the proposed project, shall be dedicated for reciprocal access by acceptable recordable instrument prior to any permit issuance.
164.ADA Compliance. ADA path of travel shall be designed at the most convenient accesses and the shortest distance to the buildings in accordance with ADA design standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director / City Engineer and the City Building Official.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 245

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
594 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 165.Paving or Paving Repairs. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the paving inspections required by Ordinance 461 and City of Menifee standards and ordinances.

Paving and/or paving repairs for utility street cuts shall be per City of Menifee Standards and Specifications and as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. 166.Street Lights. The developer/property owner shall install street lights along the project frontage in accordance with City Standards. Street lights requiring relocations, or any required new streetlights shall be designed in accordance with current City Standards for LS-3 type streetlights. Street light construction plans shall be prepared as separate plans or combined with the public street improvement plans as approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.
167.Public Streetlights Service Points. All proposed public streetlights shall be provided with necessary appurtenances and service points for power, separate from privately owned streetlights. The developer/property owner shall coordinate with the PW Department and with Southern California Edison the assignment of addresses to streetlight service points.

Service points for proposed public streetlights shall become public and shall be located within public right of way or within duly dedicated public easements. 168.CFD Maintenance. The property owner shall file for annexation or inclusion into the Citywide Community Facilities Maintenance District, CFD for street sweeping services, street pavement maintenance, landscaping, street lighting, etc. 169.Offsite Grading. A notarized and recorded agreement, or City-approved documents authorizing the offsite grading shall be submitted to the Public Works / Engineering Department.
170.Sight Distance Analysis. Sight distance analysis shall be conducted at all project roadway entrances for conformance with City sight distance standards. The analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer, and shall be incorporated in the final the grading plans, street improvement plans, and landscape improvement plans.
171.Street Name Sign. The developer/property owner shall install street name sign(s) in accordance with applicable City Standards, or as directed by the PW Engineering Department.
172.Driveway Geometrics. Final driveway geometrics may be modified in Final Engineering as approved by the Public Works Director. Driveways shall meet current standard radii on all existing and proposed commercial drive approaches used as access to the proposed development. The developer shall adhere to all City standards and regulations for access and ADA guidelines.
173.Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to start of any project related construction, the developer/property owner shall submit to the Public Works Engineering Department for review and approval, a Construction Traffic Control Plan in compliance with all applicable City ordinances, standards and specifications, and the latest edition of the CAMUTCD.

This traffic control plan shall address impacts from construction vehicular traffic, noise, and dust and shall propose measures to mitigate these effects. The traffic control plan shall include a Traffic Safety Plan for safe use of public roads right-of-way during construction.
174.Traffic Signal Control Devices. All new traffic signals and traffic signal modifications required for construction by this development project shall include traffic signal communication infrastructure, network equipment, and Advanced Traffic Management Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 246

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
595 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 System (ATMS) license software. Said traffic signal control devices shall be submitted with the traffic signal design plans and shall be approved by the Public Works Director / City Engineer, prior to testing of a new traffic signal. Traffic signal poles shall be placed at the ultimate locations when appropriate.
175.Cost participation through Payment of TUMF and DIF for Improvements. The developer/property owner’s TUMF and DIF payment obligations shall be considered as cost participation for Project’s required offsite improvements only when the offsite improvements for which credits are claimed, are eligible TUMF and/or DIF facilities at time of TUMF and DIF payments. Determination for TUMF credits shall be at the discretion of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the governing authority, which shall include entering a three party TUMF Credit Agreement with the developer, WRCOG and the City of Menifee.
176.Improvement Bonds. Prior to improvement plan approval and issuance of any construction permit for all required onsite and offsite public improvements, the developer/project owner shall enter into a bond agreement and post acceptable bonds or security, to guarantee the completion of all required improvements. The bonds shall be in accordance with all applicable City ordinances, resolutions, and municipal codes. 177.Encroachment Permits. The developer/property owner shall obtain all required encroachment permits and clearances prior to start of any work within City, State, or local agency right-of-way.
178.Stormwater Management. All City of Menifee requirements for NPDES and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) shall be met per City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 15.01 for Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management Program unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. This project is required to submit a project specific WQMP prepared in accordance with the latest WQMP guidelines approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
179.WQMP Right of Entry and Maintenance Agreement. Prior to, or concurrent with the approval of the FINAL WQMP, the developer/property owner shall record and enter into an acceptable “Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Best Management Practices Operation, Transfer, Maintenance and Right of Entry Agreement” with the City to inform future property owners of the requirement to perpetually implement the approved FINAL WQMP.
180.Trash Enclosures Standards and Specifications. Storm runoff resulting in direct contact with trash enclosure, or wastewater runoff from trash enclosure are prohibited from running off a site onto the City MS4 without proper treatment. Trash enclosures in new developments and redevelopment projects shall meet new storm water quality standards including:
a) Provision of a solid impermeable roof with a minimum clearance height to allow the bin lid to completely open.
b) Constructed of reinforced masonry without wooden gates. Walls shall be at least 6 feet high.
c) Provision of concrete slab floor, graded to collect any spill within the enclosure. d) All trash bins in the trash enclosure shall be leak proof with lids that are continuously kept closed.
e) The enclosure area shall be protected from receiving direct rainfall or run-on from collateral surfaces.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 247

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
596 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 f) The trash enclosure shall be lockable and locked when not in use with a 2-inch or larger brass resettable combination lock. Only employees and staff authorized by the enclosure property owner shall be given access.

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

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

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

The State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution adopted an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for ocean waters of California to control trash, and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries of California. Applicable requirements per these amendments shall be adhered to with implementation measures, prior to building permit issuance. Projects determined as within Priority Land Uses as defined in the amendment, shall provide full trash capture Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 248

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
597 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 devices in all new catch basins and existing catch basins to which this development will be tributary to. Devices shall meet the requirement of the new Trash Amendment. 182. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a FINAL project specific WQMP in substantial conformance with the approved PRELIMINARY WQMP, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Department. Final construction plans shall incorporate all the structural BMPs identified in the approved FINAL WQMP. The final developed project shall implement all structural and non-structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL WQMP. One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department. The FINAL WQMP submittal shall include at the minimum the following reports/studies:
i. Hydrology/hydraulics report
ii. Soils Report that includes soil infiltration capacity iii. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, as may be required by an approved Phase I ESA Report
Final construction plans shall incorporate all the structural BMPs identified in the approved FINAL WQMP. The final developed project shall implement all structural and non- structural BMPs specified in the approved FINAL WQMP. One copy of the approved FINAL WQMP on a CD-ROM in pdf format shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Department.
183.Revising The Final WQMP. In the event the Final WQMP requires design revisions that will substantially deviate from the approved Prelim WQMP, a revised or new WQMP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works / Engineering Department. The cost of reviewing the revised/new WQMP shall be charged on a time and material basis.

The fixed fee to review a Final WQMP shall not apply, and a deposit shall be collected from the applicant to pay for reviewing the substantially revised WQMP. 184.Implement Project Specific WQMP. All structural BMPs described in the project-specific WQMP shall be constructed or installed and operational in conformance with approved plans and specifications. It shall be demonstrated that the applicant is prepared to implement all BMPs described in the approved project specific WQMP and that copies of the approved project-specific WQMP are available for the future owners/occupants. The City will not release occupancy permits for any portion of the project or subdivision map phase until all proposed BMPs described in the approved project specific WQMPs, to which the portion of the project is tributary to, are completed and operational.

The City will not release occupancy permits for any portion of the project, or any proposed map phase prior to the completion of the construction of all required structural BMPs, and implementation of non-structural BMPs.
185.Inspection of BMP Installation. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, all structural BMPs included in the approved FINAL WQMP shall be inspected for completion of installation in accordance with approved plans and specifications, and the FINAL WQMP. The Public Works Stormwater Inspection team shall verify that all proposed structural BMPs are in working conditions, and that a hard copy and / or digital copy of the approved FINAL WQMP are available at the site for use and reference by future owners/occupants. The inspection shall ensure that the FINAL WQMP at the site includes the BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan, and shall include the site in a City maintained database for future periodic inspection.
186.WQMP/BMP Education. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the developer / project owner shall provide the City proof of notification to future occupants of all BMP’s Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 249

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
598 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 and educational and training requirements for said BMP’s as directed in the approved WQMP. Proof of notification shall be provided to the Public Works / Engineering Department in forms determined acceptable by the Public Works Director / City Engineer.

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

A copy of the notarized affidavit must be placed in the final WQMP report. The Public Works / Engineering Department MUST also receive the original notarized affidavit with the plan check submittal to clear the appropriate condition. Placing a copy of the affidavit without submitting the original will not guarantee clearance of the condition. 187.EMWD Minimum Standards. All public water, sewer and recycled water improvements shall be designed per the City adopted Riverside County Ordinances 460, 461 and 787; Eastern Municipal Water Districts (EMWD) standards and specifications, including required auxiliaries and appurtenances. The final design, including pipe sizes and alignments, shall be subject to the approval of EMWD and the City of Menifee. 188.Utility Improvement Plans. Public Water, Sewer and Recycled Water improvements shall be drawn on City title block for review and approval by the Public Works / Engineering Department and EMWD.
189.Onsite and Offsite Sewer, Water and Recycled Water Improvements. All public onsite and offsite sewer, water and recycled water improvements shall be guaranteed for construction prior to approval of improvement plans and final map approval. 190.Sewer Lines. Any new public sewer line alignments or realignments shall be designed such that the manholes are aligned with the center of lanes or on the lane line and in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances 460/461 and Eastern Municipal Water District standards.
191.Water Mains and Hydrants. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructed in accordance with the Riverside County Ordinance Numbers 460 and 787, and subject to the approval of the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Riverside County Fire Department.
192.Annexation to the Citywide Community Facilities District (CFD). Prior to map recordation, the developer/property owner shall complete the annexation of the proposed development, into the boundaries of the City of Menifee citywide Community Facilities Maintenance District (Services) CFD. The citywide CFD shall be responsible for:

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

The developer/property owner shall be responsible for all cost associated with the annexation of the proposed development in the citywide CFD. 193. CFD Annexation Agreement. In the event timing for this development’s schedule prevents the developer/property owner from complying with condition of approval for CFD annexation, the developer shall enter into a CFD annexation agreement to allow the Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 250

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
599 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 annexation to complete before the issuance of a building permit. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation of the CFD annexation agreement. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.
194.Assessment Segregation. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the applicant shall, prior to any building permit issuance to make application for and pay for their reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit.
195.Landscape Improvement Plans for CFD Maintenance. Landscape improvements within public ROW and/or areas dedicated to the City for the citywide CFD to maintain shall be prepared on a separate City CFD plans for review and approval by the PW Engineering Department. The plans may be prepared as one plan for the entire development as determined by the PW Director. When necessary, as determined by the PW Director, a separate WQMP construction plan on City title block maybe required for review and approval by the PW Engineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit.
196.Parkway Landscaping Design Standards. The parkway areas behind the street curb within the public’s right-of-way, shall be landscaped and irrigated per City standards and guidelines.
197.CFD Landscape Guidelines and Improvement Plans. All landscape improvements for maintenance by the CFD shall be designed and installed in accordance with City CFD Landscape Guidelines, and shall be drawn on a separate improvement plan on City title block. The landscape improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the PW Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 198.Maintenance of CFD Accepted Facilities. All landscaping and appurtenant facilities to be maintained by the citywide CFD shall be built to City standards. The developer shall be responsible for ensuring that landscaping areas to be maintained by the CFD have its own controller and meter system, separate from any private controller/meter system. 199.Public Safety CFD. Prior to approval of a Final Map, or if no map is required then prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer / property owner shall complete the annexation into a Law Enforcement, Fire and Paramedic Services Community Facilities District (Public Safety CFD) to offset the fiscal impacts of the project on public safety operations within the City. The developer / property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with the annexation of the proposed development into the citywide Public Safety CFD in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of application. 200.Public Safety CFD Annexation Agreement. In the event timing for this development’s schedule prevents the developer / property owner from complying with the condition of approval for Public Safety CFD annexation prior to map recordation, the developer shall enter into a Public Safety CFD annexation agreement to allow the annexation to complete before the issuance of a building permit. The developer / property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation of the Public Safety CFD annexation agreement. The agreement shall be approved and fully executed prior to map recordation.
201.AB 341. AB 341 focuses on increased commercial waste recycling as a method to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The regulation requires businesses and organizations that generate four or more cubic yards of waste per week and multifamily units of 5 or Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 251

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
600 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 more, to recycle. A business shall take at least one of the following actions to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal:
a) Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities. b) Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler. c) Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multi-family complex).
d) Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.

For more information please visit:
www.rivcowm.org/opencms/recyclying/recycling_and_compost_business.html#mandator y
202.AB 1826. AB 1826 (effective April 1, 2016) requires businesses that generate eight (8) cubic yards or more or organic waste per week to arrange for organic waste recycling services. The threshold amount of organic waste generated requiring compliance by businesses is reduced in subsequent years. Businesses subject to AB 1826 shall take at least one of the following actions in order to divert organic waste from disposal:

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

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

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

As of January 1, 2019, the above requirements are now applicable to businesses that generate four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and one (1) or more cubic yards of organic waste per week. Additionally, as of January 1, 2019, a third trash bin is now required for organics recycling, which will require a larger trash enclosure to accommodate three (3) trash bins. This development is subject to this requirement. 203.Recyclables Collection and Loading Area Plot Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a Recyclables Collection and Loading Area plot plan to the City of Menifee Engineering/Public Works Department for review and approval. The plot plan shall show the location of and access to the collection area for recyclable materials, along with its dimensions and construction detail, including elevation/façade, construction materials and signage. The plot plan shall clearly indicate how the trash and recycling enclosures shall be accessed by the hauler.

The applicant shall provide documentation to the Community Development Department to verify that Engineering and Public Works has approved the plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
204.Waste Recycling Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building, a Waste Recycling Plan (WRP shall be submitted to the City of Menifee Engineering/Public Works Department for approval. Completion of Form B “Waste Reporting Form” of the Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Program may be sufficient proof of WRP compliance, as determined by the Public Works Director / City Engineer. At minimum, the WRP must identify the materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) that will be generated Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 252

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
601 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 by construction and development, the projected amounts, the measures/methods that will be taken to recycle, reuse, and/or reduce the amounts of materials, the facilities and/or haulers that will be utilized, and the targeted recycling or reduction rate. During project construction, the project site shall have, at a minimum, two (2) bins; one for waste disposal and the other for recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials. Additional bins are encouraged to be used to further source separation of C&D recyclable materials.

Accurate record keeping (receipts) for recycling of C&D recyclable materials and solid waste disposal must be kept. Arrangements can be made through the franchise hauler. 205.Waste Management Clearance. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for each building, evidence (i.e., receipts or other type of verification) shall be submitted to demonstrate project compliance with the approved WRP to the Engineering and Public Works Department in order to clear the project for occupancy permits. Receipts must clearly identify the amount of waste disposed and Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials recycled. Completion of Form C, “Waste Reporting Form” of the Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Program along with the receipts may be sufficient proof of WRP compliance, as determined by the PW Director / City Engineer. 206.Road Bridge Benefit District. The applicant shall pay the RBBD fees based on the designated land use and areas, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the project proponent choose to defer the time of payment, a written request shall be submitted to the City, deferring said payment from the time of issuance of a building permit to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fees which are deferred shall be based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of issuance of the permit of each parcel. 207.TUMF FEES. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer/property owner shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of (building permit or certificate of occupancy) issuance, pursuant to adopted City Ordinance governing the TUMF program. 208.Fees and Deposits. Prior to approval of final maps, grading plans, improvement plans, issuance of building permits, and/or issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer/property owner shall pay all fees, deposits as applicable. These shall include the regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), any applicable Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees, Development Impact Fees (DIF), and any applicable Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD) Fee. Said fees and deposits shall be collected at the rate in effect at the time of collection as specified in current City resolutions and ordinances.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 253

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
602 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Section III:

Building and Safety Department
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 254

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
603 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 General Requirements
209.Final Building & Safety Conditions. Final Building & Safety Conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building & Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 210.Compliance with Code. All Design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2025 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2025 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2025 California Energy Codes, 2025 California Green Building Standards, and City of Menifee Municipal Code, 2025 California Fire Code.
211.Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include:
a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible and standard accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building.
c. Accessible path-of-travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Accessible path-of-travel from public right-of-way to the main entrance of the structure.
e. Interior and Exterior disabled access requirements and details as required by California Building Code Chapter 11B.
212.California Green Building Code Requirements. Electric Vehicle (EV) a. The plans shall clearly indicate the location and total number of future electric vehicle (EV) parking stalls within the site.
b. Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code. c. EV capable spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table 5.106.5.3.1 d. The plans shall clearly indicate the location and total amount of future medium and heavy-duty electric vehicle (EV) parking stalls within the site if the building site includes one or more of the following uses: Warehousing, grocery store, retail store with off-street loading areas. Section 5.106.5.5
213.California Energy Code - Prescriptive Requirements for Photovoltaic and Battery Storage Systems
a. Photovoltaic requirements. All newly constructed building types specified in Table 140.10-A, or mixed occupancy buildings where one or more of these building types constitute at least 80 percent of the floor area of the building, shall have a newly installed photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements of Reference Joint Appendix JA11. The PV capacity in kWdc shall not Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 255

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
604 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 be less than the minimum rated PV system size determined by Equation 140.10-A, or the total of all available solar access roof area (SARA) multiplied by 18 for steep- sloped roofs or multiplied by 14 for low -sloped roofs. In mixed occupancy buildings, the minimum rated PV system capacity for the building shall be determined by applying Equation 140.10-A to the conditioned floor area of each of the listed building types and summing the capacities determined for each. b. Battery storage system requirements. All buildings that are required by Section 140.10(a) to have a PV system shall also have a battery storage system meeting the minimum qualification requirements of Reference Joint Appendix JA12. The rated energy capacity shall be not less than the Minimum Rated Useable Energy Capacity determined using Equation 140.10-B or Equation 140.10-C if SARA was used to determine the PV capacity in Sections 140.10(a). The rated power capacity shall be not less than the Minimum Power Capacity determined using Equation 140.10-D.

In mixed occupancy buildings, the total battery system capacity for the building shall be determined by applying the Minimum Rates Usable Capacity to each of the listed building types and summing the capacities determined for each. 214.County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at the time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan with a “photometric study” showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building & Safety Department. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of- way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin and below. 215.Street Name Addressing. Applicant must obtain street name addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street name addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial, residential/tract, or multi-family residential projects. 216.Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 217.Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Temporary construction/sales trailers, temporary power poles/generators, trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, building and monument signage, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 218.Sanitary Sewer and Domestic Water Plan Approvals. On-site sanitary sewer and domestic water plans will require separate approvals and permits from Building and Safety.

A complete set of plans shall be submitted.
219.Demolition. (If applicable) Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits.

AQMD notification and approval may be required.
220.Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance of the project indicating the hours or construction, as allowed by the City of Menifee Municipal Ordinance 8.01.010, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday 6:30am to 7:00pm. No work Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 256

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
605 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
221.House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed.

At Plan Review Submittal
222.Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building & Safety. Create an account and a New Commercial permit via Menifee permit portal. Any question regarding submittal email [email protected] All plans shall be submitted on minimum 24” x 36” size paper digital equivalent. Fully dimensioned Structural, Architectural, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Plans, along with one (1) digital set of geotechnical reports and one (1) digital set of precise grade plans. Hard copy plans will not be accepted.

General Requirements
a. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. (Business & Professions Code 5802), (Business & Professions Code 5536.1, 5802, & 6735)
Cover Sheet
b. Vicinity Map
c. Parcel number and Site Address
d. Business Name
e. Occupancy Type
f. Occupant Load
g. Type of Construction
h. Number of stories
i. Building Height
j. Floor Area in sq. ft.
k. Building data: Building Type of Construction, Square Feet of leased area intended use/occupancy, occupant loads, Building Code Data: 2025 California Building Code, 2025 California Electrical Code, 2025 California Mechanical Code, 2025 California Plumbing Code, 2025 California Green Building Code, 2025 California Energy Code, and 2025 California Fire Code.
l. List any flammable/combustible materials, chemicals, toxic, or hazardous materials used or stored and total quantities or each, including MSDS reports. m. Indicate if the building has a fire sprinkler system. n. Sheet Index
Plot Plans
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 257

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
606 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 o. North Arrow
p. Property Lines/Easements
q. Street/Alleys
r. Clearly dimension building setbacks from property lines, street centerlines, and from all adjacent buildings and structures on the site plan. s. Accessible parking/unload areas, curb ramps, exterior route of travel to the leased area entry door and at least one route to the public right-of-way. t. Precise grading plans indicating surface grades, locations and details for all accessible walkways, parking stalls, access aisles, ramps, etc… Floor Plans
u. All wall lines to be indicated by double line.
v. Fully dimensioned and to scale (3/16 inch per foot minimum) w. Exit door locations, widths, and direction of door swing. x. Wall legend. Show walls as existing or new, with references to wall construction details indicating heights, framing member size, spacing and material type, connections at top and bottom and top of wall lateral bracing method. y. Show all fixed elements of construction e.g., bathroom facilities, fixtures, cabinets, storage racks and/or shelves.
z. Accessible features e.g., fixed customer service counters, including kitchen, dining, or drinking bar counters, new bathroom facilities, access to new areas, features and elements.

Reflected Ceiling Plans
aa. Indicate the ceiling treatment, ceiling grid, and the placement of all light fixtures.

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

Plumbing/Mechanical Plans
cc. System material types and sizes, waste/vent and potable water layouts or isometrics, plumbing fixture schedule, etc.
dd. HVAC equipment location, distribution layout, material type and sizes fire/smoke control devices and activation.
ee. Include a line of site detail showing new roof top equipment shielding. ff. Gas line diagram, material type, sizes, and load demand.

Electrical Plans
gg. Interior Main Distribution single line diagram, panel location/schedule, and load calculations, etc.
hh. Electric power and lighting plans, interior fixture schedule, illuminated exit signs and emergency illumination.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 258

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
607 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 ii. Title 24 Energy Electrical requirements including multi-level switching arrangements and automatic electrical lighting shut-off system.

Structural Plan/Foundation/Floor/Ceiling/Roof Plan and Details jj. Structural design justification of the existing roof framing for new mechanical equipment exceeding 300lbs.
kk. Foundation supporting elements and connections, reinforcement, slab, and footing details, etc.
ll. Structural frame plan(s).
mm. T-Bar ceiling standard details and seismic restraints.

Supplemental Information
nn. Submittal to include one (1) digital set of original shell building Title 24 Energy Calculations or new Title 24 Energy calculations or Energy calculations as for newly constructed conditioned space.
oo. Envelope or Mechanical for conditioned space as new construction or, as for an addition including, LTG (lighting) Energy calculations for new lighting with required forms copied to the full-size plan sheets.
pp. Separate submittals and permits are required for signs. Planning approval required prior to submittal to Building & Safety.
qq. Fees are based on the City of Menifee Adopted Fee Schedule. rr. Restaurant/Food establishments must obtain approval from the County Health Department/Food Division, and the local water/sewer purveyor for grease waste interceptors.
ss. All contractors/sub-contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and shall comply with SEC. 3800 of the Labor Code regarding Workers Compensation. tt. Applicant shall obtain all required clearances and/or approvals from Planning, Engineering, Fire, and the appropriate water district(s) prior to issuance of any building permits.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
223. All associated Building Fees to be paid.
224. Each Department is required to Approve, via Menifee Permit Portal.

Inspections
225. All inspection requests shall be requested through Menifee Permit Portal. 226. All work that has been requested to be inspected shall be ready for inspection prior to 8:00am.
227. The approved plans and documents shall be on-site at the time of inspection. 228. Access to the job site shall be provided on the day of inspection by 8:00am.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 259

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
608 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 229. Any construction changes from the approved plans shall be revised on the plans and submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval prior to the inspection.
230. Any special inspection or deputy reports required by code, or the approved plans shall be provided at the time of inspection for the specific portion of work required the special inspection or deputy report.

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

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
231. The Business shall obtain a final inspection from all city departments and any other outside agency final inspections.
232. Each department is required to review that Conditions of Approval have been Met/Approved. The Request for Commercial Occupancy through Menifee Permit Portal. 233. The business shall obtain a City of Menifee business license after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Information about the city business license may be found here https://www.cityofmenifee.us/309/Business-License
A business shall not be open to the public or operate without a city business license or a Certificate of Occupancy.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 260

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
609 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Section IV:

Office of the Fire Marshal
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 261

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
610 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 It is the responsibility of the recipient of these Fire Department conditions to forward them to all interested parties. The permit number (as it is noted above) is required on all correspondence.

Additional information is available at our website: www.rvcfire.org Questions should be directed to the Riverside County Fire Department, Office of the Fire Marshal at City of Menifee 29844 Haun Rd., Menifee, CA 92586. Phone (951)723-3767

CONDITIONS
234. Provide Circulation Access. Inside and Outside Turning Radii - The minimum inside turning radius for an access road shall be 24 feet. The minimum outside turning radius shall be 45 feet. As fire apparatus are unable to negotiate tight “S” curves, a 60-foot straight leg must be provided between these types of compound-turns or the radii and/or road width must be increased accordingly.
235. Fire Apparatus Access Road Grade. The grade for access roads shall not exceed 14% (8 degrees). Cross-slope shall not be greater than 2.5% (1.43 degrees) for paved access roads.
236. Parking Restrictions/Obstructions. No parking or other obstruction (e.g.: trash receptacles) are permitted on roads that are narrower than 32 feet in width. 237. Fire Department Access. Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 238. Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Where the vertical distance between grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof, with an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 239. Location of Fire Apparatus Access Roads. For purposes of determining the suitability of public roads and private fire apparatus access roads for staging fire apparatus and facilitating fire suppression operations for a particular structure, the following criteria shall apply: Multi-Story & Other Tall Buildings
a. Buildings ≥ 30 Feet in Height - To protect fire apparatus, personnel, and equipment from damage and injury from falling debris, the edge of fire apparatus access roads shall be located no closer than 10 to 30 feet from the building, the actual distance being a function of overall building height with consideration given to building construction, presence of openings, and other potential hazards. b. Buildings ≥ 40 Feet in Height - The edge of fire apparatus access roads shall be located between 20 and 40 feet from the building. (NOTE: Distances > 40 feet inhibit the use of vehicle-mounted ladders, while distances < 20 feet do not allow for a proper laddering angle). These distances are measured from the face of the building to the top edge of the curb face or rolled curb flow line nearest the structure.
c. Fire Truck Deployment Areas - To ensure that fire apparatus mobility on properties with buildings ≥ 30 feet in height is maintained at all times, Fire Truck Deployment Areas shall be provided along the road to permit fire apparatus to pass Fire trucks that have outriggers extended. Consideration shall be given to the length of the road, roof and building design, obstructions to laddering, and other operational factors in determining the number, location, and configuration of Fire Truck Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 262

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
611 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Deployment Areas. Fire Truck Deployment Areas are typically required on at least two sides of the building. Road widths adjacent to Fire Truck Deployment Area shall be a minimum of 34 feet.
240. Surface Load and Capabilities. Fire apparatus access roads serving commercial or residential development shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to support the imposed loads of RVC fire apparatus with a total weight of 80,000 pounds. Apparatus weight is distributed as 55,000 pounds on tandem rear axles and 25,000 pounds on the front axle.
241. Obstructions to Emergency Vehicles. Clear Width – Gated Entries located for egress and ingress of vehicles shall not be less than 24 feet clear width on not less than one side of a center median. The vertical clearance shall not be less than 13 feet 6 inches, including landscaping and/or trees or other obstructions. Roads leading up to and beyond the guard house or gate shall meet standard fire lane width requirements prescribed in Section 2.A.5 of RVC Access Guideline OFM-01A. Additional vehicle access gates located elsewhere on commercial property shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. 242. Auto Gates. Gates shall be automatic minimum 26 feet in width. Gate access shall be equipped with a rapid entry system to include OPTICOM and Knox Electric switches. Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.

Automatic/manual gate pins shall be rated with shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds.

Automatic gates shall be equipped with emergency backup power. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. 243. Knox Access. A rapid entry Knox Box shall be installed on the outside of the building.

Key(s) shall have durable and legible tags affixed for identification of the correlating tenant space. Go online to Knoxbox.com for ordering of the Knox Box. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm or burglar alarm system, it is recommended that the lock box be “tamper” monitoring.
244. Hydrant Fire Flow. Fire Hydrant(s) shall be capable of delivering fire flow as required by the California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire Department standards. 245. Fire Hydrants. The minimum number of fire hydrants required, as well as the location and spacing of the fire hydrants, shall comply with the CFC and NFPA 24. Fire hydrants shall be located no closer than 40 feet from a building OR located no closer than the height of the building whichever is greater. A fire hydrant shall be located within 200 feet of the fire department connection for buildings protected with a fire sprinkler system. The size and number of outlets required for the approved fire hydrants are (6” x 4” x 2 1/2 “ x 2 1/2 “) (CFC 507.5.7, Appendix C, NFPA 24- 7.2.3). Fire hydrants distance and placement shall comply with RVC Guideline OFM-01B. The fire hydrant location shown on exhibit is preliminary and did not meet requirements, modifications must be done at fire underground submittal and building plan submittal.
246. Hydrant Location. Fire Hydrants shall be located within 400’ of all exterior portions of the structures, measured along required fire apparatus access roads, and adjacent to public streets in the quantities and up to the maximum distance as required by the California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire Department.
247. Fire Lanes. Applicant/developer shall prepare a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane paintings and/or signs.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 263

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
612 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 248. Transportation Hydrants. Where new water mains are extended along streets where hydrants are not needed for protection of structures or similar fire problems, fire hydrants shall be provided at spacing not to exceed 1,000 feet to provide for transportation hazards. 249. Blue Dot Reflectors. Blue retro – reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placements of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department.
250. Building Requirements. Fire sprinklers, fire alarm, radio communication, private fire underground & fire access road shall all be a deferred submittal. 251. Access Doors. Where building access is required by Table 3206.2, fire department access doors shall be provided in accordance with this section. Access doors shall be accessible without the use of a ladder.
252. Number of Doors Required. The required access doors shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent fire department access doors does not exceed 125 feet measured center to center CFC 2022 3206.7.5.
253. Smoke and Heat Removal. Where smoke and heat removal is required by Table 3206.2 it shall be in accordance with Section 910.
254. Radio Communicator. Emergency responder communication coverage for emergency responders shall be provided in building.
255. Water Plans. The applicant or developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow.
256. Water Prior to Construction. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any commencement of construction. (THIS DOES NOT SUFFICE FOR TEMPORARY WATER SUPPLY) 257. Address. Commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side and rear access locations. The numbers/ letters shall be a minimum of 12” for structures up to 25 ft. in height. Address numbers must be a minimum of 24” when the building exceeds 25 ft., The numbers shall have a minimum 1/2-inch stroke. When a building contains multiple addresses, an address range may be posted on the structure. 258. Sprinkler System. Buildings or structures exceeding 3600 sq. ft are required to have approved CFC and NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler systems installed. ESFR system to be required for a project of this size.
259. Required Access for Fire Fighting During Construction. Approved vehicle access for fire fighting shall be provided to all construction or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections.

Vehicle access shall be provided by either temporary or permanent roads, capable of supporting vehicle loading under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until permanent fire access roads are available. 260. Construction. Fire safety during construction shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 33. (CFC Chapter 33 & CBC Chapter 33)
If any of the conditions are unclear, difficult to understand, or you would like to set up a meeting, please contact me at (951) 723-3884 so that I can better assist you in the approval of this project.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 264

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
613 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 Section V:

Landscaping Review
Conditions of Approval
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 265

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
614 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 GENERAL CONDITIONS
261. The landscape construction plans shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary landscape plans as approved by the City’s Landscape Architect, City Administrative Staff, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. Notes, details, and specifications shall be included and reviewed for consistency with the City’s code at time of landscape plan check.
262. The landscape construction plans shall be in conformance with the requirements and standards of Menifee’s Municipal Code, the City’s current policies, applicable objective design standards, landscape design standards, specific plan requirements, and current State of California model water efficient landscape requirements, as well as all local and state requirements as applicable. Please be aware that approval of the development concept does not preclude corrections at time of landscape permit plan check. 263. The landscape construction plans shall be fully coordinated with the precise grade plan.

A reference copy of the project’s approved precise grade plan shall be submitted with the permit landscape plans as a reference.
264. It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to be aware of and comply with the requirements and standards of Menifee’s Municipal Code, the City’s current policies, and current State of California model water efficient landscape requirements, including §491.4.

Elements of the Landscape Documentation Package, Chapter 2.7 of the Model Water Efficient Ordinance
265. All plant materials shall be appropriate for City of Menifee’s climate. No invasive species, as identified by the California Invasive Plant Council, shall be utilized. No plants identified per the MSHCP Table 6.2 shall be utilized. Use of native plants is highly encouraged. 266. All planters shall be infilled fully at maturity and all plants shall be spaced to infill within two years from installation. Proposed spacing, sizing, and species shall be reviewed in depth for compliance at time of landscape plan check. Where shrubs are required to be spaced for fuel modification purposes, a very low groundcover shall be provided to infill the planters areas to meet this requirement.
267. Linear root barriers shall be installed for all trees located within 6 feet of hardscape, shall be a minimum of 16’ in length at each location, and a minimum of 24” depth. 268. No trees growing greater than 15’-0” tall at maturity shall be installed below existing overhead utility lines. No combustible materials shall be installed within 10 feet of the base of existing and proposed power poles.
269. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect prior to issuance of grading permits. 270. Drought-tolerant, water-efficient landscaping shall be provided throughout the site. 271. Above ground utilities shall be located in shrub areas and screened as required from public view, except where visibility and access are required by code. Additional screening shrubs may be required at time of Final Landscape Inspection by the City’s Inspector and/or Planning Department. Screening shrubs shall be provided in a minimum 5-gallon size. Plans shall include an allowance for screen shrubs. 272. Utilities and light standard locations shall be coordinated with Owner’s engineering team to avoid conflicts with the required tree locations and utility screening. Trees shall be a minimum of 10 feet from all sewer lines and 5 feet from all utilities including underground utility lines.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 266

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
615 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 273. Avoid plants that require cutting back to keep them within a specific area or at a trimmed height. Carefully select and locate plants where they will be allowed to grow to maturity and keep their natural shape.
274. The project shall complete all required inspections indicated by the City’s Landscape Standards document for private developments. The owner shall submit a copy of required certificate of completion documents, including the agronomic soils report and report recommendations, receipts verifying implementation of the soils report recommendations, and an irrigation audit of the irrigation system completed by a third-party Irrigation Association Certified Irrigation Auditor. Final inspection and approval by the City’s Landscape Inspector and City Planning staff is required prior to occupancy.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 267

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
616 of 1562

5 2
4 9
0 The undersigned warrants that he/she is an authorized representative of the project referenced above, that I am specifically authorized to consent to all of the foregoing conditions, and that I so consent as of the date set out below. _______________________________________________ ___________________ Signed Date
_______________________________________________ ___________________ Name (please print) Title (please print)
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 268

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
617 of 1562

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
To:State Clearinghouse, Property Owners, Responsible and Trustee Agencies/Interested Organizations and Individuals
From:City of Menifee, Community Development Department
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed “Heritage Valley Business Center”; General Plan Amendment No. PLN24-0197; Specific Plan Amendment No. PLN24-0199; Change of Zone No. PLN24-0198; and Plot Plan No. PLN24-0195 – FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025051051)
Time and Date of Hearing: June 17, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.

Location of Hearing: Menifee City Council Chambers
29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586
A public hearing has been scheduled before the City of Menifee City Council to consider the project described below:

Project Location:

The Project is generally bounded by a Riverside County Flood Control channel, Southern California Edison (SCE) utility corridor, and Mclaughlin Road to the south; commercial, light industrial uses and Ethanac Road beyond to the north; Sherman Road to the east; and Trumble Road to the west. The Project site is generally located in the northeastern part of the City of Menifee, within Riverside County, California. The Project site is comprised of ten parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 331-110-031, 331-110-024, 331-110-025, 331-110-026, 331-110-035, 331-110-027, 331-110-041, 331-110-038, 331- 110-039, and 331-110-023). Refer to Figure 1, Local Vicinity Map.

Project Applicant: Core5 Industrial Partners, LLC
Project Description:

The Project would include the construction of one concrete tilt-up building totaling 829,755 sq. ft. which includes 10,000 sq. ft. of office and 819,755 square feet of ground floor warehouse space on an approximately 41-acre Project site. The building is contemplated to have a structural height of approximately 60 feet and includes approximately 503 automobile parking spaces, approximately 258 truck trailer parking spaces, and approximately 111 dock high doors. Associated facilities and improvements of the Project include loading dock doors, on-site landscaping, and related on-site and off- site improvements (roadway improvements, sewer, storm drain, utilities). Reference Figure 2, Site Plan.

Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 269

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
618 of 1562

The following entitlement applications are associated with the proposed Project:

General Plan Amendment No. PLN24-0197 proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of APNs 331-110-024, -025, -026 from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Specific Plan (SP).

Specific Plan Amendment No. PLN24-0199 proposes to increase the acreage and modify the boundary of the Specific Plan No. 260 (Menifee North Specific Plan) to include APNs 331-110-024, -025, and -026 within Planning Area 2 (“Industrial”). The amendment also proposes to increase the allowable building height within Planning Area 2 from 50 feet to 60 feet.

Change of Zone No. PLN24-0198 proposes to change the zoning classification of APNs 331-110-024, -025, and -026 from Heavy Industrial (HI) to Menifee North SP.

Plot Plan No. PLN24-0195 is for the design review of one concrete tilt-up building totaling 829,755 sq. ft. which includes 10,000 sq. ft. of office and 819,755 square feet of ground floor warehouse space on an approximately 41-acre Project site. The building proposes a structural height of approximately 60 feet and includes approximately 503 automobile parking spaces, approximately 258 truck trailer parking spaces, and approximately 111 dock doors.

Environmental Information:

On March 18, 2026, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was sent to Responsible and Trustee Agencies, and mailed to surrounding property owners and non-owner residents within 300 feet of the Project site, stating that copies of the Draft EIR were available for public review on the City’s website, at the City of Menifee City Hall, the Sun City Library, and the Menifee Library. The public review period was for the state-mandated 45 days, from March 18, 2026 through May 1, 2026. Analysis presented in the Draft EIR indicated that the proposed Project would have certain significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas and transportation impacts. The Draft EIR also presented mitigation measures, which will reduce project-specific and cumulative impacts. All other environmental effects evaluated in the Draft EIR are considered less than significant or can be successfully mitigated below the applicable significance thresholds.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) responds to the comments and includes text revisions to the Draft EIR in response to input received on the Draft EIR. Unlike the Draft EIR, comments on the FEIR are not required to be responded to by the City. If written comments are received, they will be provided to the City Council as part of the staff report for the Project. The Draft EIR and FEIR will be submitted to the City Council for requested certification and action on the Project. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control list of various hazardous sites).

The FEIR is available on the City of Menifee Community Development Department website:
https://cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents. A hard copy of the FEIR can be viewed at Menifee City Hall – 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586.

For further information regarding this project or to provide written correspondence, please contact Fernando Herrera at (951) 723-3718 or email [email protected].

CITY OF MENIFEE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTN: FERNANDO HERRERA,

SENIOR PLANNER
29844 HAUN ROAD
MENIFEE, CA 92586
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 270

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
619 of 1562

Figure 1 Local
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Plan
Item Title: 11.1
Heritage Valley Business Center
Item Page Number: 271

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
620 of 1562

CITY OF MENIFEE
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
MEETING DATE: June 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
PREPARED BY: Ryan Fowler, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Orlando Hernandez, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Armando G. Villa, City Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt a resolution approving Appeal No. PLN24-0214 submitted by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP; and

2. Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110162), and adopting the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (Project), generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road; and

3. Adopt a resolution approving Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179 for the Project.

DISCUSSION
Plot Plan (PP) No. PLN22-0179 includes development of an approximately 517,720 square-foot (SF) speculative warehouse building. The environmental analysis, however, includes a development buffer to account for final design changes, equivalent to three percent of the building square footage, or 15,532 SF, which would result in a building area of 533,252 SF and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The 533,252 SF warehouse building would include approximately 20,320 SF of ground floor office space, 7,000 SF of mezzanine office space, 505,932 SF of warehouse space, and would be approximately 55 feet tall. Additional improvements include a parking lot and loading docks, ornamental landscaping, associated onsite infrastructure, and construction of offsite street improvements.

The Project would include 90 dock-high doors and four grade-level truck doors. Approximately 128 trailer parking spaces would be provided in the northern truck court and 64 trailer parking spaces would be provided in the southern truck court, within areas secured by sliding gates. The proposed Project would also provide 390 passenger car parking spaces. Access to the proposed Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 1

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
621 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road.

The Project would also include approximately 137,363 SF of ornamental landscaping that would cover 11.0 percent of the site. The proposed Project includes an approximately 14-foot-high retaining and screen wall along the interior of the northern and southern truck courts (outside facing wall would be eight feet high with a landscaping berm), which would taper to a six-foot- high screen wall along the northern property line outside of the truck court. The Project would include approximately 4.5 acres (approximately 1.5 linear miles) of construction improvements in the form of roadway and utility improvements.

Location
The Project is generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560- 001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330- 571-005).

IMAGE 1: PROJECT LOCATION
Tract Map No. 31856
Tract Map No. 31856 was recorded within the boundaries of the current Project site in August 2018. However, subsequent to that recordation, the Project Applicant received approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 38469 on April 14, 2023 which proposed to consolidate Tract Map No. 31856 (Lots 1-78), as well as Parcel Map (PM) No. 7285 (Lot 1 through 4). In the “Project Location” image, these property lines appear. However, as a condition of approval of this Project, prior to any development of the Project site, the existing maps (i.e., TM31856 and PM7285) must be consolidated into a single parcel encompassing the whole site.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 2

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
622 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) which is intended to provide economic vitality and flexibility in land use options to promote economic development along the City’s major corridors. Surrounding Land Use designations and existing uses can be found below in Table 1. The Project’s proposed industrial use is consistent with the existing land use designation.

Zoning
The underlying zoning classification is EDC-NG. The existing zoning of the Project site allows for the development of industrial and warehousing-related uses with which the proposed Project is consistent.

IMAGE 2: GENERAL PLAN MAP IMAGE 3: ZONING MAP
TABLE 1: SURROUNDING LAND USES
Location Existing Land Use General Plan Land
Use Zoning Classification
North
Approx. ½-acre to 1-
acre single-family
residential

EDC-NG EDC-NG
East
Vacant undeveloped
land and a modular
office building dealer

EDC-NG EDC-NG
South
Southern California
Edison (SCE) utility
corridor
Public Utility Corridor
(PUC)
Public Utility Corridor
(PUC)
West Vacant undeveloped
land EDC-NG EDC-NG
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 3

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
623 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5

BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Hearing - October 23, 2024
On October 23, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing. At the hearing, the Commission expressed concern regarding impacts related to traffic (including cumulative traffic impacts), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, air quality, noise, drainage and flooding, and the land use compatibility with the immediately adjacent residences.

Commissioners expressed concern with the amount of warehousing and distribution facilities recently proposed and/or approved within the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG), stating that having one predominate use, instead of a mix of uses, within the EDC-NG was not the intent of the General Plan when it was created. Ultimately, the Commission was unable to support the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC) required to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as individuals disagreed that the benefits of the Project outweighed the impacts generated by the Project.

In the end, the Commission made a motion to approve the Project entitlements (i.e., PP No.

PLN22-0179) and certify the EIR; however, that motion failed to pass by a 2-3 vote.

City Council Hearing – December 4, 2024
On December 4, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing. At the hearing, the Council expressed concern Project-related traffic and impacts to roadways, maintenance and the adjacent residents/community, the outreach efforts with the local community by the Applicant’s team, and the extension of Geary Street. Council discussed other potential uses for the site allowed by the existing zone. Council also expressed the desire to allow the global traffic study to continue prior to deciding the outcome of this Project.

Correspondence was received from the City of Perris and 11 individuals within the community. In total 13 speakers addressed the Council regarding this Project (eight in opposition and five in favor). In the end, the Council made a motion and voted (3-2) to continue the Project off calendar to allow the Project Applicants to address the concerns raised by the neighboring community and the Council.

Appeal No. PLN 24-0214
On October 31, 2024, an application to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to not approve PP No. PLN22-0179 and not certify the EIR was submitted by the Project Applicant’s representative, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP (Appeal No. PLN24-0214).

PROJECT DETAILS
Project Changes (Since December 4, 2024, City Council Hearing) Community Meetings/Outreach: The Applicant’s team has reported that they conducted a community meeting to inform neighbors and the public about the Project and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. In addition, they have actively reached out to adjacent property owners on multiple occasions through phone calls, emails, and in-person visits to better understand and address their concerns.

Truck Rerouting: The Applicant has reconfigured truck routing, so residents are no longer directly impacted, ensuring all Project-related truck traffic is routed away from residential neighborhood Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 4

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
624 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
streets. Traffic (both trucks and autos) will not be permitted north of the property line on Geary Street, and there will be no improvements between Floyd Avenue and Ethanac Road.

New Traffic Signals/Traffic Calming Measures: The Applicant will install a new traffic signal along Murrieta Road at the southern truck corridor, enhancing traffic calming measures and providing safer, more efficient access for residents exiting Floyd Avenue by providing breaks in northbound traffic.

Additional Circulation Improvements: The Applicant implemented additional roadway improvements, including street widening, new right-turn pockets at the southwest and southeast corners of Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road, and an expanded westbound left-turn pocket on Ethanac Road. These changes are designed to reduce congestion, improve overall traffic flow, and advance turning movements.

Paving of Floyd Avenue: The Applicant remains committed to paving Floyd Avenue to further enhance roadway conditions and elevate the overall quality of the neighborhood. This paved road will also allow storm water to drain into new underground facilities in Geary Road and Ethanac Road.

Increased Landscaping: Along the northern Project boundary, the Applicant has significantly enhanced landscaping, including the addition of over 258 new trees. This not only improves aesthetics and provides visual screening but also delivers tangible environmental benefits.

Local Labor Commitment: The Applicant’s dedication to supporting the regional workforce continues, as they are committed to utilizing local union labor, which helps bolster the local economy and minimize traffic.

Solar Improvements: In partnership with Advocates for the Environment, the Applicant has agreed to install on-site solar panels above and beyond any code requirements.

Neighbor Concessions: To further mitigate potential Project impacts, the Applicant has stated that they have offered neighboring residents allowances for improvements to their property.

The City received two letters following the December 4, 2024 hearing from the local residents and their legal representative. The first was received on January 30, 2025 and the second on April 17, 2026. Responses to these two letters can be found in the attached “City Response to January 30, 2025 Residents of Floyd Letter” and the attached “City Response to April 17, 2026 Residents of Floyd Letter”.

Proposed Design
The Project Applicant (IPT Menifee CC LLC) is proposing the development of an approximately 517,720 SF speculative warehouse building.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 5

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
625 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
IMAGE 4: PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Circulation and Parking
Regional Project access would be from I-215 via Ethanac Road. Local access would be provided via Geary Road (from the south only via a proposed southerly truck route) and Murrieta Road.

Project site ingress and egress would be via two driveways on Geary Road and three driveways on Murrieta Road. The two southernmost and two northernmost driveways would provide full access for both trucks and automobiles (shown with orange arrows above), while the middle access point on Murrieta Road would provide access to passenger vehicles only (shown with the blue arrow). While there are shared access points, trucks would not be allowed circulate through the majority of the passenger vehicle parking areas. The City of Menifee Development Code outlines the parking requirements for the Project. As demonstrated in Table 2, the Project meets the City’s parking requirements.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 6

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
626 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
TABLE 2: PARKING SUMMARY

Development Code Parking Requirements
Office: 1/300 SF (20,320 SF) 68
Warehouse (1st 100K SF): 1/1,000 SF (100,000 SF) 100
Warehouse (100K – 500K SF): 1/1,500 SF (397,400) 265
Required 433
Required (with 10% reduction per Section

9.215.070)
390
Total Spaces Provided 390
Using the City’s Parking and Loading Standards, the warehouse building would require 433 off- street parking spaces. The Project includes a total of 390 proposed off-street parking spaces. (Note truck/trailer parking is not included within these totals.) Section 9.215.070 (“Alternative Programs for Parking”) allows for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking stalls if specific alternative programs/improvements are provided.

This Section allows for parking reductions to be combined for a maximum reduction of 15 percent of the required parking standard. The proposed Site Plan would only need a reduction of 10 percent (433 required, 390 provided). The Applicant is requesting this 10 percent reduction. This would be allowed under Section 9.215.070, because the Project provides roadway improvements and/or dedication that exceed those recommended by a traffic study (i.e., the Project’s southerly corridor) (five percent reduction credit) and the Project involves lot consolidation totaling a minimum of five acres (five percent reduction credit). In addition, the Project’s mitigation measures require the Project operator to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles by employees. This shall include a transportation information center and an on-site TDM coordinator, bicycle parking and storage, self-service bicycle repair areas, a ride-matching service (e.g., bulletin boards, website, smartphone application) to connect carpool participants and provide preferential parking for rideshare vehicles to support carpool/vanpool/rideshare transportation modes, and posting of Riverside Transportation Authority schedules and referencing Riverside Transportation Authority schedules when creating employees’ operating schedules.

The 10 percent reduction results in a total requirement of 390 spaces; therefore, with the 10 percent reduction, the Project would meet its parking requirement.

Infrastructure Improvements
Onsite and Frontage Improvements
The Project Applicant would be responsible for the construction of public infrastructure improvements. Murrieta Road would be improved along the Project frontage to a secondary (four- lane with striped) designation. The improvement will include the necessary offsite transitions.

The northern driveway exiting Murrieta Road will include a signal if the developer/property owner chooses to have a left movement toward Ethanac Road. If no signal is installed, the driveway will be restricted to right-in and right-out. Turning movements at the southern driveway will be required to right-in/right-out movements only.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 7

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
627 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
Geary Street would be improved along the Project frontage to an Industrial Collector (two-lane) designation. The improvement will include the necessary offsite transitions. All driveways along Geary Street will have full access, utilizing a two-way left turn along the Geary Street improvements in the ultimate condition.

Consistent with a settlement between the City of Menifee and the City of Perris, the Project will include a crucial segment to enhance traffic circulation within the EDC-NG. Specifically, the Project will include a truck route along the southern Project frontage to the ultimate width of 32 feet (curb-to-curb) for a total of 54 feet with landscaping and setbacks, with parkway as shown on the site plan. This truck route is required to facilitate truck circulation in the Northern Gateway and would be dedicated by the developer.

Offsite Improvements
The Project Applicant is also required to contribute to the improvement of the Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road intersection to a condition that allows for adequate turning movements for ingress and egress. This includes the extension of the westbound left-turn pocket to 350 feet, widening at the southwest and southeast corners to allow for adequate turning movements southbound and northbound, and any right-of-way acquisition with these improvements. These changes are designed to reduce congestion, improve overall traffic flow, and advance turning movements.

Road and Bridge Benefit District (RBBD), Fair Share Contributions, and Other Improvements The Project has also been conditioned to participate in a RBBD that will be established for the area. The Applicant is required to pay the RBBD fees based on the designated land use and areas.

Fair share cost participation would be required for off-site intersections including the Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road intersection and Case/Barnett Road and Ethanac Road intersection. Utility improvements would be constructed, which include new water lines, recycled water lines, sewer, and storm drain lines.

New Traffic Signals/Traffic Calming Measures
The Applicant will install a new traffic signal along Murrieta Road at the southern truck corridor, enhancing traffic calming measures and providing safer, more efficient access for residents exiting Floyd Avenue by providing breaks in northbound traffic.

Paving of Floyd Avenue
The Applicant has committed to paving Floyd Avenue to further enhance roadway conditions and elevate the overall quality of the neighborhood. This paved road will allow storm water to drain into new underground facilities in Geary Road and Ethanac Road.

Riverside County Flood Control Mainline
The Applicant will install the Area Draingage Plan (ADP) Line A-12 Main Storm Drain Line within Murrieta Road, along with related storm drain facilities on Geary Street. These improvements include an 84-inch line connecting the site to the channel north of Ethanac Road. These improvements will help alleviate flooding in the area.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 8

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
628 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Recycled Water Mains Pursuant to EMWD’s Recycled Water Policy, the Project is conditioned to upgrade and improve the local water infrastructure. Specifically, the Project will be required to construct the following frontage pipelines:
•A new 12-inch pipeline along McLaughlin Road from Murrieta Road to Geary Street; •A new 8-inch pipeline along Murrieta Road from McLaughlin Road to the north side of the Project; and,
•A new 8-inch pipeline along Geary Street from McLaughlin Road to the north side of the Project.

The Project-installed facilities will provide potable water, wastewater (sewer), and recycled water service to the site, while also improving local infrastructure.

Landscaping
Landscape standards for the Project are outlined in the City’s Development Code. Irrigated onsite landscaped areas for the Project site would total approximately 137,363 SF (11 percent of the site) and would be comprised of drought-tolerant shrubs and groundcover and evergreen and deciduous trees. The conceptual landscape plan includes trees at the perimeter, street frontages, parking areas, and adjacent to the building to soften the edges of the development and the proposed building. Note the Applicant has agreed to install 48-inch box trees along the northerly boundary adjacent to the truck court screen walls to more quickly buffer the Project site from adjacent uses. In addition, the landscape and architectural plans feature site amenities that coordinate and compliment the proposed Project, including outdoor break areas, benches, tables, bike racks, and trash receptacles. The trailer parking areas are screened from Geary Road and Murrieta Road by large, landscaped setbacks and intervening passenger car parking areas as can be seen in the image below.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 9

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
629 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
IMAGE 5: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
Screening
On the Project’s northerly and southerly sides of the warehouse building, 14-foot-tall decorative concrete walls would be constructed to screen all loading areas, trucks, and trailers from public view. The visual height of the walls will be reduced as viewed from the outside through the use of landscaped berms, perimeter screening trees, and the truck courts’ lower elevations. As shown in the conceptual landscape plan, the intent is to provide landscape coverage with a variety of trees, shrubs and ground cover to soften the wall and to provide a more aesthetically pleasing street scene.

Because the truck court is set lower compared to the neighboring properties on the Project boundary, the decorative concrete screen wall is proposed to be eight feet tall. In addition, the conceptual landscape plans propose screen trees along the wall, which are anticipated to grow above the height of the wall and further screen views into the facility. In addition, evergreen shrubs and vines are proposed along the exterior of the screen walls.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 10

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
630 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
IMAGE 6: SOUTH PERIMETER SCREENING
IMAGE 7: NORTH PERIMETER SCREENING
IMAGE 8: SCREEN WALL
Elevations
The proposed building has unique design features as well as shared architectural elements with approved industrial developments within the northern section of the City to provide for cohesive development. There are complementing roof forms, colors, and materials. The various colors include white, deep blue, and multiple variations of gray. The building will include significant glazing with clear aluminum mullions. Visual interest is maintained throughout the Project by enhancing architectural detailing and facade articulation along all building elevations.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 11

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
631 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
IMAGE 9: PROJECT ELEVATIONS
Industrial Good Neighbor Policies
On March 2, 2022, the City Council adopted the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies. The focus of the policies can be summarized in three sections:

1. Minimize impacts to sensitve uses (residential, schools, parks, nursing homes, hospitals)

2. Protect public health, safety and welfare by regulating design, location and operations

3. Protect neighborhood character of adjacent residential communities When reviewing the proposed Project, the Industrial Good Neighbor Policies were referenced to ensure a compliant project. Implemented policies include added landscape buffers, screen walls, improved building design, community outreach, increased building and loading dock setbacks, on-site truck queuing, on-site signage, and environmental mitigation measures.

Environmental Determination
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
On November 7, 2023, the City of Menifee publicly noticed its decision to prepare an EIR and hold a public scoping meeting for the Project by noticing the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse [SCH]) and distributed the NOP to various agencies and surrounding property owners and residents in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 12

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
632 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
NOP review period was from November 7, 2023 to December 7, 2023. On November 28, 2023, the City of Menifee held a duly noticed public scoping meeting at City Hall regarding the preparation of the Draft EIR and provided an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR.

EIR Impacts
Within the EIR that has been prepared for the Project (SCH No. 2023110162), mitigation measures are provided under the categories of Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, GHG Emissions, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The EIR determined that the Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts under the category of GHG Emissions and Noise based on the analysis and findings in the Draft EIR and requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOOC). A brief description of these impacts is as follows:

GHG Emissions
With implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR related to GHG emissions, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of 4,796.13 MTCO 2e/yr. There are no feasible Project measures that would reduce substantially vehicular emissions, and more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips).

Neither the Project Applicant nor the City of Menifee can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines.

The Project would install electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with the California Building Code which would allow charging stations to be supplied based on demand; however, the timing of this demand and corresponding availability is uncertain. Therefore, though the Project would implement mitigation measures to mitigate its GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

Noise
The Project’s off-site traffic noise level increases at adjacent noise sensitive land uses are considered a significant and unavoidable impact along the following impacted roadway segments:
•Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road (Note that under the interim condition, noise level thresholds would not be exceeded, because vehicular trips would not travel north on Geary Street beyond the Project’s site northernmost driveway.) •Geary Street south of Ethanac Road
•Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road (identified as experiencing significant/unavoidable traffic noise increase by 2013 General Plan EIR)
The proposed Project would generate an increase in ambient noise levels at the locations identified above in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 13

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
633 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
or applicable standards of other agencies. However, note the increases at Geary Street south of Ethanac Road and Ethanac Road east of Murrieta would be 1.8 dBA and 1.6 dBA, respectively, and 3 dBA is the level of change that is generally considered perceptible to the human ear.

Draft EIR Public Review
The City distributed the Draft EIR for public review beginning May 24, 2024 and ending July 8, 2024. During the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, or individuals:

Agencies
oAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
oAirport Land Use Commission
oCity of Perris
oRiverside County Department of Waste Resources
oSouthern California Gas
oSCAQMD
Organizations
oAdams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
oCenter for Community Action and Environmental Justice
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
oAdrienne Vendor
oBob Powell
oKimberly and Moo Tang
The City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), consisting of all the comment letters received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. The FEIR was distributed to the Draft EIR commenters 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Comments on the FEIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, or individuals:

Agencies
oSouthern California Gas
oRiverside County Flood Control District
oCity of Perris
Organizations
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
oSanda Powell
oFernand & Kim DeChristopher
oAdrienne Vender
oLinda Fitzgerald
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 14

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
634 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5
The FEIR, and Draft EIR, including technical appendices can be accessed for review on the City website at https://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents.

Supplemental Information Related to Truck Rerouting. As previously stated, the Applicant has reconfigured truck routing, ensuring all Project-related truck traffic is routed away from residential neighborhood streets and no traffic (both trucks and autos) is permitted north of the Project’s property line on Geary Street. As such, the Applicant has prepared supplemental noise and traffic analyses to demonstrate the proposed reconfiguration will not alter the environmental conclusions presented in the EIR. The Draft EIR, together with the Final EIR and the supplemental technical memoranda, collectively analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed Project under both the originally evaluated access configuration and the Interim Traffic Scenario.

Findings of Fact and SOOC
Because the Draft EIR identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated below the level of significance, Findings of Fact (Findings) and a SOOC are required to approve the Project. The Findings and SOOC are included within the resolution for the EIR.

According to the SOOC the following economic, legal, social, or technological benefits, independent of the other benefits, override the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:

1.The Project enhances the local economy. The Project enhances the local economy by providing additional jobs, and business development opportunities commensurate with forecasted growth.

2.The Project facilitates economic development. The Project is intended to facilitate the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base, providing new employment opportunities, and attracting new businesses.

3.The Project provides both traditional and alternative transportation mode benefits.

The Project would implement roadway, pedestrian, and infrastructure improvements that would provide social and other benefits to the City’s residents.

4.The Project transforms an underutilized site. The Project would develop the underutilized site with an economically viable development consistent with the General Plan objectives for the EDC-NG and combines employment opportunities, truck routes, and freeway access.

5.The Project creates a high-quality development. The Project proposes a high-quality warehouse building within the EDC-NG that will attract businesses and provide a variety of employment opportunities in the community of Menifee, thereby reducing the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

6.The Project would be developed in line with the City General Plan. The Project would result in development pursuant to the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning.

Consistent with the General Plan, the Project facilitates the economic development of the City by creating an expanded employment base by creating building space and providing new diverse employment opportunities.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 15

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
635 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5

7.The Project would implement employment generating uses along the I-215 corridor.

The Project would result in development of an industrial warehouse use along the I-215 corridor, which would facilitate goods movement throughout Southern California.

Although significant impacts will remain, those significant adverse impacts to GHG emissions and Noise would be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. In its decision to approve the Project, the City Council can consider the Project benefits to override the environmental impacts.

Community Outreach
The Applicant’s team engaged in multiple community meetings and outreach throughout the entitlement process, including multiple meetings in coordination with the City. In addition, conversations with several area residents were conducted and the Applicant’s team has reached out to all of the property owners in the Project vicinity regarding the development and area-wide improvements/infrastructure. The Applicant’s team has been active with multiple Project proponents (of industrial projects within the City).

City staff held an environmental scoping meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at City Hall to discuss the Project and to receive comments from the public. A total of 10 comment letters were received in response to the environmental scoping. For the Draft EIR 45-day comment period and public hearings, property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundary were mailed notices at each step of the Project (scoping meeting, Draft EIR comment period, public hearing).

Findings
Findings for the EIR and PP No. PLN22-0179 are included in the attached Resolutions.

Public Notice
The proposed Project was noticed on June 7, 2026 for the June 17, 2026 City Council public hearing. A public notice was published in The Press Enterprise and notices were mailed to property owners and non-owner residents within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. The proper public notice was posted on-site, and in addition, all relevant public agencies and those requesting notification were notified of the public hearing.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE
Thriving Economy

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Plans & Exhibits

2. Resolution – Appeal

3. Resolution – EIR

4. Exhibit A – FEIR
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 16

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
636 of 1562

City of Menifee Staff Report
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Appeals
June 17, 2026

3 3
3 5

5. Exhibit B - MMRP

6. Exhibit C - Findings of Fact and the SOOC

7. Resolution - Project Entitlements

8. Exhibit A – COAs

9. Appeal Application

10. October 23, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report

11. Public Comments – Prior to October 23, 2024 Planning Commission

12. Public Comments – Prior to December 4, 2024 City Council

13. Public Comments – Prior to June 17, 2026 City Council

14. City Response to October 23, 2024 City of Perris Letter

15. City Response to December 4, 2024 City of Perris Letter

16. City Response to January 30, 2025 Residents of Floyd Letter

17. City Response to April 17, 2026 Residents of Floyd Letter

18. CEQA Memo Evaluating Interim Traffic Scenario

19. Attachment A – Supplemental Traffic Assessment

20. Attachment B – Supplemental Noise Assessment

21. Attachment C – Noise Assessment

22. Public Hearing Notice
..

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 17

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
637 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 18

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
638 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 19

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
639 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 20

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
640 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 21

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
641 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 22

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
642 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 23

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
643 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 24

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
644 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 25

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
645 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 26

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
646 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 27

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
647 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 28

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
648 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 29

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
649 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 30

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
650 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 31

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
651 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 32

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
652 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 33

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
653 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 34

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
654 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 35

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
655 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 36

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
656 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 37

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
657 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 38

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
658 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 39

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
659 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 40

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
660 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 41

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
661 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 42

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
662 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 43

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
663 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 44

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
664 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 45

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
665 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 46

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
666 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 47

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
667 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 48

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
668 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 49

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
669 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 50

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
670 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 51

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
671 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 52

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
672 of 1562

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 53

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
673 of 1562

RESOLUTION NO. 26-______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING APPEAL NO. PLN24-0214 FOR THE
MURRIETA ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the applicant, IPT Menifee CC LLC (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Plot Plan (PP) No.

PLN22-0179 for the construction of a 517,720 square-foot (SF) speculative warehouse building on an approximately 28.27-acre site. This environmental analysis includes a development buffer to account for final design changes, equivalent to three percent of the building square footage, or 15,532 SF, which would result in a building area of 533,252 SF and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The Project site is generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (APNs:
330-210- 010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560-001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-005); and WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Murrieta Road Warehouse Project”; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve the Project entitlements (i.e., PP No.

PLN22-0179) and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); however, that motion failed to pass by a 2-3 vote; and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2024, an application to appeal Planning Commission’s decision to not approve PP No. PLN22-0179 and not certify the EIR was submitted by the Project Applicant’s representative, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP (Appeal No. PLN24-0214); and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the City Council opened the public hearing and continue the public hearing for the Project off calendar; and
WHEREAS, prior to bringing the Project back to a public hearing, the Applicant sought to gain additional input from the surrounding community and worked to redesign the truck circulation pattern and insert additional traffic calming measures, circulation improvements, and landscape buffering to lessen impacts to the community and the City reviewed and analyzed the impacts of said changes; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the City Council of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project including the consideration of the FEIR, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notices placed on the Project site, notice to property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, notice to all relevant agencies and to persons requesting notification.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 54

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
674 of 1562

Appeal of Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
June 17, 2026

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Menifee, California hereby approves the following:

1. That the City Council finds the facts presented within the public record provides the basis to approve Appeal No. PLN24-0214.

2. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the Community Development Department – Planning Division, 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June 2026. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Jeffery T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 55

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
675 of 1562

RESOLUTION NO. 26-____

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

CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023110162) FOR THE MURRIETA

ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the applicant, IPT Menifee CC LLC (“Applicant”), filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for the approval of Plot Plan (PP) No.

PLN22-0179 for the construction of a 517,720 square-foot (SF) speculative warehouse building on an approximately 28.27-acre site. This environmental analysis includes a development buffer to account for final design changes, equivalent to three percent of the building square footage, or 15,532 SF, which would result in a building area of 533,252 SF and a floor area ratio of 0.50. The Project site is generally located south of Floyd Avenue, east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road within the City of Menifee (City), County of Riverside, State of California (APNs: 330-210-010, - 011, -013, and -062, 330-560-001 through 330-560-040, 330-570-001 through 330-570- 033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-005); and
WHEREAS, collectively, all the applications are referred to as the “Project” or “Murrieta Road Warehouse Project”; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2023, the City of Menifee publicly noticed its decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project by noticing the State Clearinghouse (SCH), and other agencies in compliance with Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, and surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the City of Menifee held a duly noticed public scoping meeting regarding the preparation of the EIR to discuss and hear from the public on the potential environmental impacts, which meeting was publicly noticed in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA guidelines, and surrounding property owners within a 500-foot radius from the Project site boundaries; and
WHEREAS, between May 24, 2024 and July 8, 2024, the City complied with the State-mandated 45-day public review period for the Project Draft EIR took effect, which was publicly noticed in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA guidelines and mailed to surrounding property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project site. A copy of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022040622), and a copy of the Draft EIR was placed at the City Hall public counter, Menifee Library, and Sun City Library; and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, comments on the Draft EIR were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 56

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
676 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
June 17, 2026
5 2
5 2
0 Agencies
oAgua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
oAirport Land Use Commission
oCity of Perris
oRiverside County Department of Waste Resources
oSouthern California Gas
oSouth Coast Air Quality Management District
Organizations
oAdams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
oCenter for Community Action and Environmental Justice
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Individuals
oAdrienne Vendor
oBob Powell
oKimberly and Moo Tang; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR), consisting of comments received during the 45- day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR, was submitted with the inclusion of Findings of Fact (Findings), a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOOC) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City Council’s consideration.

For the purposes of this Resolution, the Final EIR shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the FEIR’s errata section together with the other sections of the FEIR; and WHEREAS, no evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require re-circulation; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the Project, dated May 2024, and FEIR for the Project, dated September 2024 provides an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and has been prepared in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and State regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve the Project entitlements (i.e., PP No. PLN22-0179) and certify the EIR; however, that motion failed to pass by a 2-3 vote; and WHEREAS, prior to the October 23, 2024 public hearing comment, letters were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Agencies
oCity of Perris
oSoCalGas
oRiverside County Flood Control District
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 57

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
677 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
June 17, 2026
5 2
5 2
0 Organizations
oGolden State Environmental Justice Alliance (withdrawn 11/14/24) Individuals
oSanda Powell
oFernand & Kim DeChristopher
oAdrienne Vender
oLinda Fitzgerald; and
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2024, an application to appeal Planning Commission’s decision to not approve the PP No. PLN22-0179 and not certify the EIR was submitted by the Project Applicant’s representative, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP (Appeal No. PLN24-0214); and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2024, at a legally noticed public hearing, the City Council opened the public hearing and continue the public hearing for the Project off calendar; and
WHEREAS, prior to the December 4, 2024 public hearing, comment letters were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Agencies
oCity of Perris
Individuals
oKathy Smythe
oKelly DeChristopher
oKim and Sharon Russell-Shaw
oKimberly Tang
oLinda Fitzgerald
oMichelle Stewart
oRobert Powell
oTammy Carlisle
oTeresa Lundstrom
oVirgina Vender; and
WHEREAS, prior to bringing the Project back to a public hearing, the Applicant sought to gain additional input from the surrounding community and worked to redesign the truck circulation pattern and insert additional traffic calming measures, circulation improvements, and landscape buffering to lessen impacts to the community and the City reviewed and analyzed the impacts of said changes; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, the City Council of the City of Menifee held a public hearing on the Project, considered all public testimony as well as all materials in the staff report and accompanying documents for the Project including the consideration of the FEIR, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in The Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, notices placed on the Project site, notice to property owners and non-owner residents within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, notice to all relevant agencies and to persons requesting notification; and Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 58

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
678 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
June 17, 2026
5 2
5 2
0 WHEREAS, prior to the June 17, 2026 public hearing, comment letters were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Organizations
oCollective Letter from Residents of Floyd
oAbigail A. Smith, Esq., on behalf of “People of Floyd” Individuals
oKimberly Tang; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Menifee has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of Menifee, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the City shall not approve a project that has significant effects on the environment unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effects and that the benefits of approving the project outweigh the unavoidable significant impacts, such that the impacts are acceptable based on CEQA Guideline Section 15093; and
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the CEQA Findings and SOOC attached as Exhibit “C”; and
WHEREAS, prior to recommending action on the Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives identified in the EIR, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b), the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Menifee, California resolves as follows:

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

Section 2: Certification of EIR. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the proposed Project which have been submitted to, and received by the City, the City Council certifies that the FEIR has been completed and is in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 59

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
679 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
June 17, 2026
5 2
5 2
0 Guidelines. The City Council finds that the FEIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis as lead agency under CEQA, and adopts and certifies the FEIR as complete and adequate. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project.

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

Section 4: Significant Impacts. The significant impacts of the Project under the category of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Noise have not been reduced to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project are clearly outweighed by the economic, legal, social, or technological benefits independent of any other benefits of the Project, as set forth in the Findings and SOOC.

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

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

Section 7: Mitigation Plan Approval. Although the FEIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that would result from approval of the Project, certain environmental effects can feasibly be avoided or mitigated and will be avoided or mitigated by imposition of mitigation measures included in the FEIR and the MMRP. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the City Council adopts and approves the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit "B," which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further finds that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible.

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

Section 9: Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Community Development Department of the City of Menifee, located at 29844 Haun Road, Menifee, CA 92586, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's approval is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250 et seq.) during normal business hours.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 60

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
680 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project - EIR
June 17, 2026
5 2
5 2
0 Section 10: Approval of Appeal. The City Council finds the facts presented within the public record and within the Resolution provides the basis to approve Appeal No. PLN24- 0214 overturning Planning Commission’s decision thereby certifying the EIR and approving Plot Plan No. PLN22-0179.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June 2026. _________________________
Ricky Estrada, Mayor
Attest:
______________________________
Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Jeffrey T. Melching, City Attorney
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 61

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
681 of 1562

September 2024
Final Environmental
Impact Report

MURRIETA ROAD

WAREHOUSE PROJECT
SCH NO. 2023110162
prepared for
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
prepared with the assistance of
EPD, Solutions Inc.

Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 62

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
682 of 1562

3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
www.epdsolutions.com
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 63

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
683 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Table of Contents
City of Menifee i
Final EIR
September 2024
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

2. Response to Comments ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................................................. 4-1

Tables
TABLE 2-1: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIR................................................................................................................ 2-1 TABLE 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................................................................ 4-3

Appendices

APPENDIX A REVISED NOISE REPORT

APPENDIX B REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C CADO MENIFEE LLC VS CITY OF PERRIS

APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LETTER

APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - GOLDEN STATE LETTER

APPENDIX F DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 64

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
684 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Table of Contents
City of Menifee ii
Final EIR
September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 65

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
685 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 1.0 Introduction
City of Menifee 1-1
Final EIR
September 2024

1. Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR ; Final EIR ) has been prepared in conformance with the environmental policy guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects that may result from construction and operation of the proposed Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (proposed Project).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR; Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft EIR; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, which began May 24, 2024, and ended on July 8, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency, the City of Menifee. This document and the circulated Draft EIR comprise the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.

1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR
The following chapters are contained within this document:

Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes CEQA requirements and the contents of the Final EIR.

Chapter 2, Response to Comments. This chapter provides a list of agencies and organizations who commented on the Draft EIR, as well as copies of their comment letters received during and following the public review period, and individual responses to their comments.

Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions made to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received by agencies and organizations as described in Chapter 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review.

The City of Menifee has determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The additional material clarifies existing information prepare d in the Draft EIR and does not present any new substantive information. None of this new material indicates that the project would result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Chapter 4, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The MMRP was prepared based on the mitigation measures included in this Final EIR and the Draft EIR.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 66

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
686 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 1.0 Introduction
City of Menifee 1-2
Final EIR
September 2024

1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be “ on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible … CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters . When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “ Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall n ot be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information german e to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies are being forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the F inal EIR, with copies of this Final EIR document, which conforms to the legal standards established for response to comments on the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b), lead agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the Final EIR by the public or by commenting agencies before a project is approved but is not required to do so.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 67

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
687 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-1
Final EIR
September 2024

2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals who reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) and prepare written responses. This section includes copies of all written comment letters received on the DEIR and the City of Menifee’s responses to the comment letters. Comment letters and specific comments are numbered for reference purposes which correspond with the City’s response. A summary of each numbered comment in the commenter’s letter precedes the City’s response.

The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the DEIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the Project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. Where text changes in the DEIR are warranted based on comments received, updated Project information, or other information provided by City staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment and the reader is directed to Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

These changes to the analysis contained in the DEIR represent only minor clarifications/amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the DEIR is not required.

The following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals or interested parties that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review and comment period (May 24, 2024, through July 8, 2024).

All of the comment letters received on the DEIR and responses to those comments are provided on the following pages.

Table 2-1: Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
A1 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians July 3, 2024
A2 Airport Land Use Commission May 28, 2024
A3 City of Perris July 8, 2024
A4 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources July 3, 2024 A5 Southern California Gas May 24, 2024
A6 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 24, 2024 Organizations
O1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
July 2, 2024
O2 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice July 8, 2024 O3 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance July 3, 2024 O4 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance July 5, 2024 Individuals
I1 Adrienne Vendor May 28, 2024
I2 Bob Powell May 28, 2024
I3 Kimberly and Moo Tang June 26, 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 68

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
688 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-2
Final EIR
September 2024

2.1 LETTER A1: AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS (1 PAGE)

AGUA CAl 1€N TE BAND O F CA HUIILLA INDIAN
July 03, 2024
[VIA EM.A.IT., 10:bhami.U
City ofMeJli.fee
Mr. B1,etil Hamilton
9844 Ha1!111 Road
Menifee,, CA 92 586
Re: Ar,es Ware-house DEIR
De.ar :Mr. Brett Hamilton,
ityofmeuifee.us]
The. Agua Calie.nte Band ofCahuilJa Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the 'fribal Historic Preserva.hon Office. (IHPO) m the Ares Jvhurieta Road Warehouse project We h.1.ve reviewed the documents and have file following connnents:
*Please provide a copy of the final Monitoring Report once. it is available.

Again, the. Agua Caliente. appreciates. yow-:interest in our cultural heritage. If you hav e questlons or reqwre additional information, please call me. at (760) 4 23-3485. You may also email me at ACB0 [email protected]
Cordially,
,t.-4J ~ :r-..R
Xitlaly Madrigal
Cultural Re;;;ourc.es A.nalyst
Tnllal Historic Pre;Servation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF C.1\HUILIA INDIANS
5 4 0 I D I r, .,_ ► I 5 11 o A D '1 I ~ , P L S- r ~ 1 c; s , C A e _ 2. G 4 T 71;0 1 609 GBOV r ?6l> 1 ll9~ l!!!I~~ , W'wW , /i.(:;Vf'.C/liL I Chl T C - NSit, 1.:iov A 1
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 69

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
689 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-3
Final EIR
September 2024

2.2 RESPONSE TO LETTER A1: AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Comment A1.1: This comment requests a copy of the final monitoring report for the Project and appreciates the City’s interest in cultural heritage.

Response A1.1: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. As requested, the City will coordinate regarding the future final monitoring report for the Project. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 70

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
690 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-4
Final EIR
September 2024

2.3 LETTER A2: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (1 PAGE)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 71

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
691 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-5
Final EIR
September 2024

2.4 RESPONSE TO LETTER A2: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, DATED MAY 28, 2024
Comment A2.1: This comment states that the Riverside County ALUC has reviewed the proposed Project. The comment also states that the proposed Project is located within Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area and that ALUC review is only required if the proposed Project proposes a legislative action (i.e., zone change or amendment to a SP or GP).

Response A2.1: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided . However, it should be noted that the proposed Project does not include any legislative action that would require ALUC review.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 72

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
692 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-6
Final EIR
September 2024

2.5 LETTER A3: CITY OF PERRIS (5 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 73

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
693 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-7
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 74

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
694 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-8
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 75

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
695 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-9
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 76

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
696 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-10
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 77

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
697 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-11
Final EIR
September 2024

2.6 RESPONSE TO LETTER A3: CITY OF PERRIS, DATED JULY 8, 2024 The responses provided below reference the following technical studies which have either been revised or included as appendices to the FEIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Noise and Vibration Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., Revised July 15, 2024, Appendix A.
• Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), EPD Solutions, Inc., Revised September 2024, Appendix B. • CADO Menifee LLC vs City of Perris, Superior Cour t of California of the County of Riverside, 2023, Appendix C.

Comment A3.1: This comment includes introductory statements, a brief description of the Project, and a description of the Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) planning area. The comment states that Ethanac Road is not a truck route. Furthermore, the comment states that the City of Perris expressed concerns regarding the proposed Project during the NOP period, which they believe have not been adequately addressed.

Response A3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses general concerns regarding the DEIR’s evaluation of land use, noise, and transportation. However, the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to. Thus, no further response is required or provided.

Comment A3.2: The comment states that the proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residential development in the City of Menifee due to its proximity to residential development in the City of Perris across Ethanac Road to the north of the Project site. The comment states that the GVSP area, within the City of Perris, consists of residences with some commercial development, t herefore, no industrial development in the City of Perris is allowed to utilize Ethanac Road as a truck route to avoid impacts to the sensitive receptors. The comment states that the proposed industrial development could generate truck traffic along Ethanac Road that would result in significant traffic safety impacts to existing and future residential development.

Response A3 .2: As discussed throughout the DEIR, specifically Section 5. 9 Land Use and Planning , the proposed Project is consistent with the Menifee 2013 General Plan land use designation of Economic Development Corridor (EDC), consistent with the z oning designation of EDC Northern Gateway (NG) , consistent with General Plan goals and policies , and consistent with the City of Menifee Go od Neighbor Policies. In addition, the surrounding land uses all share the same land use and zoning designation of EDC and EDC-NG. The proposed Project would comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies whic h require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. Therefore, the proposed Project would be compatible with surrounding land uses within the City of Menifee.

As described in the DEIR on page 5.12-3, Ethanac Road is classified as an Expressway according to the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Furthermore, as shown on Exhibit C-7 of the Menifee General Plan, Potential Truck Routes, Ethanac Road is designated as a truck route by the City of Menifee. As such, trucks utilizing Ethanac Road for access is appropriate. In addition, as explained by the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside: “(i) the portion of Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road and east of Goetz Road is within the ju risdictions of both the City of Menifee and City Perris; (ii) Vehicle Code section 35702 prohibits the City of Perris from unilaterally adopting an ordinance or resolution prohibiting vehicles in excess of five tons on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road wit hout consent from the City of Menifee; (iii) any ordinance or resolution adopted by the City of Perris purporting to prohibit vehicles in excess of five tons on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road without consent from the City of Menifee, including Resolution No. 6008 and Ordinance No. 1418 adopted by the City of Council of the City of Perris in June and July of Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 78

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
698 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-12
Final EIR
September 2024
2022, is unlawful and void to the extent that it affects Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road as adopted in violation of Vehicle Code section 35702. (iv) properties located to the north and south of Ethanac Road and west of Barnett Road in the City of Penis and City of Menifee, including the properties owned by Plaintiffs, may continue to have ingress and egress access pursuant to Vehicle Code section 35703 in the event that vehicles in excess of five tons are later lawfully prohibited from travelling on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road pursuant to the Vehicle Code, including, without limitation, Vehicle Code sections 35701 and 35702.” (CADO Menifee, LLC, vs City of Perris . Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case Number CVRI2203602. June 12, 2023.).

It should also be noted that a Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. The Project specific Traffic Impact Analysis, included as Appendix K of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road . The Traffic Impact Analysis determined that intersections 4, 8, 9, and 10 would improve to a satisfactory LOS, based on the City of Menifee and City of Perris LOS Standards and Significance Criteria for Traffic Studies, with the recommended improvements.

As described in Section 5.12 of the DEIR, Transportation , trucks accessing and leaving from the Project site would be routed away from roadways with significant passenger vehicle usage and trucks would be required to utilize existing City -designated truck routes to access I -215 and SR -74 and I -15, which would limi t potential safety conflicts between passenger vehicles and trucks. Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the Project.

Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts.

Also, as described in further detail in Response O 3.7 and Response A6.4 below, the DEIR provides a n evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. As described under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in non- attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

In addition, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) . The Health Risk Assessment determined that the proposed Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity or operational activity. In summary, all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation and construction related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to sensitive receptors, within the City of Menifee or the GVSP. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 79

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
699 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-13
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment A3.3: The comment states that the DEIR utilized incorrect methodology to evaluate cumulative roadway noise impacts. The comment specifically states that the DEIR should include the future plus project noise levels compared to the existing (no project) roadway noise levels instead of the Project’s increase over future noise levels.

Response A3.3: Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity.

The cumulative impact analysis and determination provided in Section 5.10, Noise , of the DEIR would no t change with the inclusion of the existing without Project noise levels compared to the opening year with Project noise levels, as detailed below. Only two impacted roadway segments would experience cumulative roadway noise impacts and both methodologies support the same determination. Therefore, the DEIR accurately disclosed cumulative offsite traffic noise levels and impacts. However, in response to this comment Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR has been revised . The following revisions (with additions in bold, double underlined text) are included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR , of the Final EIR to provide additional supporting analysis:

5.10.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area. A significant impact would result only if both the difference between existing and opening year with project (combined effects) and difference between opening year without project and opening year with project (incremental effects) thresholds have been exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise standard. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Therefore, cumulative traffic- generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the opening year cumulative traffic volumes on the roadways in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project were identified in DEIR Tables 5.10-20 and 5.10-21.

As shown, cumulative development along with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels above the threshold for those roadway segments, therefore cumulative impacts associated with traffic noise would also be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, consistent with the cumulative traffic noise impact identified by the 2013 General Plan EIR.

Additionally, Ta
ble 5.10-24 presents a summary of the cumulative and project incremental noise level increases for each of the study area roadway segments. The cumulative traffic noise analysis describes the future changes in noise levels in comparison to the existing baseline noise levels. As shown on Table 5.10-24 the overall increase in off -site traffic noise levels from the e xisting (baseline) to the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 conditions ranges from 0.5 to 17.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10-3, nine of the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant off- site traffic noise level increases due to cumulative traffic conditions. The Project increment shown in Table 5.10-24 represents the difference between the Opening Year without Project and the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 is shown to range from 0.0 to 17.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10 -3, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant noise level impacts due to the Project -related traffic. Therefore, the Project contributions to the off-site cumulative traffic noise levels are cumulatively considerable for two of the impacted roadway segments, as identified above.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 80

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
700 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2. 0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-14
Final EIR
September 2024
Figure 5.10-24: Cumulative Offsite Traffic Noise Increases ID Roadway Segment Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA CNEL) Cumulative Conditions
Cumulatively
Considerable Project
Contribution
Existing
No
Project
(a)
OY
Without
Project
(b)
OYP2
With
Project
(c)
Cumulative
Increase
(c-a)
Cumulative
Limit
Cumulative
Impact?
Project
Increment
(c-b)
Project
Limit
Project
Impact?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 48.3 48.7 65.9 17.6 1.5 Yes 17.2 1.5 Yes 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 64.9 71.4 71.4 6.5 1.5 Yes 0.0 1.5 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 68.1 68.6 70.3 2.2 1.5 Yes 1.7 1.5 Yes 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation
Dwy.

Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.8 69.7 1.5 1.5 Yes 0.9 1.5 No
5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin
Rd.

Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.7 68.7 0.5 1.5 No 0.0 1.5 No
6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 73.6 75.9 75.9 2.3 1.5 Yes 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta
Rd.

Sensitive 73.8 75.9 76.5 2.7 1.5 Yes 0.6 1.5 No
8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 74.4 78.3 79.0 4.6 1.5 Yes 0.7 1.5 No 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 74.3 78.2 79.0 4.7 1.5 Yes 0.8 1.5 No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 79.8 80.4 4.4 1.5 Yes 0.6 1.5 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024 (Appendix H).

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 81

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
701 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-15
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment A3.4: The comment states that the DEIR does not adequately defin e “Project Scenario 1” and “Project Scenario 2” within the DEIR and that these terms are only fully defined in the Traffic Analysis and that it is unclear whether these definitions are intended to be consistent throughout the document. The comment states that Lack of clarity regarding these definitions misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts associated with noise impacts.

Response A3.4: This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact. However, in response to this comment the DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, has been revised to include the full definitions of Project Scenario 1 and Project Scenario 2. The definitions are consistent throughout the document and with those provided in Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis. Revisions have been included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR and include the following:

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The proposed Project would generate traffic -related noise from operation. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. To identify the potential of traffic from the proposed Project to generate noise impacts, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix K. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.

The proposed Project includes two Project Scenarios in order to analyze the proposed provision of a traffic signal at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the first scenario (Project Scenario 1 – No Signal), only right-in, right-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the second scenario (Project Scenario 2 – With Signal), right-in, right- out, and left-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. Under Project Scenario 2, the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road would be a signalized intersection upon activation.

Comment A3.5: The comment states that the site-specific traffic study for the proposed Project is premature given the that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area. The comment states that a more comprehensive review of the entire area along Ethanac Road needs to be completed before site-specific studies can be prepared for individual projects.

Response A3.5: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation , where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non -CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Comments A3.5 through A3.19 refer to the LOS analysis disclosed within the DEIR and therefore do not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA.

It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Since the global Traffic Study for the MEDC area has not been completed, the Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road. The analysis for this Project cannot speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be identified. Additionally, it is not premature to prepare a specific traffic study for Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 82

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
702 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-16
Final EIR
September 2024
development of the site pursuant to the proposed Project. Conversely, it is beneficial as the Traffic Study for the MEDC area can include the specific trips from the Project specific Traffic Study and the related improvements; versus an estimation of what could potentially be developed on the site and potential future improvements. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic-related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. This information is available for us e in evaluating build out of future projects in the area. Additionally, fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements and into an established RBBD would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project.

Comment A3.6: This comment states that the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Project identifies roadway segments within the City of Perris jurisdiction. The comment states that the City of Perris traffic impact criteria must be utilized for all intersections identified within the Traffic Impact Analysis and that the Project would be responsible for implementing mitigation.

Response A3.6: As noted in Response A3. 5 above, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA . As described in Section 2.4 of Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR , the City of Perris LOS Standards and Traffic Criteria for Traffic Studies are as follows:

City of Perris
The City of Perris LOS Standards and Significance Criteria for Traffic Studies identifies LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions for intersections except at constrained intersections and roadway segments in close proximity to State Route (SR) 74, the Ramona-Cajalco Expressway, or at I-215 freeway ramps, where LOS E is accepted during peak hours.

As per the TIA guidelines, a project would not meet the LOS standard under the following conditions:

1. A project-related impact is considered direct and significant when a study intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing plus project conditions.

2. A project-related impact is considered direct and significant when a study intersection operates at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.

3. A cumulative impact is considered significant when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips.

Based on review of the study intersections, below are study intersections located within Caltrans right -of- way (ROW) or located entirely or a majority within the City of Perris:
• Geary St/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
• Murrieta Rd/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
• Case Rd-Barnett Rd/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
• I-215 SB Ramps/Ethanac Rd (CalTrans)
• I-215 NB Ramps/Ethanac Rd (CalTrans)
Based on review of the City of Perris significance criteria and applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris, the recommended improvements noted in Appendix K at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS, Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 83

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
703 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-17
Final EIR
September 2024
would more than offset the project-related effect, and would address the City of Perris significance criteria.

Therefore, the City’s criteria was utilized as appropriate and improvements have been included.

Comment A3.7: The comment states that the distribution and assignment of truck traffic would be using non- truck routes within the City of Perris. The comment states that no trucks are allowed along Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road, and therefore the DEIR misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts related to traffic safety and increased truck traffic.

Response A3.7: Please refer to Response A3.5. It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic-related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project.

Please refer to response A3.3. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Projec t would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.8: The comment states that the Master Plan for the MEDC will be providing roadway connections for trucks that will not impact City of Perris non- truck route roadways. This must be considered as part of the traffic study and the analysis should be revised accordingly.

Response A3.8: Please refer to Response A3.5 and A3.7 above. The DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road . The global Traffic Study for the MEDC area would analyze the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road and would include proposed improvements . Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements , including the truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. As described in Response O3.11, the implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.9: The comment states that traffic study will need to clearly identify what improvements are necessary, whether they have a direct or indirect impact from the project, and how they will be implemented and states that the City of Perris traffic criteria should be used.

Response A3.9: Please refer to Response A3.6 above. T he City of Perris significance criteria have been utilized for the applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris . The recommended improvements noted in Appendix K at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS and would more than offset the Project -related effect, pursuant to the City of Perris significance criteria.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 84

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
704 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-18
Final EIR
September 2024
Additionally,, fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements, through an established Road and Bridge Benefit District, would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the proposed Project.

Comment A3.10: The comment states that the Study Intersection #8 consists of two separate (offset) intersections (Barnett Road & Case Road) and should be analyzed separately (from a LOS and queuing standpoint), and the recommended improvements should involve realigning Barnett Road with Case Road (and other associated intersection improvements if necessary).

Response A3.10: The intersection of Barnett Road and Case Road at Ethanac Road, identified as Intersection #8 in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. Furthermore, once the Master Plan for the MEDC is completed and improvements and costs are identified for the intersection of Barnett Road and Case Road at Ethanac Road the proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share contribution into an established Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.11: The comment states that the traffic study will have to follow the latest City of Perris requirements for those intersections and roadway segments within the City of Perris. The comment states that for roadway segments and intersections in the City of Perris, the City of Perris criteria should be utilized.

Response A3.11: This comment has been previously responded to in Response A3.6 above. The recommended improvements noted in Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, at deficient roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS. Recommended improvements would more than offset the Project-related effect and would address the City of Perris roadway capacity criteria. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.12: The comment states that Intersection #8 should be shown and analyzed as two separate intersections, since they do not align with each other. The City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS for these intersections is LOS D.

Response A3.12: This comment has been previously addressed. Please refer to Responses A3.10 and A 3.7 above. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.13: The comment states that the City of Perris Planning Department will need to review and confirm the list of cumulative projects is accurate/comprehensive.

Response A3.13: Acknowledged. As specified in Section 5.11 of the DEIR, Transportation, since the proposed development is located in proximity to the boundary of the City of Perris, cumulative projects in the City of Perris were included in the cumulative analysis and within Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR. Data and information utilized to develop the list of cumulative projects within the City for Perris included a list of current development projects that are either approved or under construction as well as a list of development projects under review with the City, at the time the NOP for the proposed Project was released. These lists were accessed through the City of Perris website and included the webpages Environmental Documents for Public Review and Current Projects, and are referenced in the DEIR.

Comment A3.14: The comment states that per the City of Perris truck routes, no trucks are allowed on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 85

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
705 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-19
Final EIR
September 2024
Response A3.14: This comment has been preciously responded to. Please refer to Response A3.7 above.

This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.15: The comment states that Intersection #8 operates deficiently per City of Perris standards (i.e., LOS is the City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS). These tables need to be updated accordingly and determine whether the project directly or indirectly impacts this intersection.

Response A3.15: Tables 5.1 and 5.2 within Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis , shows the Existing Plus Project Level of Service for Project Scenario 1 and Project Scenario 2. It was noted upon further review that in Scenario 1 (No Signal), the AM peak hour would add a delay of more than 2 secs to an already existing deficiency of LOS E at Intersection #8 per City of Perris Standards. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 have been updated accordingly in Appendix B of the FEIR, revised Traffic Impact Analysis . This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.16: The comment asks for clarification as to why the LOS results are different at Intersection 8 between both scenarios.

Response A3.16: Both Table 5.5, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 1 – No Signal), and Table 5.6, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 2 – With Signal), of the Traffic Impact Analysis (DEIR Appendix K), would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour at Opening Year and at Opening Year Plus Project. However, the AM Peak Hour delay for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in the Opening Year are different, this was an error and has been updated within the revised Traffic Impact Analysis, included as Appendix B of the FEIR. The revision does not result in any changes in the analysis or determinations within Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.17: The comment states that the realignment of Barnett Avenue/Case Road at Ethanac Road needs to be considered as a recommendation for improving the Level of Service and queuing along Ethanac Road. The comment asks for clarification regarding roadway segments 2 & 5, stating that these improvements have not been identified.

Response A3.17: Please refer to Responses A3.9 and A3.10. Furthermore, as identified in Tables 5.7 and

5.8 of Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, roadway segments 2 and 5 would be overcapacity in the Opening Year without Project. The proposed Project’s fair share to these segments have been identified on page 61 of the traffic study document. Page 57 of the traffic study states that the ultimate planned configuration of Ethanac Road is that of a six -lane roadway. The roadway expansion would help reduce the delay experienced at the intersections of I-215 SB Ramps/NB Ramps and Ethanac Road.

Additionally, the proposed Project would add traffic to the already over-capacity segment of Ethanac Road between Case Road and I-215 SB Ramps and between Murrieta Road and Barnett Road. Widening Ethanac Road to its General Plan designation would result in satisfactory operations. Please note that the proposed Project would be widening the Project frontage on Murrieta Road per the City of Menifee General Plan designation.

Comment A3.18: The comment states that the traffic study does not include an analysis of queuing at the I- 215 freeway ramps. Additionally, the comment states a review of the storage lane requirements at the study area intersections is necessary, because of potential excess queuing. Furthermore, the comment states a simulation analysis should be conducted to identify any queuing deficiencies and if applicable, improvements should be identified.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 86

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
706 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-20
Final EIR
September 2024
Response A3.18: As described in Response A3.10 above, once the Master Plan for the MEDC is completed and improvements and costs are identified the proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share contribution into an established Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.19: The comment states that the proposed driveways are not analyzed with respect to truck turning templates, queuing analysis and driveway spacing requirements.

Response A3.19: As described previously, traffic congestion is no longer a significant impact for purposes of CEQA, and therefore queuing analysis are outside the scope of the EIR. Notwithstanding that further response to this comment is not required, Section 5.12 of the DEIR, Transportation, describes that sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through t he City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, truck turning, and driveway spacing requirements would be reviewed during the permitting process and the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable rules and regulations. Furthermore, there is a minimum proposed distance of 214 feet between the proposed rolling gates and property line, allowing for adequate truck queuing into the Project site. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment A3.20: The comment states that the City of Perris reserves the right to provide further comments on the proposed Project. The comment requests that future notices prepared for the Project and notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA be provided to the City of Perris.

Response A3.20: The City of Perris will be provided future notices for the proposed Project. This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the EIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted or provided.

Comment A3.21: The comment states that due to nearby sensitive uses, it is requested that property owner notification within 1,800 feet of the Project site is provided.

Comment A3.21: Comments regarding the property owner notification within 1,800 feet have been noted.

This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted or provided.

Comment A3.22:

The comment states that the City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Project and related DEIR and provides contact information.

Response A3.22: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the DEIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 87

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
707 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-21
Final EIR
September 2024

2.7 LETTER A4: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE RESOURCES (3 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 88

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
708 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-22
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 89

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
709 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-23
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 90

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
710 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-24
Final EIR
September 2024

2.8 RESPONSE TO LETTER A 4: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE RESOURCES, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Comment A4.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and a summary of the proposed Project.

Response A4.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment A 4.2: This comment lists the surrounding landfills to the Project site. The comment includes information on El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands Landfill average daily tonnages as well as their max daily permitted tonnage based on the 2023-2024 reports.

Response A4.2: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. In addition, the information provided within the DEIR in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, is consistent with the landfill information provided within the comment letter on the El Sobrante and the Badlands Landfill. The DEIR provides a conservative analysis by utilizing the peak daily disposal tonnage rather than the average daily disposal tonnage. Therefore, no revisions are required within the DEIR based on the information provided in the comment.

Comment A 4.3: This comment suggests the inclusion of two different measures to reduce the Project’s anticipated soil waste impacts and enhance compliance with SB 1383 and AB 1826.

Response A4.3: The Project would be required to comply with Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 1826.

Chapter 9.225 Waste Storage Facilities of the Menifee Development Code would also require the proposed Project to provide a covered storage area, that is accessible for truck loading shall be incorporated into each waste enclosure for collection of recyclable and organic materials, consistent with California State Law (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act, Public Resources Code Sections 42900 through 42911). As the proposed Project would be in compliance with the suggested waste reduction measures no further response is required or provided.

Comment A4.4: This comment requests that the Department of Waste Resources be notified with future transmittals pertaining to the Project. In addition, the comment provides contact information if the City has any questions on the Department of Waste Resources comment letter.

Response A4.4: The Department of Waste Resources will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 91

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
711 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-25
Final EIR
September 2024

2.9 LETTER A5: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS (2 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 92

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
712 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-26
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 93

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
713 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-27
Final EIR
September 2024

2.10 RESPONSE TO LETTER A 5: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS , DATED MAY 24, 2024
Comment A5.1: The comment states that the commenter has reviewed the Notice of Availability for the proposed Project and that SoCalGas Distribution does have facilities in the area. The comment states that the proposed Project would need to contact the specified contact information prior to any excavation or demolition activities so that SoCalGas can locate and mark out existing facilities. The comment also states that should new gas service be required; the Developer would have to contact the Builder Services group.

Response A5.1: The commentor’s statement of the existing facilities within the Project area has been noted.

Demolition would not occur within any existing facilities; however, the Project Applicant shall contact Southern California Gas Company at the time any excavation is needed locate and mark out existing facilities near the Project site. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would not include any natural gas and would not connect to any existing facilities, as stated throughout the D EIR and as conditioned through Mitigation Measure GHG- 8. This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR.

Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 94

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
714 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-28
Final EIR
September 2024

2.11 LETTER A6: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (5 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 95

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
715 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-29
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 96

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
716 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-30
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 97

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
717 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-31
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 98

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
718 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-32
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 99

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
719 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-33
Final EIR
September 2024

2.12 RESPONSE TO LETTER A 6: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, DATED JUNE 24, 2024
The responses provided below are based on the following technical memorandum included as Appendix D of this FEIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Response to Comments, Urban Crossroads, Inc., July 23, 2024, Appendix D.

Comment A6.1: This comment states that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has reviewed the DEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.

Response A6.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment A6.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project location and Project description.

Response A6.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment A6.3: This comment states that the Project site is 86.3 to 84.9 miles from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, respectively. Therefore, the comment states that the air quality analysis underestimated the emissions from trucks traveling from the Ports to the proposed Project site. The comment states that the proposed Project should utilize conservative trip lengths, such as designating 40 miles for local trips and 90 miles for Port-related trips.

Response A6.3: The comment states that the truck trip length is not appropriate given the proposed Project’s distance from the Ports of Los Angles. However, it should be noted that the analysis utilizes truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which recommends the use of a 14.2- mile trip length for class 4 -7 trucks (light -heavy-duty truck 1/2 and medium-heavy-duty truck) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (heavy-heavy duty trucks). As described in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, 1.3 percent of vehicle trips would be 2 -axle trucks, 2.5 percent would be 3 -axle trucks, 3.8 percent would be 4- axle trucks, and 10.2 percent would be 5+ axle trucks, and the remaining vehicle trips would be passenger vehicles. As such, the majority of anticipated truck trips would be from heavy-heavy duty trucks and a weighted average truck trip distance of 34.5 1 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix.

Additionally, these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter. Furthermore, it should be noted that the DEIR provides a conservative analysis of the proposed Project as the DEIR includes a development buffer in order to account for final design changes. Therefore, the DEIR utilized a conservative approach and appropriate ly analyzed vehicle trip lengths based on SCAQMD guidance. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment A6.4: The comment states that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff is primarily concerned with the cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of air toxics in the Perris Valley Commerce Center Specific Plan (PVCCSP) region. The comment states that the SCAQMD staff recommends that, at minimum, the Lead Agency perform a qualitative analysis to provide the potential cumulative impacts from air toxics in consideration by listing all surrounding past, present, and probable future projects.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 100

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
720 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-34
Final EIR
September 2024
Response A6.4: The comment states that the DEIR’s analysis does not consider cumulative impacts resulting from increased concentrations of air toxics in the region associated with cumulative projects. Specifically, the comment mentions six current or future projects identified on the City of Menifee’s Planning webpage under Planning – Environmental Documents for Public Review. A review of this webpage has identified the following industrial projects:

1. Northern Gateway Logistics Center

2. CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project

3. Freedom Business Park

4. McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses

5. Northern Gateway Commerce Center

6. Compass Northern Gateway Project
It should be noted that although SCAQMD has held several working groups aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impact s. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution 1, projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less than significant cumulative impact as well. As demonstrated in the DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and as described Response O3.5 below, the proposed Project does not exceed the SCAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million or the non-cancer risk threshold of 1.0. As such, under this guidance the proposed Project would be considered to have a less than significant health risk impact both at the individual Project and cumulative levels.

As discussed below, even if the potential health risk from the proposed Project as well as the six cumulative projects identified in the comment is evaluated, the proposed Project would still result in a less than significant cumulative health risk impact to the community.

The Northern Gateway Logistics Center is proposed to consist of approximately 398,252 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 2,700 feet east of the proposed Project site. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Health Risk Ass essment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.13 per one million.

The CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project is proposed to consist of approximately 700,037 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet west of the proposed Project site.

Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet fr om the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 1.80 per one million.

The Freedom Business Park is proposed to consist of approximately 283,746 square feet of industrial and commercial uses and is located approximately 34,000 feet or 6.43 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project

1 Accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working- group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 101

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
721 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-35
Final EIR
September 2024
site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.

The McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses Project is proposed to consist of approximately 491,393 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 10,600 feet or 2 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.

The Northern Gateway Commerce Center Project is proposed to consist of approximately 1,316,741 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet east of the proposed Project site.

Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered. Because a health risk assessment for this project is not available, the project risk has been estimated based on the cancer risk per square footage of the proposed Project and other cumulative projects identified, as these land uses are similar in nature. Based on this, the estimated cancer risk for this project was estimated at 3.45 per one million.

The Compass Northern Gateway Project is proposed to consist of approximately 461,237 square feet of warehouse space spread across three separate sites, with Project Sites 1 and 2 located approximately 2,700 feet west of the proposed Project site and Project Site 3 located approximately 2,700 feet northeast of the proposed Project. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project . Therefore, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was identified. Per the Compass Northern Gateway Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.87 in one million.

Table 2-2: Cumulative Cancer Risk
Project Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (risk per million) Proposed Project 3.04
Northern Gateway Logistics Center 0.13
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project 1.80
Northern Gateway Commerce Center 3.45
Compass Northern Gateway Project 0.87
Total Cancer Risk 9.29
The U.S. EPA rules generally consider a cancer risk of 100 in one million at the community level to be within the acceptable range, and this level is considered by many lead agencies in California as a cumulative cancer risk threshold.2
As shown above, even if the maximum cancer risk at the MEIR for each cumulative project in the vicinity of the proposed Project were totaled, the maximum risk would remain well below the EPA’s standard cumulative

2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October 2009, p. 67 (noting that “the 100 in a million excess cancer cases is also consistent wi th the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area based on the District’s recent regional modeling analysis.” Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 102

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
722 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-36
Final EIR
September 2024
cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million. Additionally, the maximum incremental cancer risk shown above for each project represents the risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor for each project, and it should be noted that each of these receptors are in different locations. As such, the total cumulative cancer risk of 9.29 in one million shown above is highly conservative, and the actual risk contributions from each Project would be less than this combined value. A quantitative analysis has been provided in this response for the cumulative impacts from air toxics in the region. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.

Comment A6.5:

The comment describes SCAQMD’s new Rule 2305 and Rule 316 that are intended to reduce regional and local emissions. The comment states that the proposed Project will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, the comment states that SC AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation.

Response A6.5: The comment erroneously refers to the Project as a 643,419 square foot warehouse, whereas earlier in the comment letter it is accurately referred to as a 517,720 square foot warehouse. The comment has been noted and the proposed Project would comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2305 and Rule 316. However, as described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact individually and cumulatively, therefore, additional P roject requirements and CEQA mitigation measures are not required (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15126.4).

Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR has been revised to include SCAQMD Rule 2305 and Rule 316 as PPP AQ-5. Revisions have been included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and have also been included within Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , as part of this FEIR. Revisions to the DEIR are shown below:

Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

PPP AQ -3: Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel -Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. The Project is required to obtain a permit from SCAQMD for the proposed diesel fire pump and would be required to comply with Rule 1470, regulating the use of diesel -fueled internal combustion engines.

PPP AQ-4: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 103

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
723 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-37
Final EIR
September 2024
any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

PPP AQ-5: Rule 2305 - Rule 2305: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 2305 and Rule 316.

Comment A6.6: This comment states that if the Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, air permits from SCAQMD will be required and the role of SCAQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The comment continues by saying that if SCAQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, the Lead Agency must consult with SCAQMD and is included in deciding on the adequacy of the CEQA Document. The comment concludes by saying that the FEIR should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring SCAQMD permits and to identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency.

Response A6.6:

As discussed in Appendix B of the DEIR and Section 5.2 , Air Quality, of the DEIR, the proposed Project was conservatively assumed to include installation of a 300-horsepower diesel-powered fire pump. For analytical purposes, it is anticipated that the emergency diesel generator would result in a maximum operating time of up to one hour per day, 1 day per week for up to 50 hours per year. Emissions associated with the stationary diesel-powered emergency fire pump was calculated using CalEEMod. Thus, use of the fire pump was included in the analysis for operational emissions. Because the emergency engine is expected to exceed a rating of 50 horsepower, it is anticipated that the emergency engine would require an SCAQMD air permit. Furthermore, SCAQMD has been identified as a responsible agency in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR and states that the proposed Project would require “ Permits to install and operate a diesel fire pump from the South Coast Air Quality Management District” (DEIR page 3-3).

Additionally, building occupants are assumed to be warehouse distribution and logistics operators and light manufacturers; however, specific tenants and uses are currently unknown. Future occupants would be processed through the City’s permitting system. Should any additional stationary equipment be required, the City of Menifee will inform SCAQMD as the responsible agency. However, at this time it is unknown what other types of equipment may be required, and as such it would be speculative to include stat ionary equipment beyond the anticipated fire pump. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.

Comment A6.7: This comment states that the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. If the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendation provided in the comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why comments are not accepted must be provided.

Response A6.7: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Written responses to comments provided throughout the public comment period will be provided at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment A6.8: This comment states that SCAQMD has received the DEIR. The comment requests all technical documents related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment files (complete files, not summaries), that were used to quantify the air quality impacts from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project be sent to SCAQMD review.

Response A6.8: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. In response to the request for information, the technical documentation was compiled, and a Dropbox link was emailed from the City to South Coast AQMD staff on June 13, 2024. Because the comment Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 104

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
724 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-38
Final EIR
September 2024
does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 105

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
725 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-39
Final EIR
September 2024

2.13 LETTER O1: ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, ON BEHALF

OF COALITION FOR CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A RESPONSIBLE
ECONOMY (5 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 106

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
726 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-40
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 107

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
727 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-41
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 108

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
728 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-42
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 109

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
729 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-43
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 110

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
730 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-44
Final EIR
September 2024

2.14 RESPONSE TO LETTER O1 : ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH &

CARDOZO, ON BEHALF OF COALITION FOR CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A RESPONSIBLE ECONOMY, DATED JULY 2, 2024, AND JULY 30, 2024.

Comment O1.1: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) requesting immediate access to any and all public records referring to or related to the proposed Project.

Response O1.1: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.

Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. On July 16, 2024, CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project or the DEIR based on review . Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O1.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project description and site location.

Response O1.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O1.3: This comment states that the request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 7920.000, et seq.) and summarizes the legal requirements behind the request.

The comment also provides contact information for correspondence.

Response O1.3: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.

Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. On July 16, 2024, CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O1.4: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) regarding the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.

Response O1.4: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O 1.5: The comment states that on July 2, 2024, CARE CA requested access to documents referenced in the DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and immediate access to any and all public records related to the Project pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

Response O1.5: Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project, or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O1.6: The comment states that on July 16, 2024, CARE contacted the City to request that the July 2 letter be withdrawn on the basis that CARE CA had the necessary information to review the Project’s DEIR.

The comment states that CARE CA is satisfied with the inf ormation found in its review of the DEIR and does not have any objections to the Project. The comment also provides contact information for correspondence.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 111

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
731 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-45
Final EIR
September 2024
Response O1.6: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.

Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 112

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
732 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-46
Final EIR
September 2024

2.15 LETTER O2: CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (3 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 113

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
733 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-47
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 114

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
734 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-48
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 115

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
735 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-49
Final EIR
September 2024

2.16 RESPONSE TO LETTER O2: CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, DATED JULY 8, 2024
Comment O2.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. The comment states that the commentor is eager to see some mitigation measures will be implemented ; however, several of the measures identified have room for improvement to provide better future-proofing of the Project site to ensure that more robust measures can be undertaken in the future as they become available.

Response O2.1: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses a general concern regarding the DEIR’s proposed GHG mitigation measures. However, the comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O2.2: The comment states that the Project will provide 20 dedicated EV charging stalls and make room for 80 additional EV-capable stations which could be upgraded at a future date. The comment states that with EV sales in the state approaching 20%, the proposed Project should provide additional stations at opening such that it can exceed and help improve adoption which is critical for helping to reduce the mobile source emissions.

Response O2.2: The comment summarizes what is already proposed by the Project in terms of including 80 electric vehicle capable stalls and 20 electric vehicle charging stations as part of the Project’s design.

However, a s stated on page 5.6 -22 of the DEIR, MM GHG -5 would require that prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Project shall be required to (1) provide twenty percent (20%) of the employee parking stalls on-site as "EV ready", with all necessary conduit installed, and (2) provide five percent (5%) of the twenty percent (20%) of the employee parking stalls on -site equipped with working Level 2 Quickcharge EV charging stations installed and operational. Therefore, the proposed Project already exceeds what is stated in the comment.

As described in DEIR Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a large majority of the GHG emissions from the Project would be generated from vehicle and truck emissions. As a part of the environmental review for the proposed Project, the City reviewed and included feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the proposed Project. However, the emissions from vehicles cannot be regulated by either the City or the Project Applicant. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measu re. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporati on of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).

The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 116

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
736 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-50
Final EIR
September 2024
electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large -scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel -powered vehicles and long charging times.

Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towa rds mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.

While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. I t is not possible to know the exact number of employee vehicles that would utilize such EV stalls, therefore the reduction in emissions from providing fur ther EV charging stations is not estimated. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O 2.3: The comment states that the plan to only have conduit installed for three heavy -duty charging stations is not enough. The comment states it would be preferable to see the installation of conduit for at least one charging station for every five dock doors to ensure that the Project is prepared for future milestones with CARB regulations that will come into effect during its life.

Response O2.3: The comment provides an assumption that three charging stations would not be enough and does not provide any evidence showing that more than three trucks would need charging at the same time on a regular basis and that additional charging stations would be needed and that they would substantively reduce additional GHG emissions. As described in Response O2.2, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures wo uld [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mit igation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).

As stated in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large-scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel-powered vehicles and long charging times. Therefore, requiring an increased number of heavy-duty charging stations would not result in effective mitigation that would substantially lessen emissions.

The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.4: The comment states that effective bike parking should be included as part of the Project and emphasizes the importance of using guidance available from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Any areas which are building out road infrastructure need to ensure that they provide the proper design for bicyclists based on the latest guidance from Caltrans.

Response O2.4: The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The comment as well as the guidance sources provided for review have been noted.

As described in Section 5.2, Transportation, of the DEIR the City’s General Plan Circulation Element identifies Murrieta Road east of the Project site as a proposed Class II bike lane. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned bike lanes or bicycle transportation, including the Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 117

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
737 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-51
Final EIR
September 2024
ultimate buildout of Murrieta Road as a Class II bike lane. The full buildout of Murrieta Road would include striping for on street bicycle lanes, which would be reviewed and approved by the City Menifee Engineering Department. Additionally, as detailed in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would include on-site long-term and short -term storage for bikes including bike racks. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O2.5: The comment also provides contact information for correspondence and thanks the City for their time and consideration.

Response O2.5: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 118

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
738 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-52
Final EIR
September 2024

2.17 LETTER O3: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE (101 PAGES)
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 119

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
739 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-53
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 120

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
740 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-54
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 121

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
741 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-55
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 122

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
742 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-56
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 123

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
743 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-57
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 124

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
744 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-58
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 125

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
745 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-59
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 126

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
746 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-60
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 127

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
747 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-61
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 128

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
748 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-62
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 129

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
749 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-63
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 130

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
750 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-64
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 131

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
751 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-65
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 132

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
752 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-66
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 133

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
753 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-67
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 134

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
754 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-68
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 135

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
755 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-69
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 136

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
756 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-70
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 137

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
757 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-71
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 138

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
758 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-72
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 139

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
759 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-73
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 140

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
760 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-74
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 141

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
761 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-75
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 142

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
762 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-76
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 143

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
763 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-77
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 144

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
764 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-78
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 145

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
765 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-79
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 146

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
766 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-80
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 147

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
767 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-81
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 148

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
768 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-82
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 149

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
769 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-83
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 150

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
770 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-84
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 151

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
771 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-85
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 152

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
772 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-86
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 153

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
773 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-87
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 154

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
774 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-88
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 155

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
775 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-89
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 156

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
776 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-90
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 157

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
777 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-91
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 158

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
778 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-92
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 159

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
779 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-93
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 160

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
780 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-94
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 161

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
781 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-95
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 162

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
782 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-96
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 163

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
783 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-97
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 164

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
784 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-98
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 165

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
785 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-99
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 166

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
786 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-100
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 167

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
787 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-101
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 168

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
788 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-102
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 169

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
789 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-103
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 170

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
790 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-104
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 171

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
791 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-105
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 172

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
792 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-106
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 173

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
793 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-107
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 174

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
794 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-108
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 175

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
795 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-109
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 176

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
796 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-110
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 177

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
797 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-111
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 178

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
798 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-112
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 179

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
799 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-113
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 180

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
800 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-114
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 181

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
801 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-115
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 182

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
802 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-116
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 183

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
803 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-117
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 184

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
804 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-118
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 185

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
805 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-119
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 186

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
806 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-120
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 187

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
807 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-121
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 188

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
808 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-122
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 189

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
809 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-123
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 190

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
810 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-124
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 191

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
811 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-125
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 192

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
812 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-126
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 193

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
813 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-127
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 194

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
814 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-128
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 195

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
815 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-129
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 196

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
816 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-130
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 197

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
817 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-131
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 198

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
818 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-132
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 199

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
819 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-133
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 200

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
820 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-134
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 201

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
821 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-135
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 202

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
822 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-136
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 203

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
823 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-137
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 204

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
824 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-138
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 205

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
825 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-139
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 206

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
826 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-140
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 207

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
827 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-141
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 208

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
828 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-142
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 209

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
829 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-143
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 210

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
830 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-144
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 211

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
831 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-145
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 212

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
832 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-146
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 213

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
833 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-147
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 214

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
834 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-148
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 215

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
835 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-149
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 216

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
836 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-150
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 217

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
837 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-151
Final EIR
September 2024
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 218

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
838 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-152
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 219

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
839 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-153
Final EIR
September 2024

2.18 RESPONSE TO LETTER O 3: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Several of the responses below are based on the following technical memorandum provided as Appendix E of this Final EIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Response to Comments (Golden State Letter), Urban Crossroads, Inc., August 1, 2024, Appendix E.

Comment O3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Additionally, it states that GSEJA requests to be notified regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings for the Project. This comment includes a project summary of the proposed Project.

Response O 3.1 GSEJA will be added to the notification list and will be notified of any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings regarding the proposed Project. The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.2: The comment states that the DEIR does not accurately describe the proposed Project. This comment expresses concern that the proposed Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger project that includes TPM No 38469 (PLN22-018), which was approved as an NOE and included multiple right-of-way areas that were proposed to be vacated. The comment states that the TPM was a necessary precedent for the proposed Project and that the DEIR must be revised to comply with CEQA Section 15161 by preparing a project EIR which analyzes this prior action.

Response O3.2: As stated in the DEIR within Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), No. 38469 (PLN22 -0180), to consolidate all the existing parcels within the site into one parcel was previously approved and was exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 through a NOE, Categorical Exemption (Class 15 – Section 15315, “Minor Land Divisions”).

However, the Final Tract Map has yet to consolidate all the existing parcels, therefore, the DEIR accurately described the Project site as currently being identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560-001 through 330 -560-040, 330-570-001 through 330 -570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-005.

Generally, courts have considered distinct activities as one CEQA project and required them to be reviewed together: (1) when the project under review is designed to provide the necessary first step toward a larger development, and (2) when development of the project under review requires or presumes completion of another activity. The TPM, in and of itself, did not include any project features or entitlements that would result in physical effects on the environment. It should also be noted that the NOE that the TPM conformed to the City’s General Plan and zoning. Further, the courts have held that piecemealing occurs when such analysis is omitted where the reviewed project has as its purpose serving as a first step toward future development, or where it legally compels or practically presumes completion of another action; conversely, “specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in a planner’s eye” need not be analyzed. At the time the TPM was being processed by the City of Menifee, no industrial development had been proposed for the Project site. The TPM was processed to accommodate a hypothetical industrial facility that was not in the planning phase or proposed. Therefore, a future industrial facility (the Project) was unknown at the time and an analysis of such would have been speculative.

Furthermore, the TPM was processed and approved by the City of Menifee on May 19, 2023. Therefore, at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review (November 7, 2023), the City of Menifee had already approved the TPM through a N otice of Exemption.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 220

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
840 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-154
Final EIR
September 2024
CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(1) states that “Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the NOP is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective”.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 describes that the existing setting constitutes the baseline conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. As the TPM was approved prior to the proposed Project being considered, the DEIR adequately discloses the environmental setting and describes the whole of the action proposed by the Project. The proposed Project did not rely on or require the completion of another activity, no piecemealing occurred, and the two actions are separate.

Further, the discretionary action for approval of the TPM was determined to have no physical impacts on the environment and would not cumulatively combine with the proposed Project to result in new or increased impacts. The TPM was adequately discussed as part of the Project Description and disclosed to the public.

The DEIR accurately analyzes all potential environmental impacts from the proposed Project and does not present unduly low environmental impacts. Conversely, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the DEIR’s analysis provides a conservative evaluation of total building square footage by considering a three percent buffer on the square footage of the building submitted to the City as part of the Project’s entitlements. Overall, the DEIR’s environmental analysis would not result in new or increased impacts from what is currently disclosed in the DEIR when considering the TPM. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of EDC, consistent with the zoning designation of EDC-NG. The TPM is not considered part of the environmental baseline, and the previously approved TPM did not result in any impacts.

Lastly, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project and are not required to be disclosed according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.3: The comment states the PD is inadequate as it does not provide entitlement history or ownership of the site. The comment describes the sites entitlement and history and states that all sections of the DEIR must be revised to note the Project site’s status as a n approved residential development and the City’s ownership of Lot 78 with reservation and dedication for parkland.

Response O3.3: Please refer to Response O3.2 above. The DEIR accurately described that the Project site is currently identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560- 001 through 330 -560-040, 330-570-001 through 330 -570-033, and 330 -571-001 through 330 -571- 005. The DEIR also adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE. Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis.

CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(3) states that “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline”. Thus, although Lot 78 may have been previously identified within Resolution No. 16- 500: Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, the DEIR is not required to include the hypothetical condition as part of the existing baseline. Furthermore, as shown in the City of Menifee Parks Master Plan, adopted July 2023, in Figure 5-2, Future and Existing Parks, Lot 78 is not identified as future parkland. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC- NG which allows for development of industrial warehouse land uses at a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.0.

Therefore, the proposed Project is an allowed land use under the Project site designations and would be consistent with the City’s development standards. Furthermore, the NOE for the TPM, approved by the City of Menifee on May 19, 2023, found that the proposed lot consolidation conformed to the City’s General Plan and zoning. Thus, the consolidation of the “ 77 lots subdivided for residential development and 1.96- acre parcel (lot 78)”, as stated by the commentor, was determined to comply with the General Plan Land Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 221

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
841 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-155
Final EIR
September 2024
use and zoning designation for the site and would not lead to any conflicts with the General Plan. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.4: The comment states that the Project Description does not provide a floor plan, detailed site plan, conceptual grading plan, written narrative, or detailed elevations. The comment states that a few figures have been edited to remove meaningful information. The comment requests that the D EIR must be revised to include an unedited floor plan, grading plan, site plan, elevations, and project narrative for public review.

Response O3.4: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact”. As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Figure 3 -8 of the DEIR provides conceptual building elevations for the proposed building and Figure 3-7 of the DEIR provides a conceptual site plan. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the Project’s final design. The proposed Project is thoroughly described within DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and includes information such as the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), grading quantities , elevations, architectural features, parking, landscaping, and more. As such, detailed plans and elevations are not required to be included in the DEIR’s Project description and a general description of the Project and conceptual plans are allowed. Additionally, the conceptual grading plan and conceptual floor plan is on file with the City of Menifee. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.5: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the Project site as exclusively residential development due to the entitlement history . Therefore, the comment states that the proposed Project was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD.

Response O3.5: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Please refer to Response O 3.3 and O3.4 above. Entitlement history is irrelevant to the description of a project under CEQA and are not included as part of the environmental baseline for analysis under CEQA.

As described in the City of Menifee General Plan and General Plan EIR, Exhibit LU-4 General Plan Future Buildout Summary is based on the theoretical buildout (dwelling units, population, nonresidential square footage, and employment) of each land use designation based on a range of allowable residential densities (expressed as units per acre) and nonresidential intensities (expressed as floor area ratio). A key assumption in understanding these projections is that they reflect a theoretical buildout of the entire City, rather than what is likely to appear on the ground over the 20-year planning cycle. Accordingly, the build-out estimates in the General Plan do not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity and instead are adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. Thus, the buildout summary identified in Exhibit LU- 4 of the General Plan is not site specific, and the Project site was not identified or analyzed within the General Plan or General Plan EIR as being developed as exclusively residential development. Therefore, the Project site was included for analysis as an employment generating use by the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD.

In addition, development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 222

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
842 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-156
Final EIR
September 2024
Furthermore, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (i)(2), “For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan .” The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. As described throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan l and use designation and the zoning designation for the Project site. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan, SCAG, and SCAQMD growth projections. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.6: This comment states that the DEIR does not include analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project to the surrounding community, such as SB 535 Disadvantage Communities. The comment states that according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 the Proposed Project’s census tract ranks in the 91 st percentile for ozone burden, the
51st percentile for particulate matter 2.5 burden, and the 74 th percentile for solid waste facility impacts.

The comment also states that the census tract consists of a diverse community that is especially vulnerable to impacts of pollution.

Response O3.6: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aestheti c significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are not considered effects on the environment (CE QA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, consistent with CEQA, the DEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice.

SB 535 established initial requirements for minimum funding levels to “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs).

The legislation also gives California EPA the responsibility for identifying those communities, stating that the designation of disadvantaged communities must be based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria .” SB 535 does not include project specific requirements or prohibit developments in proximity to the designated communities. Furthermore, CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. However, the DEIR and Response O 3.4 provide a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin. The DEIR also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality, hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project.

Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the Project area is described in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality. Table 5.2-2, Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2020 -2022, of the DEIR provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (SRA 24 Perris Valley, SRA 25 Elsinore valley, and SRA 23 Metropolitan Riverside County). Data from the air quality monitoring stations indicates that the PM

2.5 federal standard had 2 exceedances in 2020, 13 exceedances in 2021, and no exceedances in 2022 . While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in development in the Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 223

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
843 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-157
Final EIR
September 2024
South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has generally improved over the last 30 years largely due to cleaner air vehicles and fuel requirements.

As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Also, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment activities from Project construction . The results of the health risk assessment determined that at the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is 0.77 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Additionally, the non -cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.

An operational diesel mobile source health risk (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was also prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM from heavy- duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the proposed Project. The DEIR details that the results of the operational health risk assessment identified that the maximum cancer risk would be 3.02 in one million under Scenario 1 an d 3.04 in one million under Scenario 2 for the nearby residential land uses, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

Additionally, the non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01 under both scenarios, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.11 in one million.

Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. In addition, the DEIR determined that because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than ¼ mile from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents , workers, and schools from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

The DEIR also included a long -term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis which determined Project -related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would not impact nearby sensitive receptors including residences, workers, or schools. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O 3.7: This comment states that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved energy compliance modeling software. The comment states that since the DEIR did not accurately or adequately model impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made and a revised EIR with modeling in one of the three approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.

Response O3.7: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The commenter incorrectly assumes the purpose of Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs. The approved programs serve the purpose of being used under the performance approach (energy budget) method of compliance for Energy Stan dards. The programs mentioned are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 224

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
844 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-158
Final EIR
September 2024
associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Additionally, the proposed Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be verified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.8: The comment states that the Project did not analyze consistency with Exhibit LU Table LU-4 “Buildout Summary” and that industrial development within the EDC -NG analyzes a 0.40 FAR. In addition, the comment states that the EDC assumes buildout of 29 acres of residential which they claim is clearly meant for the Project site due to its entitlement history. The comment states that since the Project is inconsistent with the GP, it is also inconsistent with the RTP/SCS and AQMP.

Response O3.8: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Please refer to Response O3.2, O3.3, and O3.5 above where this comment has been previously responded to.

As described in Response O3.5, the Project site was not analyzed as exclusively residential development by the City of Menifee General Plan or General Plan EIR and was accurately analyzed as an employment generating land use. Furthermore, the build-out estimate in the General Plan (Exhibit LU-4) does not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the EDC and instead is adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of

1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5.

Therefore, a s detailed throughout the DEIR , the proposed Project is consistent with the GP l and use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC-NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build -out estimates provided in Exhibit LU -4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Buildout Scenario since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the growth generated by the proposed Project was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, and AQMP. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.9: This comment states that the EIR does not provide any meaningful evidence to support the Projects consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The comment also mentions that there are errors in modeling and states that the Project is inconsistent with Goal 5, Goal 6, and Goal 7 of Table 5. 9-1 from the DEIR.

Furthermore, the comment states that the analysis excludes the EIR’s determination that the project will result in significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impacts . The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document.

Response O3.9: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As discussed in Responses O3.37 through O3.46 below, appropriate CalEEMod defaults were utilized and there are no errors in modeling. Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR. The consistency analysis within Table 5. 9-1 of the DEIR provides justification for the Project’s consistency with each goal.

Additionally, as noted throughout the DEIR, the Project is also consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. Thus, the DEIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document. The RTP/SCS Goal Statements are regional goals and are not project -specific. The DEIR accurately analyzes consistency with these goals as the proposed Project would not impede in the regional attainment o f them. Furthermore, as stated in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , the proposed Project would also be consistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and General Plan GHG policies. However, in response to this comment Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR has been revised in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, of the FEIR as follows:

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 225

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
845 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-159
Final EIR
September 2024
Table 2-2: SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
air quality.

Consistent. While the Project would not improve air
quality and would have a significant and unavoidable
GHG emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions , it would not prevent SCAG
from implementing actions that would improve air quality within the region. Mitigation measures are specified to reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts to the
maximum extent feasible, and the Project would
incorporate various measures related to building design, landscaping, and energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy, pursuant to Title 24 CALGreen Code and
Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, a s
discussed within Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds for
criteria air pollutants.

Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. Consistent. The Project would be constructed consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use
designation/zoning classification and associated
development standards. The Project would be
constructed to current building codes, and state and
federal requirements including Green Building
Standards. The development of the Project would also
increase employment for the City and its residents.

Furthermore, a Health Risk Assessment (Appendix G)
was prepared for the proposed Project and determined
all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation-related emissions of TACs
would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds
and impacts would be less than significant.

Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern and
transportation network.

Consistent. This policy would be implemented by cities
and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the
overall planning and maintenance of the regional
transportation system. Although the proposed Project
would have a significant and unavoidable GHG
emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions , implementation of t he
proposed Project would not conflict with this goal.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would implement
all feasible mitigation measures, including MM GHG-
1 through MM GHG-8, as described within Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Comment O 3.10: The comment states that the D EIR includes consistency analysis that is erroneous and misleading to the public and decision makers regarding some of the General Plan goals and policies, and lists policies which the Project has potential to conflict with. The comment states that the Project has significant potential to conflict with many policies due to its significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.

Response O3.10: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 226

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
846 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-160
Final EIR
September 2024
to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).

Furthermore, as described in Response O3.5, the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.9 , Land Use and Planning .

Goals and Policies that are not applicable to the proposed Project, including those identified in the comment, are not included under table 5.9-2 of the DEIR as they are City initiatives or do not include project specific criteria. In addition, it should be noted that while the proposed Project results in a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG em issions, it does not equate to the proposed Project imped ing the implementation or achievement of these Goal and Policies at a regional or local level . For the purposes of this response, a consistency analysis between the proposed Project and the goals and policies listed by the comment is provided below in Table 2-2 of the FEIR.

Table 2-3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal S-7: A community that has protected its sensitive
structures, functions, and populations from the risks
associated with climate change.

Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented at a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal and is therefore not applicable.

Policy EJ-3.6: Continue to collaborate with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
California Air Resources Board (CARB), utility providers, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
and nonprofit organizations, neighborhoods groups, and
other community organizations to improve air quality,
food availability, renewable
energy systems,
sustainable land use and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs).

Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.

Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that
is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.

Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented at a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal and is therefore not applicable.

Policy OSC-10.1: Align the city's local GHG reduction
targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG
reduction target of AB 32.

Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.

Policy OSC -10.2: Align the city's long -term GHG
reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG
reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.

Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.

Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives.

Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.

Goal 10: An environmentally aware community that is
responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions
Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented on a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.

Policy OSC-10.4 Consider impacts to climate change as
a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects.

Consistent. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. As discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Analysis was prepared for the Project and found that
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would exceed the
Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 227

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
847 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-161
Final EIR
September 2024
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
recommended thresholds, thus the Project would
implement mitigation measures GHG -1 through GHG-8
to minimize impacts.

Policy C-5.13: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the
negative environmental impacts of goods movement.

Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.

Comment O3.11: This comment states that any improvements or in-lieu fees/fair share fees paid for City of Perris or Caltrans facilities are beyond the control/scope of the lead agency. The comment states that evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Perris or Caltrans has not been provided, thus a revised EIR must be prepared to include the level of service (LOS) analysis as cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold TRA-1 as well as Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold LU-2 because it is not consistent with the following General Plan Policy C-1.2.

Response O3.11: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As stated within Table 5.9-2 of the DEIR under Policy C-1.2, LOS is no longer a component of CEQA traffic analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the DEIR concerning these proposed improvements was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5 .12, Transportation, where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only .” The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA . Further, the Project’s land use impacts are based in part upon determining compliance with the City’s General Plan. The Project Applicant is proposing to improve roadways along the Project’s frontage per the City of Menifee General Plan. All roadway improvements associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. Please refer to Responses to letter A3 above for a full description regarding City of Perris roadway improvements. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.12:

The comment states that the DEIR has not utilized the best available data to calculate the project’s trip generation and must be revised to implement Fehr and Peers’ updated study of the data in WSP’s study.

Response 03.12: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Although the Fehr and Peer’s updated WSP Study has been received by the WRCOG, updates to the TUMF Fulfillment Center Rates ha ve yet to be formally adopted. According to the WRCOG Planning Directors Committee meeting on December 14, 2023, “WRCOG will initiate work on including any necessary changes to how TUMF is calculated for high cube warehouses in the TUMF Handbook based on the reduced trips observed in this analysis. These changes will be brought forth to this Committee for review when a complete update is conducted at the conclusion of the TUMF Nexus Study update process.” Therefore, the TUMF High- Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019 , is still the most up to date source for vehicle trip rate calculations and the DEIR utilized the best available data to calculate the proposed Project’s trip generation.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 228

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
848 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-162
Final EIR
September 2024
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(1) states that the environmental baseline for a project is set at the time the NOP is published. The NOP for the proposed Project was published May 24, 2024, and set the environmental baseline for the DEIR analysis. Therefore, the Fehr and Peers updated WSP study was not received by WRCOG at the time the NOP was published. Furthermore, the Scoping Agreement form, which included the use of the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019, was approved by the City of Menifee prior to the Fehr and Peer’s updated WSP Study. The DEIR utilized the most up to date WSP at the time the NOP set the environmental baseline and at the time the Scoping Agreement was approved. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.13: The comment states that any improvements recommended or fees paid to mitigate impacts for City of Perris or Caltrans facilities are beyond the control of the lead agency and evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Perris or Caltrans has not been provided.

Response O3.13: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Please refer to Response O 3.11 above. Policy C-1.2 is not applicable as Level of Service is no longer a component of CEQA traffic analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. However, Response to Comment Letter A3, specifically Response A3.6, offers a detailed response to this comment. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.14: The comment states that Appendix L, VMT Analysis, excludes the City of Menifee VMT Scoping Form and modeling input parameters and output screens generated by the RIVCOM model to support the EIR’s claims that the project will have less than significant impacts.

Response O3.14: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and relies on speculation and opinion. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR.

While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [ “the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed P roject provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

A scoping form is not required for preparation of a VMT Screening Analysis; however, a VMT Scoping Form was approved by the City of Menifee and is available upon request. Furthermore, the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study is included as Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix K of the DEIR. The VMT Analysis, Appendix L of the DEIR, provides an adequate description of the City’s guidelines and use of the RIVCOM model for preparation of the VMT analysis. The analysis is based on the requirem ents of The City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (January 2022) and was prepared by professional traffic engineers. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.15: The comment states that the Projects VMT analysis was underestimated as it did not include truck/trailer/delivery van activity. The comment concludes in saying a revised EIR must be prepared to with a revised VMT analysis to include truck/trailer/and delivery van activity.

Response O3.15: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Based on local and State guidance as well as the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT is an Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 229

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
849 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-163
Final EIR
September 2024
evaluation of passenger cars, not truck trips. The VMT analysis conducted therefore, only analyzed VMT/Employee for home-based-work trips as per the County Guidelines. This is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) which states “For the p urpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project .” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Hence the VMT analysis only includes and represents the impacts of automobile travel as a result of the proposed Project using RIVCOM and is not required to include truck trips as a part of the VMT analysis. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.16: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately analyze the Projects potential impacts regarding hazards due to a geometric design feature. The comment explains that there are areas of overlap between truck movements and an inadequate depiction of th e onsite turning radius for truck moving through the site.

Response O3.16: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As stated in Section 3.0 Project Description of the DEIR, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet.

The Project would include a 26-foot-wide fire access road throughout the site. In addition, the Project would include a 32-foot-wide private driveway along the southern boundary of the Project site.

There are no unique bends or obstacles along Murrieta Road and Geary Street. The onsite circulation design provides truck accessibility and turning ability throughout the site. Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent trucks or result in impacts from trucks accessing the site. As described in Response O3.4 above, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are conceptual plans and including specific truck/trailer turning exhibits in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination. Furthermore, the conceptual site plan accurately shows that there is 214 feet between the proposed rolling gate and property line, allowing for adequate truck queuing.

Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Project frontage improvements and site access points would b e constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross -sections in ac cordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Thus, no impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature would occur from implementati on of the proposed Project and Murrieta Road and the northernmost driveway on Geary Street would not require additional maneuvering space. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.17:

The comment states that several areas for potential conflicts between trucks/trailers and passenger cars exist throughout the Project site. The comment states that the DEIR has not provided any exhibits demonstrating that there is sufficient backup space and queuing space for trucks/trailers to utilize Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 230

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
850 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-164
Final EIR
September 2024
these spaces. The comment states a revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance due to these significant and unavoidable impacts.

Response O3.17: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As described in Response O 3.4 and O3.16 above, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are conceptual plans and including specific exhibits demonstrating that there is sufficient backup space and queuing space for trucks/trailers to utilize these spaces in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.18: The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include specific information and analysis
of any and all right-of-way vacations and/or City owned property that is involved in the proposed project.

Response O3.18: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

This comment has previously been responded to in Responses O3.2 and O3.3. The DEIR adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE. Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis . The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.19: This comment states that the DEIR relied upon erroneous Energy modeling to determine the Project would meet sustainability requirements. Specifically, the comment states that the DEIR did not model its energy consumption in compliance with Title 24.

Response 03.19: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As described in Response O3.7, the Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs are intended for the energy budget method of compliance for Energy Standards and are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental pr ofessionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Additionally, the Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be ve rified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.20: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the project site as exclusively residential development due to the entitlement history . Therefore, the comment states that the proposed Project was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD. Furthermore, the comment states that Exhibit LU -4 analyzed the site as a 0 .4 FAR whereas the Project’s FAR is higher.

Response O3.20: Please refer above to Response O3.5 and Response O3.8 for a detailed response. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 231

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
851 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-165
Final EIR
September 2024
the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC- NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build -out estimates provided in Exhibit LU-4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Buildout Scenario since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the Project itself would not resul t in employment growth above what was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, and the AQMP as it is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O 3.21: This comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis discussion to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Project in a cumulative setting, including the associated cumulative impacts of the project’s significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG impacts.

Response O3.21: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

This comment has been addressed previously, p lease refer to Response O 3.5 and O3.8. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, land use designation, and zoning designation for the site and was accurately analyzed as consistent with the RTP/SCS and AQMP.

The analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the Draft EIR effectively constitutes an analysis of the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) states that compliance with GHG -related plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. However, a s described in Section 5.6 of the DEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated GHG emissions from development and operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-8, impacts would remain significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in cumulatively considerable GHG impacts and cumulative GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the DEIR fully analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project to GHG; including the significant and unavoidable impacts due to emissions of GHGs.

Comment O3.22:

The comment states that the DEIR did not adequately analyze removing obstacles to growth, specifically the right-of-way vacations for the TPM. The comment states that the DEIR must be revised to include specific information and analysis of any and all right -of-way vacations and/or City owned property that is involved in the proposed project.

Response O3.22: Please refer to Responses O3.2 and O3.3 above. The DEIR adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE.

Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis of growth inducing impacts.

Further, as described in Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the proposed infrastructure improvements have been designed to serve only the demands of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not expand stormwater drainage services, as well as other offsite improvements, into unplanned areas and would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.23: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 232

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
852 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-166
Final EIR
September 2024
Response O3.23: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As previously discussed under Response O3.5 and O3.8, development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and its program-level EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout, but simply serve as a framework upon which future project -level environmental analyses may be based. Cumulative projects are properly included in Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR and accounted for throughout the analysis of the DEIR. All previously constructed projects (i.e., completed prior to issuance of the 2023 Notice of Preparation for the DEIR) are considered part of the environmental baseline and have therefore been accounted for as part of the existing conditions.

Growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies, such as SCAG. Although the Project would induce 652 employees within the City, the proposed industrial use is accounted for within the City of Menifee G eneral Plan, as the Project would be consistent with the planned Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use. According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast for Menifee, between 2016 and 2045, SCAG anticipates an employment increase of 15,400 additional jobs (from 13,800 to 29,200), yielding a 111 percent growth rate. SCAG also anticipates a population increase of 40,200 between 2016 and 2045 (from 89 ,600 to 129,800). The proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 652 employees conservatively, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 4.2 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. Additionally, as detailed within the DEIR, the proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0. 5 which is below the maximum FAR of 1.0 allowed by the EDC land use and related employment projections. Thus, although the Project would generate additional long-term employment in the Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City. Thus, while the Project would contribute to employment growth through the proposed development within the Project site, the projected increases in employment from the Project are within SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS increases.

Furthermore, employment growth from the Project would not induce population growth by 652 persons. As described in the Initial Study (included as Appendix A of the DEIR) and DEIR Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Menifee and the City of Perris are high (4.9 percent and 5.8 percent respectfully). Due to these levels of unemployment, employees would live in housing either already built or are planned for development in Menifee, Perris, and the surrounding Riverside County areas and the surrounding areas. Because it is anticipated that most of the future employees from implementation of the Project would already be living in the Inland Empire area, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities would not induce substantial growth in the area and cause the need for additional housing.

In addition, projects referenced by the commentor were either required to conduct their own analysis of population growth and employment or would be required to do so by CEQA prior to approval . The commenter provides no substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The Project would not result in cumulative citywide or countywide population and housing impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.24: The comment states that since the Project is analyzed as a speculative high-cube industrial warehouse and that the tenant is unknown for the proposed Project, there is no possible assurance that positions are available within the region to satisfy the anticipated workforce needs.

Response O3.24: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As detailed in the above comment, speculative refers to the tenant, not the type of activities that would be conducted. The proposed Project has been proposed as and would be developed as a new high cube industrial warehouse building. As such, the proposed Project has been consistently analyzed throughout the Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 233

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
853 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-167
Final EIR
September 2024
DEIR as a high cube industrial warehouse . Therefore, operational characteristics, including the required workforce to operate the building, have been accurately analyzed for a high cube warehouse building and the workforce required to operate the building would not change substantially due to the tenant.

Furthermore, as described in Response O 3.23 the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Menifee and the City of Perris are high (4.9 percent and 5.8 percent respectfully). Due to these levels of unemployment, it is anticipated that new employees at the Project site would already reside within commuting distance and would not generate needs for any housing.

However, the Initial Study provides further analysis, so that should the proposed Project require employees to relocate to the area for work (i.e., specialized workforce is not available in the region), there is sufficient vacant housing available within the region. Within the City of Menifee, 36,308 of 38,734 total housing units are occupied, resulting in a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent. In addition, as described above in Response O3.23, the proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 652 empl oyees conservatively, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 4.2 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the city .

Therefore, the proposed Project would be within both the anticipated employment and population growth projections for the City of Menifee. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.25: This comment states that t he DEIR does not provide an exhibit depicting which areas of the site are within the applicable Compatibility Zone for each respective Airport. The comment also states that the DEIR does not provide any analysis or information regarding regulations and requirements within influence area Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport or Zone E of the March . Therefore, the comment claims that the DEIR does not provide adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure to support its claims of consistency.

Response O3.25: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As described in Response O 3.4, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts does not require extensively detailed figures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). Thus, exhibits or graphics depicting the applicable ALUC Compatibility Zones are not required for a meaningful analysis. Furthermore, as described in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR) and Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR, the proposed Project is located over 10 miles southeast of the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base. Additionally, the entire Project site is located within Zone E and is not located in any existing noise contours for the Perris Valley Airpor t and March Air Reserve Base. Review by the Riverside County ALUC is not required for the proposed Project as the City of Menifee is consistent with the Perris Valley Airport ALUCP and March Air Reserve Base ALUCP .

Since the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Menifee land use designation for the site, the proposed Project would also be consistent with the ALUCP for both the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base.

Since the proposed Project is fully consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use designation, as analyzed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is also fully consistent with the requirements and regulations within influence Zone E for both the Perris valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base . Overall, the proposed Project would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, and the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. As described above, meaningful disclosure to support the DEIR’s impact and consistency determination was provided. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 234

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
854 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-168
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment O3.26: The comment states that the proposed Project fails to comply with the Housing Crisis Act/ Senate Bill (SB) 330/SB 8 as the Project does not provide replacement capacity for the reduced residential development as a result of the proposed Project. The comment supports this by stating the EDC land use designation has a maximum density of 24 units per acres, and therefore the Project site c an accommodate the development of up to 678 dwelling units . The comment concludes that the Project must provide 678 replacement units elsewhere in the city in accordance with SB 330 and the loss of residential capacity should be included as a finding of significance.

Response O3.26: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Please refer to Response O3 .2, O 3.3, O3.5 and O 3.7 above as this comment has been previously addressed. The commenter erroneously applies the requirements of SB 330 to the proposed Project. As discussed on page 3-13 of the DEIR, the Project site has a land use designation of EDC and zoning of EDC- NG. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning designation for the site , which allow for both industrial and residential development . Thus, there is no residential density specifically assigned to the Project site, nor would the Project remove the ability for a future residential development to occur onsite as the Project would not include a zone change.

As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65860 and is not required to upzone a different site or identify a replacement housing site pursuant to SB 330. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.27: The comment states that the Project site is located in a developed area of the City adjacent to existing roads and in close proximity to infrastructure and utilities. The comment states that Geary Street and Murrieta Road are undeveloped. Furthermore, the comment states that more than 50 percent of the land within the vicinity of the Project site is vacant, meaning that the project site is not located in a developed area of the City and is not located adjacent to existing roads.

Response O3.27: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The comment erroneously states that Murrieta Road and Geary Street are undeveloped and that the proposed Project is not located adjacent to existing roads and utilities. Murrieta Road is an existing paved roadway east of the Project site that currently provides access to Ethanac Road. Murrieta Road would be improved along the Project frontage . Geary Street is an existing dirt road way west of the Project site.

Geary Street would be improved along the Project Frontage and extended from Floyd Avenue to Ethanac Road. Therefore, both Geary Street and Murrieta Road are existing roadways that currently provide circulation, and the DEIR accurately describes the existing roads adjacent to the Project site. Furthermore, the Project site is surrounded by existing infrastructure and utilities as described in Section 3.0, Project Description.

There is an existing 27-inch diameter water line in Murrieta Road, an existing 8-inch sewer line in Murrieta Road, existing overhead utility lines are located along Murrieta Road, and existing natural gas mainlines lie within Murrieta Road.

According to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15387 "Urbanized area" means a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. A lead agency shall determine whether a particular area meets the criteria in this section either by examining the area or by referring to a map prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census which designates the area as urbanized. According to the SCAG RTP/SCS 2020 the City of Menifee had a population of 89,600 in 2016. Therefore, the Project site meets the criteria for an urbanized area and is designated as such.

This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact and no changes to the analysis are necessary.

However, in order to provide clarity on the existing setting, Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, of the DEIR on page 7-12, has been revised in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, as part of the Final EIR to state that the Project site is located within an urbanizing area rather than a developed area:

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 235

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
855 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-169
Final EIR
September 2024
The proposed Project would develop a new industrial warehouse on a vacant, previously developed site that would be consistent with the General Plan approved in 2013. The site is located in an urbanizing area a developed area of the City adjacent to existing roads and in close proximity to infrastructure and utilities.

Comment O3.28: The comment states that the DEIR does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the employees are expected to come from within the City or region . Additionally, the comment states that the DEIR does not provide evidence that the specific workforce listed is qualified for or interested in industrial work to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the comment claims that r elying on the unemployed workforce population of the surrounding region will increase project related VMT and emissions and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. The comment states that the DEIR excludes from analysis the zoning capacity of 678 units.

Response O3.28: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As elaborated above and throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area beyond what is forecasted, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

As described throughout this response to comments, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of 678 units. As elaborated in Response O3.24, the proposed Project has been proposed as and would be developed as a new high cube industrial warehouse building which does not require a specialized workforce.

As such, the proposed Project has been consistently analyzed throughout the DEIR as a high cube industrial warehouse. Therefore, operational characteristics, including the required workforce to operate the building, have been accurately analyzed for a high cube warehouse building and the workforce required to operate the building would not change substantially due to the tenant.

Furthermore, the DEIR does not rely on the unemployed workforce population of the surrounding region to support the impact determination as vacant housing is available in the region. The DEIR accurately states that there is sufficient vacant housing available within the region as the City of Menifee has a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent (DEIR page 7-2). Therefore, there would be no increase to project related VMT or emissions to account for longer worker trip distances. Although employees are expected to come from within the City and the region, further evidence is provided to support the less than significant impact determination. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.29: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the Project site with exclusively residential development, meaning that it was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City or SCAG.

Response O3.29: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Please refer to refer to Response O3.8 above. The Project site was not analyzed as exclusively residential development by the City of Menifee General Plan or General Plan EIR and was accurately analyzed as an employment generating land use by the City and SCAG. The build-out estimate in the General Plan (Exhibit LU-4) does not assume build -out at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the EDC and instead is adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC -NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build -out estimates provided in Exhibit LU -4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and SCAG employment estimates since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the employment growth generated by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 236

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
856 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-170
Final EIR
September 2024
General Plan and SCAG. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.30: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.

Response O3.30: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

This comment is a duplicate of Comment O3.23, please refer to Response O3.23 above. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.31: The comment states that the EIR must be revised to note the Project site’s status as an approved residential development and the City’s ownership of Lot 78 with reservation and dedication for parkland. The comment also states that the EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance as Project implementation will result in a direct impact to City recreation facilities.

Response O3.31: Please refer to Response O3.2 and O3.3 above. CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(3) states that “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline”. Thus, although Lot 78 may have been previously identified within Resolution No. 16 -500: Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, the DEIR is not required to include the hypothetical condition as part of the existing baseline. The Project site has never been developed as a city recreational facility and as shown in the City of Menifee Parks Master Plan, adopted July 2023, in Figure 5 -2, Future and Existing Parks, Lot 78 is not identified as future parkland. Therefore, the DEIR accurately described the Project site’s environmental baseline and no impacts to recreational facilities would occur. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.32: The comment states that the DEIR is deferring analysis by stating that development plans would be reviewed by the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to approval. The comment states that the DEIR does not provide any information regarding the proposed onsite fire pump house that is depicted on the Site Plan. The comment also states that a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project with emergency access exhibits, information regarding the proposed onsite fire pump house, and associated analysis/requirements in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

Response O3.32: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

This comment was previously addressed under Response O3.16. As detailed under Response O3.16, Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, depicts the proposed emergency vehicle access to the site. The proposed Project would provide emergency access to the site via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks.

The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveway s on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The Project would include a 26-foot-wide fire access road throughout the site. The onsite circulation design provides accessibility and turning ability throughout the site.

Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent emergency vehicle maneuverability or result in impacts from trucks or emergency vehicles accessing or circulating the Project site. Furthermore, as described in Response O3.4, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 237

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
857 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-171
Final EIR
September 2024
conceptual plans and including exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access and maneuvering in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination.

The proposed onsite conceptual circulation design provides emergency vehicle accessibility and turning ability throughout the site and does not identify potential significant environmental impacts. Should the Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff and the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable emergency access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements, as included in the City’s Municipal Code . This is not a deferral of analysis, but the City’s standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met, including emergency access.

Furthermore, the proposed onsite fire pump that is depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan has been analyzed and described throughout the DEIR , notably in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The fire pump is also identified in Section 3.0 , Project Description, and states that the proposed Project would require p ermits to install and operate a diesel fire pump from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This is not a deferral of analysis, but standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.33: The comment states that a revised DEIR must be completed that includes analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and to foster informed decision making. The comment states that the DEIR does not identify an alternative that meets the Projects objectives and eliminates all the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.

Response O3.33: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasiz es that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Additionally, an alternative is not required to meet all project objectives and eliminate all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as incorrectly stated by the Commenter.

DEIR page 8-1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this D EIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” As permitted by CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative are discussed in less detail than those of the proposed Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the proposed Project. As detailed in DEIR Section

8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning, a 30 percent Reduced Project Alternative, a 51 percent Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative were selected for further analysis. As such, the alternatives utilized by the D EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

Table 8-4 of the DEIR provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the proposed Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8-5 provides a comparison of the ability of Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 238

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
858 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-172
Final EIR
September 2024
each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed Project , to a less than significant determination. Noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.34: This comment states that SWAPE has reviewed the DEIR and states that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts and suggests that a revised EIR be prepared.

Response O3.34: This comment is introductory in nature and introduces the inadequacies of the DEIR that will be further discussed within the comment. Because the comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue no further response is required.

Comment O3.35: This comment states that the CalEEMod default data was changed for modeling of the proposed Project and that CEQA requires such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that when default values in the program are changed, output files are produced which disclose to the reader which values within the program have been changed.

Response O3.35: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. It is typical that default CalEEMod data is revised, so that the modeling accurately depicts construction and/or operation of each proposed Project. No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided.

Comment O 3.36: The comment that that CalEEMod version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate project emissions, which poses a problem as it is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files. The comment states that the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values. The comment states that the DEIR should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters.

Response O3.36: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

Please refer to Response O3.7 above. The commenter is incorrect that CalEEMod 2022.1 is a “soft release.” As indicated in the CalEEMod release notes, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was approved for full launch on 12/21/2022 and the “soft release” message was removed. As such, CalEEMod version 2022.1 is appropriate for use and the analysis is adequate as presented.

In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1, CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project -specific information when available. Thus, modifications to Ca lEEMod defaults are used when more detailed information is known about the project such as the construction timeline, the mix of equipment use, architectural coatings, and more. Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were don e in order to provide an accurate snapshot of the Project’s construction and operational details. Modifications to defaults and the explanations are noted in the output report. Pages 35 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix

3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis) identifies the user changes that were made CalEEMod. The “.JSON” files are input files, not output files. As such, all output files were included in Appendix 3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis.

No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.37: The comment states that the comment or discovered inconsistencies between the model inputs and the information within the DEIR, thus a revised DEIR must be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 239

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
859 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-173
Final EIR
September 2024
Response O3.37: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The comment does specify any specific inconsistencies with information disclosed in the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. As discussed throughout these responses and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled and analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. No fur ther response is warranted.

Comment O3.38: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files for the proposed Project demonstrates that the model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths . The comment claims that the changes to the individual construction phase lengths are unsubstantiated for two reasons.

Response O3.38: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR.

Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.39: This comment states that the DEIR does not provide a source for the individual construction phase lengths and therefore underestimates the length of construction. The comment states that the model should have proportionately altered the individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 11 months.

Response O3.39: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement a mong experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

The Project’s construction duration in CalEEMod was based on the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, as provided by the A pplicant, as specified on page 3 -33 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR, which assumes that construction is expected to begin the first quarter of 2025 and last for 11 months. The CalEEMod output files accurately define the construction schedule as starting on 10/15/24 and ending on 9/30/25. As such, the Project's construction schedule in CalEEMod is consistent with the Project Description.

This is consistent with the instructions in the CalEEMod User’s Guide that directs the user to use site -specific phasing. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, pages 33 through 35, the construction tab contains default information obtained from a survey of construction sites with a range of project types and sizes and provides default construction equipment lists and phase length data based on the total lot acreage of a project. The User’s Guide states that if the user has more detailed site -specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values.

The analysis properly relied on Project -specific construction phases that accurately reflect the required construction activities necessary for Project buildout. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 240

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
860 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-174
Final EIR
September 2024
Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.40: The comment states that the total construction duration modeled in the CalEEMod is 12 months. As a result, the construction schedule included in the model is overestimated and not consistent with the 11-month duration proposed by the DEIR. The comment states that by altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases.

Response O3.40: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. Please refer to Response O 3.39 above. It should be noted that the comment erroneously states “construction schedule begins 10/1/2024 and ends 9/30/2024, resulting in a total construction duration of 12 months”. Table 3-3 of the comment letter provides a snapshot of Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, of the DEIR, where it specifically shows construction would begin on 10/15/24, not 10/1/24. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.41: The comment states that review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates model changes to the default off -road construction equipment parameters , specifically the model assumes that all of the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Interim emissions standards. The comment states that the use of tier 4 interim emissions standards is not formally included as mitigation measures, and cannot guarantee that these standards would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.

Response O3.41: In response to this comment, Section 5.6 of the DEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, has been revised to include Tier 4 Interim construction equipment as a Project Design Feature (PDF). In compliance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. This revision has been included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, as part of the FEIR as follows:

5.6.9 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
PDF GHG-1: Tier 4 Interim Construction Equipment. In order to comply with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. Prior to grading permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project utilizes at minimum, Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment (or electric) as well as Tier 4 Interim compliant final engines. Offroad construction equipment shall be consistent with, and meet, at minimum, Tier 4 Interim standards as specified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 1039. The Project shall also be required to keep construction equipment maintenance records and data sheets, which includes equipment design specifications and equipment emission control tier classifications, as well as any other records necessary to verify compliance with items listed above.

Maintenance records shall be kept on-site and furnished to the City upon request.

The following exemption shall apply, where the Project Applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City if the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the Project Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not/would not be available. In order to meet this requirement to demonstrate that such equipment is not available, the Applicant must seek bids/proposals from contractors of large Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 241

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
861 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-175
Final EIR
September 2024
fleets, defined by the CARB as, “A fleet with a total max hp (as defined below) greater than 5,000 hp.” In the event that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available, Tier 3 equipment shall be used.

Comment O 3.42: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files include changes to the default construction architectural coating emission factor. The comment states that the model’s reductions to the architectural coating emission factors are unsubstantiated for two reasons.

Response O3.42: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.43: The comment states that the accuracy of the revised architectural coating emission factors cannot be verified based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 1113 alone.

The comment states that a s the DEIR fails to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating which would adhere to a specific VOC limit, they cannot verify the model’s revised coating emission factors.

Response O3.43: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

All Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of VOCs. SCAQMD (the CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input and outputs, as detailed in Response A6.1. SCAQMD has not found the VOC modeling in CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner.

The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate.

Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air quality expert. The intent of the Project air quality modeling is to establish a likely maximum impact scenario available to decision -makers for their consideration when evaluating the Project and its potential environmental impacts. Further, the excerpt provided in the comment identifies the square footage of the existing baseline use from the operational run and is not representative of the proposed Project. This analysis is adequate as presented.

While the limits outlined in Rule 1113 do vary, the architectural coatings that would commonly be used as part of construction for this type of project would fall into the building envelope coatings, flat/nonflat coatings, floor coatings, concrete surface retarder, roof coatings, and "default" coating categories, all of which have a limit of 50 g/L. As such, the analysis assumed a VOC content of 50 g/L for interior and exterior architectural coatings for Project construction. This is further specified in the 5.2 of the DEIR, Air Quality, as PPP-AQ-2 states the following:

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

The analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.44: The comment states that since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate.

Response O3.44: Please refer to Response O3.43 above. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.45: The comment states that the Project’s models should accurately reflect operational daily vehicle trip rates. The comment states that review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 242

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
862 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-176
Final EIR
September 2024
only includes a total of approximately 91 Saturday14 and 30 Sunday15 vehicle trips. The comment further states that the Saturday and Sunday trips are underestimated by a total of approximately 1,044 trips and 1,105 trips. As such, the comment states the trip rates input into the model are inconsistent with the information provided by the DEIR. The comment states by underestimated Saturday and Sunday operational vehicle trips, the model underestimates the Project’s mobile -source operational emissions and sho uld not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Response O3.45: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As described in Response O3.43 above, all Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of daily vehicle trip rates. SCAQMD (the CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input and outputs, as detailed in Response A6.1. SCAQMD has not found the daily vehicle trip rates modeling in CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner. The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate. Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air quality expert.

For the Saturday/Sunday trip rates, trips were calculated based on the ratio of weekday to weekend truck trips in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition. As such, this is based on actual data for similar facilities, and consistent with the data published in the DEIR Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis. This is to account for reduced operation at the facility that would occur on weekends vs. weekdays. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.46: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files show unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix, and they must be revised to show the percentages used to calculate the Project’s operational emissions.

Response O3.46: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement a mong experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

As discussed on page 49 of Appendix 3.2 of the Air Quality Analysis (Appendix B of the DEIR), trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the Project were based on the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix K of the DEIR), which identifies that the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,135 average daily trips, including 933 passenger vehicle trips, 15 two-axle truck trips, 28 three-axle truck trips, 43 four-axle truck trips, and 116 five+-axle truck trips.

Therefore, the modeling is conservative as it increases the percentage of medium duty truck trips from the default 1.73 percent to 2.5 percent and increases the percentage of heavy heavy duty (HHD) truck trips Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 243

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
863 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-177
Final EIR
September 2024
from the default of 1.76 percent to assume 10.20 percent consistent with the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed Project. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the modeling included unsubstantiated changes that may underestimate the Project’s mobile source emissions. This analysis is adequate as presented .

Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.47: This comment states that the commenter prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR, omitting the changes to operational fleet mixes and states that NOx emissions would increase by approximately 370 percent and VOC emissions would increase by 449 percent, exceeding the applicable significance threshold resulting in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR.

Response O3.47: This comment does not provide a ny substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled , analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. The modeling provided by the commenter included default operational fleet mix values that are not specific to the proposed Project as determined by the Lead Agency. In addition, the modeling provided by the commenter included additional import which does not reflect the Project grading plan. As these values do not represent the proposed Project, the increased emissions that result from them are also not applicable. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.48: This comment states that the less than significant health risk impact based on the Mobile Health Risk Assessment in Appendix D to the DEIR is incorrect based off two reasons.

Response O3.48: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O3.49: This comment states that the first reason the Health Risk Assessment is flawed is that it relies upon a flawed air model based on the comments mentioned above (in Comments O 3.37 through O3.46) and thus should not be relied upon.

Response O3.49: Refer to Response O3.37 through O3.46. As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled and analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. No further response is warranted.

Comment O3.50: This comment states that the DEIR underestimates the exposure assumptions for fraction of time at home.

Response O3.50: As detailed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the HRA that was completed for the proposed Project provides the appropriate conservative analysis pursuant to SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology. Per OEHHA methodology, the HRA included refinements to identify potential effects to smaller human body weights and breathing rates to asses s risk to children, which was done as detailed in the methodology provided on page 19 and 20 of the HRA (Appendix G of the DEIR). In addition, the HRA provides a conservative analysis by evaluating the closest receptors with the maximum potential emissions and continuous exposure (24 -hours per day). Thus, stringent significance thresholds and methodology that is consistent with resource agency direction was utilized in the DEIR to determine potential impacts to residents and school children, which determined that impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. The thresholds utilized were based on the City’s discretion (as Lead Agency) and are supported by substantial evidence from SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 244

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
864 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-178
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment O3.51: This comment states that an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. The comment states that while the DEIR implements MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-8, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures.

Response O 3.51: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify any feasible mitigation measures. Please refer to Response O3.52 below, t he DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis , of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.

While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Comment O 3.52: This comment states that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures related to the Projects significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions and provides a list of mitigation measures from the CA Department of Justice (DOJ) and CARB. Additionally , the comment also states that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures related to VOC emissions and NOx emissions and provides a list of mitigation measures found in the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS Program EIR and the Department of Justice that incorporate feasible ways to include lower -emitting design features into the Project.

Response O3.52: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.

As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the proposed Project was properly modeled and analyzed as part of the DEIR and the proposed Project would not result in significant air quality or health risk impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts related to VOC, NOx, or any other criteria pollutant would not occur and there is no nexus related to the inclusion of mitigation for VOC or NOx. No mitigation is required.

GHG impacts would remain significant despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. The commenter provides a list of various suggested mitigation measures, many of which are already included in the DEIR and would be implemented by the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure.

CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 245

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
865 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-179
Final EIR
September 2024
The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large -scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel -powered vehicles and long charging times.

Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.

While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the D EIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required.

Comment O3.53: This comment states that the commenter has received limited discovery regarding the Project, additional information may become available in the future; and the commentor retains the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available.

Response O3.53: This comment is advisory in nature and discloses that the commenter has the right to revise the report as additional information becomes available. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 246

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
866 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-180
Final EIR
September 2024

2.19 LETTER O4: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE (1 PAGE)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 247

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
867 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-181
Final EIR
September 2024

2.20 RESPONSE TO LETTER O 4: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED JULY 5, 2024
Comment O4.1: This comment states that Golden State Justice Alliance would like to be added to the notification list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for the Project. The comment included eight email addresses and one mailing address.

Response O4.1: Golden State Justice Alliance will be added to the notification list and provided future notices for the proposed Project and Hearings. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 248

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
868 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-182
Final EIR
September 2024

2.21 LETTER I1: ADRIENNE VENDOR (1 PAGE)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 249

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
869 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-183
Final EIR
September 2024

2.22 RESPONSE TO LETTER I 1: ADRIENNE VENDOR , DATED MAY 27, 2024
Comment I1.1: This comment states that the residents on Floyd Avenue and Mclaughlin held a meeting and delivered a follow up letter to the City. The comment further states that the neighbors have not received any information on the Project in seven months and nearby residences have viewed trucks on the property preparing to put in sewer lines. The comment concludes in asking about the Menifee Good Neighbor Policy.

Response I1.1: The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. On May 24, 2024, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. The NOA contained information regarding the DEIR document related to the Project as well as information on where to obtain the document and how to comment on the Project. Prior to the NOA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was mailed to property owners within the 500 - foot radius of the Project site on November 7, 2023, giving notice that a DEIR was being prepared for the proposed Project. The NOP similarly provided details for how the public could comment on the proposed Project as well as notified residents of the Scoping Meeting on November 28, 2023, which provided another opportunity for residents to hear about the Project as well as comment on the proposed Project. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit early comments from public agencies with expertise in subjects that are discussed in the DEIR and to solicit comments from the public regarding potential Project environmental impacts. In addition, construction activities would not begin on the Pro ject site until after approval of the Project and Certification of the FEIR document. Any construction activity near the site that is currently ongoing is not associated with the proposed Project. The Project’s consistency with the City of Menifee’s Good Neighbor Policies are shown in Table 5.9-3 of the DEIR. Thus, no further response is warranted.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 250

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
870 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-184
Final EIR
September 2024

2.23 LETTER I2: BOB POWELL (1 PAGE)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 251

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
871 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-185
Final EIR
September 2024

2.24 RESPONSE TO LETTER I2: BOB POWELL, DATED MAY 28, 2024 Comment I2.1: This Comment states that the commenter has concerns regarding noise, traffic, flooding, and air pollution in the Project area. The comment also states that they live on a dirt road which is maintained by residents on Floyd Avenue and suggests that a dead end at Floyd Avenue and the east side of Geary Road to help with traffic congestion.

Response I2.1: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Impacts related to noise, traffic, flooding, an d air pollution are discussed in Section 5.10, 5,12, 5.8, and 5.2 of the DEIR, respectively. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.2, Air Quality, impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with PPP AQ-1 through PPP AQ-4, including compliance with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District . As described in the DEIR within Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality , impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and would be required to prepare a WQMP that shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.10, Noise, the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts due to offsite traffic noise increases, and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.12, Transportation, impacts would be less than significant.

No improvements are proposed on Floyd Avenue and no extension of Floyd Avenue beyond what is existing in proposed. Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road , including through the intersection with Floyd Avenue . Trucks accessing the site via the driveways on Geary Street and Murrieta Road Ethanac Road north of the Project site, no vehicles related to the proposed Project would utilize Floyd Avenue.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 252

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
872 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-186
Final EIR
September 2024

2.25 LETTER I3: KIMBERLY AND MOO TANG (2 PAGES)

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 253

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
873 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-187
Final EIR
September 2024

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 254

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
874 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-188
Final EIR
September 2024

2.26 RESPONSE TO LETTER I3: KIMBERLY AND MOO TANG, DATED JUNE 26, 2024
Comment I3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the Project will be located along the commenters back side of their property.

Response I3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.

Comment I3.2: This comment states that the commenter reached out to the city previously regarding the Project and was not made aware of the improvement related to Geary Street . The comment expresses concern for safety at the intersection of Floyd Avenue and Geary Street due to the increase in trucks accessing the site via Geary Street.

Response I3.2: As discussed in Section 5.12, Transportation , of the DEIR, the Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road. This portion of the roadway improvement not abutting the Project site boundary would include paving at a width of 36 -feet and would not include the construction of sidewalks or curbs. All road improvements would be subject to a street improvement plan review by the City, which would ensure that road improvements are design and constructed according to City standards. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound. Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound. All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access to the northern driveway, while access t o the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northboun d for the other driveways . Truck circulation would not access the site via Ethanac Road southbound on Geary Street. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.

Comment I3.3: This comment states that they would like noise and air quality issues addressed due to the proximity of the warehouse and the truck routes to the nearby residences. The comment further states that the additional noise and unhealthy air quality impacts imposed from the Project should mitigated thoroughly.

Response I3.3: Impacts related to air quality and noise are discussed in Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR. Impacts related to regional air quality as well as for localized significance thresholds were found to be less than significant with the implementation of SCAQMD rules and guidelines. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment was also conducted and included as Appendix G to the DEIR found that cancer and non-cancer health risks would be below thresholds through both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR and found that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI-1 and PPP NOI-2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant, however noise generated from offsite traffic would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Geary Road. Section 5.10 of the DEIR explores potential mitigation measures such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt and came to the conclusion that these measures are not feasible to reduce impacts, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. T he commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 255

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
875 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-189
Final EIR
September 2024
actually or substantially reduce the Project’s noise and air quality impacts. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one cour t: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigat ion measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.). As disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR discusses all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s noise impacts and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.

Comment I3.5: This comment further states that while there is a proposed retaining wall along the northern property line, residences along Floyd Avenue are still greatly exposed to potential air and noise impacts from trucks utilizing Geary Street.

Response I3.5: Please see Response L3.4 above. Impacts related to regional air quality as well as for localized significance thresholds were found to be less than significant with the implementation of SCAQMD rules and guidelines. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment was also conducted and included as Appendix G to the DEIR found that cancer and non-cancer health risks would be below thresholds through both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR and found that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI -1 and 2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation o f the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant, however noise generated from offsite traffic would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Geary Road. Section

5.10 of the DEIR explores potential mitigation measures such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt and came to the conclusion that these measures are not feasible to reduce impacts, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s noise and air quality impacts.

Comment I3.6: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately analyze the impacts from the proposed Project on the residences on Floyd Avenue and the improvement along Geary Street.

Response I3.6: As discussed in Section 5.12, Transportation , of the DEIR, the Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road. This portion of the roadway improvement not abutting the Project site boundary would include paving at a width of 36 -feet and would not include the construction of sidewalks or curbs. All road improvements would be subject to a street improvement plan review by the City, which would ensure that road improvements are design and constructed according to City standards. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound. Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound. All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2 -axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other dri veways. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 256

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
876 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-190
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment I3.7: This comment expresses concern for the longer wait times at the entrance of Floyd Avenue on Murrieta Road due to the increase in traffic from trucks and workers accessing the site.

Response I3.7: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation , where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Furthermore, it should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project spec ific traffic - related impacts and cumulative traffic -related impacts. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.

Comment I3.8: This comment states that the greatest concern for the commenter is the Project size and the use of Geary Street to operate “off -site.” The commenter further states that the Project is poorly cited for its proposed warehouses use and should be downsized to only operate within the Project site or to buy the nearby residences out of their property.

Response I3.8: The commenter incorrectly states that the Project proposes “off-site” operational activity on Geary Street. Geary Street would be improved and paved which would result in construction activities and would be utilized for outbound truck circulation exiting the Project site northbound. Once operational, trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound.

Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound.

All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other driveways. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.

Comment I3.9: This comment concludes the letter by stating that the negative impact on the commenters’ daily lives should be taken into consideration.

Response I3.9: This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.

Item Title: 11.2

Appeal of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Item Page Number: 257

Menifee Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026
Page
877 of 1562

Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 1
Final EIR
September 2024
Revisions to the Draft EIR
This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The revisions do not alter any of the significance conclusions that were previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold double underlined text (i.e., bold double underlined) to signify additions. These changes are meant to provide clarification, corrections, or minor revisions made to the Draft EIR initiated by the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, and reviewing agencies, the public, and/or consultants based on their review. Text changes are presented in the section and page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR. None of the corrections or additions constitute significant new information or substantial project changes that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR.

3.1 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS AND CITY

CHANGES TO TEXT
The following text, organized by Draft EIR Sections, has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and corrections identified by the City.

Section 1.0, Executive Summary