Date: May 18, 2026
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning Sam Kelley, Assistant Environmental Planner
Prepared for: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject: Comment Letter on the FEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)
Dear Mr. Fowler,
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088) .
When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c) (“Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.”)). Although a lead agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1110 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens)).
The People of Floyd Avenue comment letter, dated April 17 , 2026, was received by the City of Menifee (Lead Agency) after the public comment period for the DEIR ended on July 8, 2024. However, the City of Menifee has elected to prepare the following written responses with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the Project. The number desi gnations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions in the comment letter. EPD Solutions, Inc. has reviewed the letter and provided responses for the City Council’s consideration in review of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.
As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate 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 as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the DEIR and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) are not fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature.
Respectfully,
Konnie Dobreva
VP of Environmental Planning
EPD Solutions, Inc.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS WORK COMPLETED
Summary of Previous Response to Comments
Many of the comments raised in the People of Floyd Avenue comment letter have been previously addressed in prior response letters. Where applicable, the responses below incorporate and rely on those prior responses, as identified in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1, Comments Received on the DEIR , identifies the 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 comment letters received on the DEIR, and the corresponding responses, are included in the FEIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments.
Table 1: Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
A1 City of Perris (14 comments) received October 23, 2024. 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
In addition to the comments submitted on the DEIR during the public review and comment period, Table 2 , Comments Received on the FEIR, identifies late comment letters received outside of the formal comment period, including comments on the FEIR. All such comment letters, and the corresponding responses, are included in the Staff Reports and administrative record for the Planning Commission hearing on October 23, 2024, and the City Council hearing on December 4, 2024.
Table 2: Comments Received on the FEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
Late City of Perris October 23, 2024
Late City of Perris December 4, 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
3 Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Organizations
Late Advocates for the Environment July 15, 2024
Late Golen State Environmental Justice October 16, 2024 Late Floyd Avenue Residents January 30, 2025
Summary of the Interim Traffic Scenario
The applicant for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project has proposed an Interim Traffic Scenario in response to coordination with members of the surrounding community following the City Council hearing held on December 4, 2024, and the Community Meeting held on April 17, 2025 . Concerns were raised regarding truck traffic circulation along Geary Street at full buildout, particularly related to safety and potential cut- through traffic effects within the adjacent residential neighborhood. To address these concerns in the near term, the applicant has proposed an interim condition under which the Geary Street connection to Ethanac Road would not be constructed. Under this interim condition , Project traffic would instead be routed alon g the Project’s frontage to Murrieta Road, as described in further detail below.
A CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162), was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated March 4, 2026. The purpose of the memorandum is to evaluate whether the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario would result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, thereby requiring revisions to the DEIR, or recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA. In addition, th e memorandum evaluates whether the D EIR, together with the F EIR and supplemental technical analyses, adequately and comprehensively analyzes the Project as proposed, inclusive of the Interim Traffic Scenario, consistent with CEQA.
As explained in further detail within the CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project, a new interim traffic scenario has been proposed. Under this scenario, Geary Street would not be improved north of the Project site to Ethanac Road and Project traffic would no longer utilize Geary Street north of the site for connection to Ethanac Road. Under the Interim Traffic Scenario both passenger vehicles and trucks would utilize Ethanac Road southbound to Murrieta Road for all inbound movements and Murrieta Road northbound to Ethanac Road for all outbound movements. Specifically, outbound truck traffic would travel southbound on Geary Street to access the new private truck -only driveway along the southern portion of the site, then proceed northbound on Murrieta Road to Ethanac Road for final egress. Specifically, outbound truck traffic would travel southbound on Geary Street to access the new private truck- only driveway along the southern boundary of the site, then proceed northbound on Murrieta Road to Ethanac Road for final egress. Importantly, there is no change in the total trip generation, only redistribution of trips within the existing study area roadway network. The Interim Traffic Scenario does not increase total trip generation and is consistent with the total trip generation analyzed in the D EIR; therefore, the environmental baseline and analytical assumptions remain valid.
A Supplemental Traffic Assessment, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated September 2, 2025, confirms that study intersections, roadway segments, and cumulative conditions were re -evaluated under the Interim Traffic Scenario using consistent methodologies and significance thresholds as applied in the DEIR. The results demonstrate that the redistribution of trips does not create new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts.
Furthermore, a Supplemental Noise Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated January 27, 2026, applied the same modeling assumptions, traffic volumes, and significance thresholds used in the DEIR. The results demonstrate that while certain impacts remain significant and unavoidable as prev iously disclosed, Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
4 no new roadway segment would experience a significant increase in traffic noise as a result of the redistributed traffic pattern, and no previously identified impact would substantially increase in severity. The supplemental analysis concluded that the Int erim Traffic Scenario does not result in new significant off -site traffic noise impacts and does not increase the severity of previously identified impacts along Murrieta Road south of Ethanac Road or Ethanac Road east of Murrieta Road. Under the Interim T raffic Scenario, the previously identified significant and unavoidable impact along Geary Street south of Ethanac Road would be reduced to less -than-significant level. Off -site traffic noise impacts along Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the findings of the DEIR. In addition, the impacts previously identified in the DEIR associated with the ultimate buildout of Geary Street would remain unchanged.
As discussed above, the total trip volumes remain unchanged and the construction and operational characteristics are identical to those analyzed in the D EIR. Therefore, impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and all other resource areas evaluated in the EIR remain unchanged.
Buildout of Geary Street north of the Project site to Ethanac Road would still occur in the ultimate condition, and impacts associated with the ultimate buildout have been fully evaluated in the D EIR. Accordingly, no new air quality or GHG impacts are created, and no revisions to the prior environmental analysis are required.
As described above, the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario does not alter the proposed Project’s characteristics or design and does not result in new or increased environmental impacts compared to those analyzed in the D EIR. The Supplemental Traffic and Noise Assessments demonstrate that impacts would remain consistent with, or in certain instances be less than, those previously evaluated.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
5 LETTER 1: PEOPLE OF FLOYD AVENUE (25 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
6 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 7 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 8 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 9 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 10 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 11 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 12 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 13 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 14 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 15 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 16 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 17 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 18 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 19 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 20 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 21 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 22 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 23 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 24 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 25 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 26 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 27 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 28 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 29 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments 30 RESPONSE TO LETTER 1: PEOPLE OF FLOYD AVENUE , DATED APRIL 17, 2026
As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed public review period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Many of the comments raised in the People of Floyd Avenue comment letter have been previously addressed in prior response letters. Where applicable, the responses below incorporate and rely on those prior responses, as identified in Tables 1 and 2 above. In addition, an Interim Traffic Scenario has been proposed and evaluated in the memorandum titled CEQA Memorandum Evaluating an Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162) , prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated Mar ch 4, 2026, and is referenced herein.
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110162), prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated May 2024.
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023110162), prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated September 2024.
• CEQA Memorandum Evaluating the Interim Traffic Scenario for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162), prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., dated March 4, 2026.
Comment 1.1: This comment explains the commenter represents the People of Floyd and states they will provide comments on the Project and DEIR. The commenter notes the City’s Planning Commission voted to deny the Project in October 2024 and expressed concerns regarding land use compatibility and the amount of warehouse and distribution facilities being developed. The commenter also explains the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council and on December 4, 2024, the City Council voted to continue the item.
Response 1.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR . Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 1.2: The comment explains the proposed warehouse would be within 25 feet of existing single- family homes along Floyd Street and that the dock doors and truck trailer parking spaces proposed on the northern side would result in adverse, long-term impacts such as around-the-clock noise, harmful air emissions and nighttime lighting.
Response 1.2: The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential uses located approximately 47 feet north of the Project site, measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas, as shown in DEIR Figure
5.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations , and DEIR Figure 5.10 -3, Sensitive Receptor Locations . As part of the environmental analysis, operational activities associated with the Project were specifically identified and incorporated into the technical studies and modeling assumptions used to evaluate impacts. This includes truck court activity, truck circulation within drive aisles, loading and unloading at dock doors, parking, maneuvering, backing movements (including backup alarms), nighttime lighting and headlights, and other associated on-site operational activit y. The DEIR documents these operatio nal sources in multiple sections, including Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 5.2-3, Onsite Operational Emissions Sources , and Figure
5.10-5, Operational Noise Sources, which identify the locations and nature of the modeled emissions, lighting, and noise -generating activities. The corresponding analyses evaluate these activities under conservative assumptions in order to disclose potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, as described in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the Project analyzed the introduction of new sources of light from Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
31 new building security lighting, streetlights within the Project area, interior lights shining through building windows, and specifically, headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated from the Project. These operational characteristics were not omitted from the analysis but rather were expressly considered as part of the Project’s impact assessment.
As discussed in prior Response to Comment documents identified in Tables 1 and 2 above, these issues have been addressed in detail and are further clarified in Response 1 .9 below. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 1.3: The comment urges the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and that the EIR be revised and incorporate additional mitigation measures consistent with public commentary.
Response 1.3: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses general concerns regarding the DEIR.
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 F EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issu es addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts do es 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 adequacy of an EIR is evaluated based on its completeness and good faith effort at full disclosure, not perfection. 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 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 1.4: The commenter asserts that the Project’s dock doors, trailer parking, and truck circulation on both the north and south sides of the building exposes nearby residences to operational impacts and contends that this design prioritizes operational capabilities at the expense of resident’s health and quality of life .
The commenter requests that alternative site designs be evaluated to reduce impacts and recommends consideration of alternatives consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 98 as feasible mitigation or alternatives under CEQA.
Response 1.4: Please refer to Response 0.39, Response 0.40, and Response 1.3 from the City of Perris Letter dated December 4, 2024. As acknowledged by the commentor, AB 98 is not applicable to the Project.
Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) introduced Government [BHFS1] Code section 65098 including Section 65098.1.5(a)(3), which states, “notwithstanding any other provision of law, if, by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this chapter.” Furthermore, Senate Bill 415 (SB 415) amended Government Code Section 65098.1.5(a)(3), to read as “notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in Section 65098.1.6, if by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use development, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
32 chapter,” and added Section 65098.1.6(a) which specifies, “notwithstanding any other law, this chapter shall not apply to any logistics use development that was subject to a local entitlement process that began before September 30, 2024.” The proposed Project entered the local entitlement process with the City of Menifee prior to September 30, 2024. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65098.1.5(a)(3) and 65098.1.6(a), the requirements established by AB 98 do not apply to the proposed Project and are not required to be evaluated as mitigation measures or alternatives under CEQA.
As described in DEIR Section 5.12, Land Use , including Table 5.9 -3, Good Neighbor Guidelines Consistency Analysis, the Project has been designed to be fully consistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies. These policies are intended to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect public health, safety, and welfare through regulation of the design, location , and operation of warehouse, logistics, and distribution facilities, and preserve the neighborhood character of adjacent communities. The Project would also comply with applicable environmental policies, laws, ordinances, and regulations, as well as required fees and measures to reduce impacts where appropriate. In addition, the Project provides an adequate buffer to the nearest residential uses and is consistent with the applicable zoning and land use designations for the site. A comprehensive analysis of the Project’s consistency with relevant Menifee General Plan goals and policies is provided in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
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 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).
The Project’s potential impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, including residences, are fully disclosed and analyzed throughout the DEIR, including in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Noise, and Transportation sections. As summarized in DEIR Section 1.0, Executive Summary, air quality impacts would be less than significant, greenhouse gas impacts would be significant and unavoidable, noise impacts would be less than significant with the exception of offsite traffic noise, which would be significant and unavoidable, and transportation-related safety impacts would be less than significant. With respect to sensitive receptors specifically, DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality , concludes that localized significance threshold (LST) impacts and health risks would be less than significant based on applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds, including regional and localized criteria pollutant thresholds and c ancer risk thresholds. A Construction and Operational Health Risk Assessment, included in DEIR Appendix B, determined that health risks to nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Furthermore, as shown in DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, Table 5.10-3, Significance Criteria Summary, the Project was evaluated using the applicable thresholds for noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors.
In addition, Project alternatives have been fully evaluated within DEIR Section 8.0, Alternatives. CEQA does not require the EIR to analyze every conceivable alternative, nor does it require that all alternatives meet all project objectives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). 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 thos e alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
33 to a project. The comment does not identify any substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further changes to the DEIR are warranted.
Comment 1.5: The commenter states that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Policy OCS 9 -2 because it does not buffer sensitive land uses due to only 25 feet between the Project’s truck court and adjacent residences. The comment explains that policies from the City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies should apply and that the Project directly conflicts with these standards. The commenter also states that Geary Street is a residential street and should not be used for truck traffic.
Response 1.5: Please refer to Response 1.4 above. The Project has been designed in conformance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies, applicable General Plan policies, and the relevant zoning and land use designations and standards. A comprehensive table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, together with the Project’s consistency analysis, is provided in DEIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
In addition, as demonstrated in DEIR Table 5.9-3, Good Neighbor Guidelines Consistency Analysis, the Project has been designed to be fully consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies. These standards specifically address site design, setbacks, landscaping, and operational separation from sensitive receptors. The Project’s design incorporates the required setbacks and buffering measures, thereby providing adequate separation from nearby residential uses.
Relevant Good Neighbor Policies and Standards related to buffering and setbacks include the following, all of which the Project is consistent with:
• Buildings shall be set back a minimum of one foot for every one foot of building height, but no less than 25 feet, when adjacent to a sensitive receptor.
• Dock high doors shall be a minimum of 250 feet from the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors. • Front setbacks shall include a minimum 25 -foot landscape planter. For property lines adjacent to a sensitive receptor, side setbacks shall include a minimum 10-foot landscape planter, and rear setbacks shall include a minimum 5-foot landscape planter.
Regarding the commenter’s concerns about the use of Geary Street, as described above, under the proposed Interim Traffic Scenario, the Geary Street connection to Ethanac Road would not be constructed. Under this interim condition, Project traffic would instead be routed along the Project frontage to Murrieta Road. The Interim Traffic Scenario does not alter the fundamental characteristics or design of the proposed Project and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the D EIR.
Supplemental traffic and noise assessments prepared for the Interim Traffic Scenario demonstrate that impacts would remain consistent with, and in some instances less than, those previously disclosed in the EIR.
The comment does not identify any substantial information or evidence requiring revisions t o the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.6: The commenter emphasizes that the Project’s design does not comply with the City’s Industrial Design Standards because the 25-foot separation is not an appropriate buffer.
Response 1.6: Please refer to Responses 1.4 and 1.5 above. The City’s Industrial Design Standards include the following standards for setbacks and buffers:
• Buildings shall be set back a minimum of one foot for every one foot of building height, but no less than 25 feet, when adjacent to a sensitive receptor.
• Dock high doors shall be a minimum of 250 feet from the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
34 • Front setbacks shall include a minimum 25 -foot landscape planter. For property lines adjacent to a sensitive receptor, side setbacks shall include a minimum 10-foot landscape planter, and rear setbacks shall include a minimum 5-foot landscape planter.
As described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project provides a building setback of approximately 205 feet from the northern property line, which is adjacent to sensitive receptors. With a proposed building height of 55 feet at the parapet, the City’s Industrial Design Standards require a minimum setback of 55 feet; therefore, the Project exceeds this requirement by a substantial margin. In addition, loading dock doors are set back approximately 265 feet from the northern property line, which exceeds the 250-foot setback standard. The Project also includes a 25-foot landscaped setback between the screen wall and the residences to the north, which would effectively screen the truck court and loading areas, consistent with the City’s Industrial Design Standards.
Accordingly, the Project is consistent with applicable design standards, and the comment does not identify any new substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 1.7: The commenter states that access would be provided via multiple driveways on Geary Street and Murrieta Road, resulting in daily interaction between residents and heavy -duty truck traffic. The commenter cites the EIR’s traffic analysis, noting an estimated 1,135 daily vehicle trips (or 1,489 passenger car equivalent trips) and asserts that most traffic, including 100 percent of inbound truck trips, would travel via Murrieta Road. The commenter also expresses concern regarding 24 -hour Project operations and resulting traffic noise impacts on nearby residences. Additionally, the commenter notes the lack of nearby public transit and argues that the absence of transit access exacerbates vehicle dependency and project incompatibility with the site.
Response 1.7: Please refer to Response 1.5 above. The comment does not identify a deficiency in the DEIR but instead reiterates concerns regarding Project operations and circulation that have already been evaluated and disclosed within the DEIR and thoroughly responded to within the FEIR.
The DEIR includes a comprehensive transportation analysis of Project -generated traffic. That analysis evaluated truck routing and site access, including circulation via Geary Street and Murrieta Road, as part of the Project’s operational characteristics. I n addition, as referenced in Response 1.5, a supplemental memorandum was prepared to evaluate the Interim Traffic Scenario, including analysis of truck routing under those conditions. With respect to potential conflicts between truck and passenger vehicle traffic at Project driveways, the DEIR specifically evaluates site access and circulation design features intended to manage vehicle interactions in a controlled manner. As described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project provides five total driveways, including three along Murrieta Road and two along Geary Street, which are designed to distribute site traffic and separate inbound and outbound movements by direction and vehicle type. Truck access is primarily directed to Murrieta Road, with trucks traveling to and from I-215 and SR-74 routed along Ethanac Road and Murrieta Road, consistent with designated truck routes. In addition, Geary Street operations are limited in part to specific truck types and movements, including restrictions on cert ain truck access to the southern Geary Street driveway, thereby reducing potential interaction with passenger vehicles on local residential-serving streets. It should also be noted that under the Interim Traffic Scenario, Geary Street would not be improved north of the Project site to Ethanac Road and Project traffic would no longer utilize Geary Street north of the site for connection to Ethanac Road.
The DEIR further identifies that off-site roadway improvements, including widening, paving, and installation of a signalized northern Murrieta Road driveway, are incorporated into the Project design to improve traffic operations and safety at Project acces s points. On-site circulation, driveway geometry, sight distance, and signing and striping would be reviewed through the City’s final improvement plan and permitting process to ensure compliance with City standards, including the Menifee General Plan Circu lation Element and Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
35 applicable design requirements. These design and operational features collectively reduce and manage potential conflicts between passenger vehicles and truck traffic at Project driveways.
With respect to traffic-related noise, these impacts were fully analyzed in the DEIR. As disclosed within DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, off-site traffic noise associated with Project operations was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. The DEIR therefore fully acknowledges and discloses these impacts in accordance with CEQA’s informational requirements.
The commenter’s concerns regarding transit accessibility are also addressed in the DEIR. As described in DEIR Section 5.12, Transportation , the Project would not conflict with any existing or proposed program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The nearest Riverside Transit Authority bus stop is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site. In addition, the Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line includes a station approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the Project site on Case Road near Perris Crossing, providing regional commuter rail service.
The nearest bicycle facility is a Class II bike lane on Ethanac Road, located approximately 0.2 mile s north of the site. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element also identifies Murrieta Road east of the Project site as a proposed Class II bike lane. The Project would also provide on -site long-term and short-term bicycle parking, including bike racks, to support alternative transportation options. Implementation of the Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned transit or bicycle facilities.
The comment does not provide new substantial evidence demonstrating that the transportation or noise analyses are inadequate. Rather, the issues raised have already been addressed and disclosed in the DEIR and supplemental analyses. Accordingly, no revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.8: The comment states the proposed Project represents poor land use planning and significant environmental impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. The comment further explains that the EIR does not fully and appropriately evaluate these and other areas, states that the proposed mitigation is not adequate, and states this letter identifies feasible measures that should be adopted.
Response 1.8: This comment is introductory in nature and presents general concerns regarding the DEIR’s analysis of environmental topics that are addressed in greater detail in subsequent comments, including discussions related to greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and mi tigation measures. T he comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis requiring a substantive response.
The commenter provides no substantial evidence demonstrating that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the identified impact areas, that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate, or that the suggested additional measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s impacts. General disagreement with the conclusions of the EIR does not, in itself, constitute evidence of inadequacy under CEQA.
The concerns raised herein have also been addressed in prior responses, including Response O2.2, Responses O3.51 and O3.52, Response I3.3, and Responses L.6, L.7, and L.9 from the Advocates for the Environment late comment letter. Those responses explain in detail the analytical basis for the DEIR’s conclusions and the rationale supporting the selected mitigation framework. Accordingly, no additional response is required beyond the clarifications provided herein.
As a part of the environmental review for the Project, the City reviewed and included mitigation measures feasible to reduce GHG emissions and off-site traffic noise impacts from the proposed Project. However, 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 ap proval 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 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
36 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 provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the r ecord, the Project’s EIR discusses all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s off -site traffic noise and greenhouse gas impacts and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.
Comment 1.9: The comment states that the Project Description is misleading because while the building is setback 205 or 265 feet from residential homes, the Project is separated by only 25 feet with truck trailer parking within 25 feet and the truck drive aisle within 85 feet of residential homes.
Response 1.9: Please refer to Response 1.2 above. 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 f or the evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” As such, 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. 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 Project is described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description , which includes detailed information regarding site layout, operational features, and setbacks, including the 25-foot setback between the proposed screen wall and the residences located north of the site. In addition, DEIR Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Site Plan, clearly identifies the Project’s setbacks, truck circulation areas, and drive aisle locations.
The DEIR also identifies the nearest sensitive receptors as the residential uses located approximately 47 feet north of the Project site boundary, measured to the outdoor living areas, as shown in DEIR Figure 5.2 -1, Sensitive Receptor Locations , and DEIR Figure 5.10 -3, Sensitive Receptor Locations . As part of the environmental analysis, operational activities associated with the Project were identified and incorporated into the technical studies and modeling assumptions used to evaluate impacts. This includes truck court activity, truck circulation within drive aisles, loading and unloading at dock doors, parking, maneuvering, backing movements (including backup alarms), nighttime lighting and headlights, and associated on-site operational activity. In addition, as described in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not Significant , the Project analyzed the introduction of new sources of light from new building security lighting, streetlights within the Project area, interior lights shining through building windows, and specifically, headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated from the Project. These operational characteristics were not omitted from analysis but rather were expressly considered as part of the Project’s impact assessment.
The DEIR documents these operational sources in multiple sections, including Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 5.2-3, Onsite Operational Emissions Sources , and Figure 5.10 -5, Operational Noise Sources , which identify the locations and nature of the modeled emission s, lighting, and noise-generating activities. The corresponding analyses evaluate these activities under conservative assumptions in order to disclose potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Accordingly, the DEIR provides a clear and complete description of the Project’s operational characteristics and demonstrates that such activities were incorporated into the environmental analysis and modeling. The setbacks and operational areas are transp arently disclosed in the Project Description, and the resulting Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
37 impacts are fully evaluated within the DEIR. The comment does not identify any substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.10: The comment states the EIR’s Project Description must be updated to reflect that the homes are closer than 265 feet and that it be accurate, stable, and finite. The comment includes a photo showing 25 feet from the property line fence to a child.
Response 1.10: Please refer to Response 1.9 above. The commenter appears to reference the approximately 265-foot setback of the loading dock doors from the northern property line. The DEIR, including Section 3.0, Project Description, clearly identifies that this measurement is from the proposed dock doors to the northern property line and does not represent the distance between the Project and nearby residences. As described, the dock door setback exceeds the 250 -foot standard set fo rth in the City’s Industrial Design Standards.
As discussed in Response 1.9 above, the DEIR also discloses that sensitive receptors are located as close as approximately 47 feet from the Project site boundary. In addition, Section 3.0, Project Description provides detailed information regarding site layout, operational features, and setbacks, including the 25 -foot landscaped setback between the proposed screen wall and the north ern property line . DEIR Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, further illustrates the Project’s setbacks, truck circulation areas, and drive aisle locations.
Accordingly, the DEIR provides an accurate and stable Project Description that clearly identifies the relevant distances between the Project and nearby residences. The comment does not identify substantial information or evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.11: The comment explains that truck and related operations will cause noise and lighting impacts much closer than 265 feet. The comment also states that the Project Description failed to include the single- family neighborhood south of the site when describing surrounding land uses.
Response 1.11: Please refer to Response 1.9 above. The DEIR fully evaluated surrounding land uses and expressly identified the single -family neighborhood south of the Project site, located south of McLaughlin Road, as part of the environmental analysis. As shown in DEIR Figure 5.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations, and DEIR Figure 5.10-3, Sensitive Receptor Locations, these residences were included as sensitive receptors in the DEIR, specifically as Receptors R4 and R5.
As documented in DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, and Appendix H, Noise Report, these receptors were described as follows:
R1 Location R1 represents existing noise sensitive residence at 25705 Floyd Avenue, approximately 63 feet northwest of the Project site (from property line) . R1 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R2 Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25875 Floyd Avenue, approximately 47 feet north of the Project site (from property line). R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R3 Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25955 Floyd Avenue, approximately 47 feet north of the Project site (from property line). R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4 Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25910 Camino Juarez, approximately 371 feet south of the Project site (from property line). A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
38 R5 Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 25707 McLaughlin Road, approximately 428 feet southwest of the Project site (from property line). R5 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
These receptors were therefore not omitted from the analysis but were studied as part of the DEIR’s assessment of operational and ambient conditions. In addition, field measurements were collected at both residential neighborhoods north and south of the Project site to support the noise analysis.
Notably, these southern receptors are located at greater distances from Project operational areas than the nearest receptors north of the Project site, which are the closest sensitive receptors analyzed in the DEIR. In addition, as described in Responses 1.5 and 1.6 above, the Project exceeds the setback and buffer requirements included i n the City’s Industrial Design Standards by a substantial margin . Because environmental effects such as noise , air quality emissions, and lighting generally diminish with distance, impacts to the southern receptors are less pronounced than those experienced at the closer northern receptor locations. As such, the DEIR’s evaluation of the nearest receptors provides a conservative basis for assessing potential impacts.
Accordingly, the DEIR fully analyzed and disclosed impacts associated with surrounding land uses, including the single-family neighborhood to the south. The comment does not provide new substantial evidence or information demonstrating any deficiency in the analysis. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.12: The comment states the Project conflicts with adopted land use plans including policies of the City’s General Plan and lists the relevant policies.
Response 1.12: Please refer to Response O3.10. 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 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 g oals 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 1.5 above and Response O3.5, the 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 DEIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. Goals and Policies that are not applicable to the proposed Project are not included under Table 5.9-2 of the DEIR as they are City initiatives or do not include project speci fic criteria. In addition, it should be noted that while the proposed Project results in a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG emissions and off -site traffic noise , it does not equate to the Project impeding the implementation or achievement of these Goal s and Policies at a regional or local level. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 1.13: The comment states the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and results in a potentially significant land use impact. The comment explains that the proposed Project is not designed to the “maximum extent feasible” for truck driveways and loading docks to be oriented away from sensitive receptors and that there is no demonstrated need for this design given no tenant is identified. Additionally, the comment states that the truck route goes past homes on Murrietta Road and is not oriented to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors. Lastly, the comment states the proposed Project is inconsistent with Air Quality Policy 2 (a) because trucks will queue in the immediate vicinity of sensitive receptors.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
39 Response 1.13: Please refer to Responses 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 above as well as Response A3.2 regarding the Project’s consistency with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and related circulation considerations.
The Project’s site design reflects the physical characteristics and operational constraints of the Project site, including its location, parcel configuration, frontage conditions, and access points. Due to the site’s shape and roadway connections, access is necessary from both Murrieta Road and Geary Street in order to provide safe and functional circulation for passenger vehicles, service vehicles, and heavy-duty trucks. These access points are integral to maintaining operational efficiency and compliance with applicable roadway and engineering standards.
The orientation of truck courts, drive aisles, and loading areas is also influenced by the need to satisfy multiple development requirements, including setback standards, landscape buffers, fire access, internal circulation, screening requirements, and bui lding placement constraints. Collectively, these factors limit feasible alternative configurations and make reorienting dock doors in the manner suggested by the commenter impracticable without creating conflicts with other applicable standards. The final layout therefore represents a balanced design solution that addresses operational needs while remaining consistent with adopted development policies and standards.
The absence of a currently identified tenant does not alter the need for a functional industrial site layout.
The Project is evaluated based on its reasonably foreseeable operational characteristics and land use designation, rather than the identity of a future occupant. CEQA requires analysis of the proposed use and associated impacts, which the DEIR has fully disclosed.
With respect to truck routing, the DEIR and supporting transportation analyses evaluated circulation along Murrieta Road and Geary Street, including the relationship of those routes to nearby sensitive receptors.
The commenter has not provided substantial evidence demonstrating that an alternative routing configuration would be feasible or would materially reduce impacts. Regarding truck queuing, these operational considerations were reviewed as part of the Project’s design and plan check process and will continue to be addressed during permitting to ensure compliance with applicable standards. The Project must satisfy City review requirements related to queuing, access, and on-site maneuvering prior to implementation.
Accordingly, the Project has been designed in a manner responsive to site-specific constraints and applicable regulatory requirements, while maintaining consistency with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.14: The comment states the proposed Project is not consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s guidance that warehouses shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors and that the closest receptors are within 25 feet.
Response 1.14: The referenced CARB recommendation is advisory guidance intended to inform land use planning decisions and does not constitute a binding regulatory requirement or CEQA threshold of significance for individual projects. While such guidance may be considered during project planning, it does not prohibit development within a specified distance of sensitive receptors, nor does it establish mandatory setback standards applicable to the Project. The referenced guidance states that siting of new sensitive land uses should be avoided within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. This recommendation is directed toward the siting of sensitive receptors, not the siting of new industrial uses. The Project does not propose new sensitive land uses, and therefore the cited recommendation is not applicable in the manner asserted. In addition, the 25-foot distance cited refers to the setback between the proposed screen wall and adjacent residences, not the distance between operational sources and sensitive receptors. As disclosed in the DEIR, the nearest sensitive receptors and associated operational areas were identified and incorporated into the air quality, noise, and all other applicable operational analyses using project-specific modeling assumptions.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
40 The DEIR fully evaluates potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, including operational emissions and noise associated with truck activity, loading areas, and on -site circulation. These analyses were conducted consistent with applicable methodologies and disclose the Project’s impacts based on actual site conditions, rather than reliance on generalized planning guidance alone. The DEIR evaluates the Project under the applicable local and regional regulatory framework, includ ing adopted land use designations, zoning standards, and environmental thresholds. The commenter has not identified any binding requirement with which the Project is inconsistent, nor provided substantial evidence demonstrating a deficiency in the DEIR’s analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required and no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.15: The comment states that consistency with regional planning documents has not been identified, specifically Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Response 1.15: Please refer to Response O3.9 . 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 and strategy from the SCAG RTP/SCS. 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 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 Project would not impede in the regional attainment of them. Accordingly, the comment does not identify a deficiency in the DEIR’s analysis or a specific inconsistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.16: The comment states the proposed Project should be conditioned to provide setbacks and other design elements consistent with Assembly Bill 98.
Response 1.16: Please refer to Response 1.4 above. Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) introduced Government Code Section 65098 including Section 65098.1.5(a)(3), which states, “notwithstanding any other provision of law, if, by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this chapter.” Furthermore, Senate Bill 415 (SB 415) amended Government Code section 65098.1.5(a)(3), to read as “notwithstanding any other law, except as provided in Section 65098.1.6, if by September 30, 2024, a property is currently in a local entitlement process to become a logistics use development, then the proposed logistics use development shall not be subject to the requirements described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of, paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65098.1, as applicable, if a sensitive receptor is constructed, established, or permitted after the effective date of this chapter,” and added Section 65098.1.6(a) which specifies, “notwithstanding any other law, this chapter shall not apply to any logistics use development that was subject to a local entitlement process that began before September 30, 2024.” The proposed Project entered the local entitlement process with the City of Menifee prior to September 30, 2024. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65098.1.5(a)(3) and 65098.1.6(a), the requirements established by AB 98 do not apply to the proposed Project and are not required to be evaluated as mitigation measures or alternatives under CEQA. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.17: The comment states the Project does not evaluate potential impacts of Land Use Threshold LU-1 which asks if the Project would “physically divide an established community.” The comment states that the Project would bisect single-family homes on Floyd Avenue to the north of the site and the single- family Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
41 homes to the south of McLauglin Road , isolating residences in the north from residences in the south. The comment states that the conclusion of “no impact” is not supported by substantial evidence and that the land use section must be revised with mitigation.
Response 1.17: The commentor erroneously claims that the DEIR concludes “no impacts” under Threshold LU-
1. As shown within DEIR Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, and on page 68 within DEIR Appendix A, impacts related to physically dividing an established community were concluded to be less than significant and that the Project would not physically divide an established community. Under CEQA, Land Use Threshold LU-1 is evaluated based on whether a project would create a physical barrier that disrupts the cohesion, continuity, or accessibility of an existing, identifiable neighborhood or community. The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development were built which was inconsistent with the land uses in t he community such that it divided the community. The environmental effe cts caused by such a facility or land use could include lack of, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas. It might also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community. Here, the residential areas referenced by the commenter are separated by approximately one- quarter mile of undeveloped land and an existing Southern California Edison easement corridor. As such, they do not function as a single continuous neighborhood or cohesive community for purposes of this analysis.
As analyzed in the DEIR under Section 6.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the Project would develop a vacant and undeveloped site with a warehousing building that is consistent with the site’s EDC -NG zoning designation. The Project would be integrated into the existing roadway network and would include off-site roadway improvements consisting of paving and widening portions of Geary Street along the Project frontage and north to Ethanac Road. Importantly, these roadway improvements would not create a new barrier or sever existing circulation patterns. Rather, they would improve an existing dirt roadway already used by residents north of the Project site. Under the Interim Traffic Scenario, Geary St reet north of the Project site to Ethanac Road would not be paved or improved, and Project trips would be routed away from Geary Street. The Project would not impede access to services, schools, shopping areas, or other community destinations, nor would it introduce infrastructure that physically separates a cohesive neighborhood. Instead, it would improve roadway conditions along an existing route while maintaining connectivity.
Accordingly, the DEIR’s conclusion of less -than-significant impacts under Threshold LU -1 is supported by substantial evidence. The commenter has not provided evidence demonstrating that the Project would physically divide an established community as define d under CEQA. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.18: The comment states the EIR does not evaluate the Project’s potential for aesthetic or visual resources due to the permanent conversion of rural, unimproved lands to a large box- style structure with nighttime lighting. The comment states that the permanent conversion of the natural site to urban use constitutes a potentially significant impact.
Response 1.18: Under CEQA, aesthetic impacts are evaluated based on the Project’s effects on public views and visual character as experienced from publicly accessible vantage points, rather than on private views from residences or privately owned property. Consistent with this framework, the DEIR evaluates the Project’s potential effects on scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
As disclosed in the DEIR, the Project would comply with applicable setback standards under Section
9.140.040 of the City Municipal Code, as well as landscaping standards, and would not obstruct views of neighboring mountains or foothills from public vantage points. In addition, no officially designated State scenic highways or county scenic corridors are adjacent to the Project site, from which the Project would be visible. Accordingly, the Project would not affect scenic resources within a designated scenic corridor.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
42 The Project site and surrounding areas are designated EDC and zoned Economic EDC-NG, which is intended to accommodate industrial development within the area. This designation is intended to accommodate most of the City’s new industrial development, in order to preserve other rural areas considered integral to the community character. While consistency with land use designations does not, by itself, eliminate the potential for environmental impacts, it is relevant to evaluating whether the Project would subs tantially degrade the visual character of an area planned for such development. The DEIR appropriately considered this context in concluding that the Project would not create a significant adverse visual effect.
With respect to nighttime lighting, the DEIR expressly acknowledges that the Project would introduce new light sources associated with building security, site operations, and vehicle activity. However, the Project would be subject to Sections 6.01.020 and 6.01.040 of the City Municipal Code, which require lighting to be shielded, diffused, or indirect to avoid glare to on-site and off-site pedestrians and motorists. In addition, the Project would include a 25-foot landscape setback and a proposed retaining and screen wall along the interior of the northern and southern truck courts, which would further reduce nighttime lighting to surrounding areas. The DEIR therefore evaluated light and glare as part of the environmental review and concluded impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with enforceable standards and substantial evidence.
The commenter’s assertion that additional renderings or simulations are required is not supported by CEQA.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, a Project Description need only include the detail necessary for informed environmental review and public disclosure; it is not required to provide extensive design-level materials beyond what is relevant to impact analysis. Courts have similarly recognized that an EIR need only describe a project’s main features and sufficient detail to evaluate environmental effects. Here, the Project is fully described in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, including site layout, setbacks, building placement, and anticipated sources of light and glare . DEIR Figure 3 -7, Conceptual Site Plan , Figure 3 -8, Building Elevations, and Figure, 3 -9, Landscape Plan , further identify the Project’s lighting locations, setbacks, architectural design, landscaping, building massing, and overall visual character. Collectively, these materials provide sufficient detail for decision makers and the public to evaluate the Project’s aesthetic and visual impacts under CEQA.
Because the DEIR provides sufficient information for decision makers and the public to understand the Project’s visual characteristics and assess its environmental effects, additional renderings are not required for purposes of CEQA compliance. The cases cited by the commenter do not establish a categorical requirement for visual simulations but rather reinforce the broader principle that an EIR must contain sufficient information to support informed decision making, which the DEIR accomplishes here.
Accordingly, the DEIR adequately evaluates aesthetic, visual, and lighting -related impacts, and the commenter has not identified substantial evidence demonstrating a deficiency in the analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.19: The comment states that there are no renderings or simulations of the proposed Project building from relevant vantage points compared to the existing environment and the incomplete information renders the analysis incomplete. The comment notes that complia nce with a general plan (the site is zoned as industrial) does not eliminate the potential for environmental impacts as stated in the EIR. The comment sites Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881 and East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5. Cal.App.4th 281, 303.
Response 1.19: Please refer to Response 1.18 above. As described above, impacts are evaluated based on the Project’s effects on public views and visual character as experienced from publicly accessible vantage points, rather than from private views from residences or privately owned property. A scenic vista, for example, can be impacted in 2 ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
43 Important factors in determining whether a project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. The City of Menifee General Plan EIR designates views of the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest as scenic vistas. Distant views of the surrounding foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, Santa Ana Mountains to the west, and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east are available from public vantage points on Geary Street and Murrieta Road, which border the Project site. The Project would develop a new warehouse totaling 533,252 SF and measure a maximum height of 55 feet. As described under Response 1.18 above, development of the Project would not encroach upon views of the neighboring mountains and foothills from pedestrians and motorists along public vantage points. As such, development of the Project would continue to allow for public views of scenic vistas and impacts were concluded to be less than significant. The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.20: The comment states that views of the mountains from the single -story homes north of the Project site would be entirely obstructed by the proposed building and states that the EIR improperly ignores this potential impact.
Response 1.20: Please refer to Response 1.18 and 1.19 above. The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.21: The comment notes that the potential for adverse changes to the nighttime visual environment must be fully assessed and adherence to a lighting ordinance does not eliminate the need to evaluate the adverse impact.
Response 1.21 : Please refer to Response 1. 18 and 1.19 above. The commentor references submittal requirements for a photometric plan for the City of Malibu. The referenced citation is not applicable to the Project or for CEQA. Submittal requirements, such as photometric plans, grading plans, or detailed construction drawings, are typically prepared to demonstrate compliance with municipal codes and are reviewed through the local agency’s permitting process. These materials are part of project implementation and design review, not environmental analysis. CEQA does not require that such documents be included in the EIR unless they are necessary to evaluate a potentially significant environmental impact. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15147, an EIR may incorporate or rely on technical studies without reproducing every underlying document in full, provided the analysis adequately discloses the environmental effects. In practice, EIRs summarize relevant information (for exampl e, anticipated lighting levels or compliance with lighting standards) rather than including full photometric plans, which are more detailed than necessary for impact analysis.
Accordingly, the absence of specific submittal documents from the EIR does not render the analysis incomplete, so long as the EIR contains sufficient information to evaluate environmental impacts and demonstrates compliance with applicable standards. Detailed design materials remain subject to review and approval by the lead agency through the standard permitting and plan check process. A photometric plan has been prepared for the Project, submitted as part of the development application, and reviewed by City of Menifee staff. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.22: The comment states that the conclusion of less-than-significant environmental impact with no mitigation for air quality is not supported by substantial evidence and the EIR lacks critical analysis to form its conclusion.
Response 1.22: Please refer to Responses 1.23 through 1.31 below. This comment is introductory in nature and presents general concerns regarding the DEIR’s analysis of environmental topics that are addressed in Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
44 greater detail in subsequent comments, including discussions related to air quality and mitigation measures.
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, t he FEIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR 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 comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis requiring a substantive response.
Comment 1.23: The comment states the assumption of 34.51 miles for all truck trips underestimates air emissions due to heavy truck trips and that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provides more realistic trip length assumptions. The comment states that the truck trip length is not appropriate given the Project’s distance from the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. The comment states the air quality analysis should be updated according to the SCAQMD assumptions and that the worst case scenario must be evaluated to be consistent with CEQA.
Response 1.23: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within the SCAQMD comment letter, including Response A6.3, and within Appendix D of the FEIR.
It should be noted that the analysis utilizes truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which is the SCAQMD’s indirect source review program used to help control and minimize air quality impacts from mobile source emissions associated with trucks from warehouses. SCAQMD Rule 2305 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). In addition, the
39.9-mile trip length was based on S CAQMD’s own research that concluded that the average heavy duty truck trip length in the entire South Coast Air Basin was approximately 39.9 miles. As described in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, 1.3 percent of vehicle trips would be 2-axle trucks, 2.5 percent would be 3-axle trucks, 3.8 percent would be 4- axle trucks, and 10.2 percent would be 5+ axle trucks, and the remaining vehicle trips would be passenger vehicles. As such, the majority of anticipated truck trips would be from heavy-heavy duty trucks and a weighted average truck trip distance of 34.51 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix and consistent with SCAQMD guidance.
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 Project as the DEIR includes a development buffer in order to account for final design changes.
Therefore, the DEIR utilized a conservative approach and appropriately analyzed vehicle trip lengths based on SCAQMD guidance. Lastly, no follow-up comments have been received from SCAQMD since the comment letter dated June 24, 2024, or since preparation of the FEIR, including the response to comments process.
The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.24: Regarding Response to Comment A.6.3, the comment asserts that, absent specific tenant information, it is appropriate to assume a conservative scenario in which project-related truck trips travel to Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
45 and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, consistent with SCAQMD guidance. The comment notes that the F EIR’s statement that many trips would be shorter is unsupported without evidence of tenant operations. The commenter further cites City of Menifee promoting proximity to major ports as a key advantage for warehouse uses and states that the air quality analysis should reflect the likelihood that future warehouse users would rely on business from the Ports.
Response 1.24: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.6 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A3: City of Perris, dated July 8, 2024, including Response A6.3, as well as Response
1.23 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.25: The comment states that air quality analysis improperly assumes zero air emissions for energy sources and on -site equipment and states that these assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence. The comment states that the Project is not conditioned to require all electrically powered on -site equipment nor prohibit the use of natural gas, and the assumption that the proposed Project will generate zero GHG emissions is not supported by the record.
Response 1.25: The assumptions used in the DEIR are based on the Project as proposed and constitute part of the Project’s design parameters and operational envelope. As stated in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, based on information provided by the Project applicant, the building is not expected to utilize natural gas as part of the building envelope and would therefore not generate emissions associated with direct natural gas consumption. This operational chara cteristic was appropriate ly incorporated into the emissions modeling.
This comment has also been previously addressed in Response O3.35, O3.36, and O3.41. It is typical that default CalEEMod data is revised so that the modeling accurately depicts construction and/or operation of each proposed Project. In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1, CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information when available. Thus, modifications to CalEEMod defaults are used when more detailed information is known about the project such as the construction timeline, the mix of equipment use, architectural coatings, and more. Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were done in order to provide a n 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.
Furthermore, in compliance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies , the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant equipment for all on-site cargo handling equipment, as included as PDF GHG-1 within the FEIR Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. As noted in the DEIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GHG-8, which requires that prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project does not include conveyance of natural gas utility lines and that the Project will not use natural gas cargo handling equipment. On-site cargo handling equipment shall be electric and non-diesel powered, per contemporary industry standards and as required City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted Comment 1.26: The comment states the Air Quality Study does not evaluate the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts. The comment claims the Study was based on an outdated AQMD White Paper and notes that the conclusion that the Project cannot have cumulatively significant air quality impacts because the Project will purportedly result in less -than-significant air quality impacts on an individual basis . The comment states this conclusion is made despite mention of nu merous warehouses planned in the vicinity, and that the Traffic Impact Analysis included 56 cumulative development Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
46 impacts within the traffic analysis. The comment concludes that City should evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
Response 1.26: As described in Response A3.2, Response O3.7, Response A6.4, and Appendix D from the FEIR, the DEIR provides an evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. 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. As described under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation 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 is 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 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 Project would not result in impacts to sensitive receptors, within the City of Menifee or the GVSP.
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. It should be noted that although SCAQMD has held several working group s aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no new recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impacts. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution , projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less-than-significant cumulative impact as well.
1 As demonstrated in the DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and as described in Response O3.5, the 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 C omment A3.6 are evaluated, the 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.
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2003). White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts- working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
47 Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 1.80 per one million.
The Freedom Business Park is proposed to consist of approximately 283,746 square feet of industrial and commercial uses and is located approximately 34,000 feet or 6.43 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project 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 3: 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
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
48 The USEPA 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 in Table 3, 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 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. A s 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. As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would have a less -than-significant impact individually and cumulatively, therefore, additional Project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures are not required (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15126.4). Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.27: The comment states that the F EIR’s Response to Comments claim that the cumulative health risk impacts from combined projects are less than significant but does not address a cumulative air quality impact analysis with respect to the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulative exceedance of criteria pollutants, particularly NOx. The comment also notes The FEIR’s Appendix D, Response 2 does not address the absence of a cumulative air quality impact analysis.
Response 1.27: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. Although SCAQMD has held several working groups aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no new recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impacts. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less -than-significant cumulative impact as well. As described in DEIR Section 5.1, Air Quality , the Project would be below the SCAQMD regional, local, and cancer risk thresholds of significance . Since the Project does not exceed project-specific significance thresholds, the Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact as well. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.28: The comment states that the EIR does not contain a discussion of cumulative industrial projects or their associated air quality emissions and explains that the EIR does not adequately disclose the broader environmental consequences of the City’s land use decisions and therefore fails on an informational basis.
Response 1.28: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.29: The comment notes that SCAQMD is actively revising recommendations for evaluating cumulative air quality impacts. The comment emphasizes SCAQMD’s position that even projects with limited individual impacts may be cumulatively considerable. The comment argues that this ongoing policy
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.” Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
49 development underscores the importance of conducting a robust cumulative air quality analysis and suggests that the EIR should reflect evolving SCAQMD recommendations and standards for CEQA review.
Response 1.29: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.30: The comment explains that the discussion regarding cumulative air quality impacts does not identify any cumulative projects, rather there is a conclusion that cumulative air quality impacts do not need to be analyzed as there are no individually significan t air quality impacts. The commenter cites CEQA Guidelines defining cumulative impacts as effects that may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when combined. Based on this, the comment asserts the EIR does comply with CEQA’s informational mandates due to the absence of a proper cumulative air quality impact analysis.
Response 1.30: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.31: The commenter asserts that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate cumulative air quality impacts considering the concentration of warehouse and industrial development in the Inland Empire. The commenter contends that nearby warehouse growth and associated tr uck traffic contribute to elevated emissions and that the Project should be analyzed in the context of this broader industrial buildup. The commenter further states that the EIR should be revised to account for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future industrial development and associated air quality impacts.
Response 1.31: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Section 2.12 of the FEIR, Response to Letter A6: South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated June 24, 2024 , as well as within Response 1.26 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.32: The comment states that the Project would result in significant greenhouse gas emissions exceeding the applicable threshold of significance despite mitigation , based on the FEIR’s emissions estimates. They argue that although the EIR includes a mitigation program, it does not implement all feasible measures required under CEQA to reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The commenter specifically notes that the mitigation measures nominally reduce GHG emission and do not address mobile- source emissions. The comment concludes that additional feasible mitigation is required before Project approval to comply with CEQA’s requirements for reducing significant environmental impacts.
Response 1.32: This comment, and the subsequent comments, have been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52 specifically.
The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and was evaluated against SCAQMD’s thresholds and supported by substantial evidence. The Project was found to have a significant impact on GHG and the DEIR has adopted Mitigation Measures GHG -1 through GHG-8, which includes measures to reduce GHG emissions during operation of the Project. The Project would provide contemporary, energy - efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. In addition, the proposed Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022), as discu ssed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
50 Emissions, on page 5.6-14 in the DEIR. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2045 target of a, 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-55-18, and codified by AB 1279.
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 Project, the City reviewed and included feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the Project. However, the emissions from vehicles cannot be regulated by either the City or the Project Applicant.
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 governm ents 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.
As of 2025, the use of zero -emission heavy-duty trucks in support of uses such as those proposed by the Project remains infeasible given the extremely limited commercial availability of zero-emission trucks, as well as infrastructure limitations, including limited truck-accessible charging/refueling stations and electrical grid capacity. While many heavy- duty truck manufacturers have released zero -emission battery electric and hydrogen-powered trucks, these vehicles have yet to reach large scale production, and their use remains extremely limited. Tesla first revealed the Tesla Semi in 2017, and an initial order for 100 trucks was placed by PepsiCo. However, the Tesla Semi did not enter production until 2022, and, as of April 2024, only 36 trucks have been delivered to PepsiCo, with additional orders placed by UPS, Walmart, Sysco, Schneider, and ASKO Norway remaining unfulfilled. Although the Tesla Semi was initially slated to begin production in 2019, with production expected to hit 50,000 units in 2024, bat tery production constraints have severely limited production, and it is uncertain at this time when these orders may be expected to be fulfilled. 3 Facing
delays with the Tesla Semi, several companies have turned to other vehicle manufacturers, including Daimler’s eCascadia. However, with a significantly shorter range of approximately 230 miles compared to the 500- mile range of the Tesla Semi, the eCascadia’s use case is significantly limited in comparison. As of late 2023, Schneider has taken delivery of 92 eCascadias
4, representing 0.9 percent of the company’s fleet of 10,600 tractors.5 To note, the typical range of diesel-fueled trucks is 1,300 to 1,800 miles on a full tank.6 The limited availability of zero -emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles is further detailed in CARB’s Emission Factor (EMFAC) Model, as well as data published by HVIP. EMFAC model outputs provide detailed information as to the vehicle fleet in California , including fuel types for various vehicle classes and vehicle populations. Per EMFAC data, in 2024, battery electric trucks made up 0.01 percent of California’s medium- duty truck fleet, and 0.21 percent of the heavy -duty truck fleet. 7 Similarly, based on HVIP’s Zero-Emission
Vehicle Population Dashboard,8 as of October 2024, there are currently 226 medium-duty and 197 heavy-
3 https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-semi-trucks-short-supply-pepsico-its-rivals-use-competing-ev-big- rigs-2024-04-19/
4 https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/schneider-1-million-emission-free-miles-freightliner-ecascadia-electric- trucks/
5 https://schneider.com/resources/infographic/schneider-by-the-numbers 6 https://conmet.com/extend-electric-truck-range/
7 https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/
8 https://californiahvip.org/industryinitiatives/#cazevdashboard Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
51 duty zero -emission vehicles within the SCAQMD jurisdiction, which includes Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, as well as much of Los Angeles County. In 2023, statewide deliveries totaled 183 medium-duty vehicles and 121 heavy -duty vehicles, while in 2024 there have been no medium -duty truck vehicle deliveries and 13 heavy-duty truck deliveries.
Further, the availability of truck accessible vehicle charging stations and hydrogen refueling stations in California (and the United States as a whole) severely limits the feasibility of zero-emission trucks. Although the California Energy Commission esti mates that there are over 11,000 DC fast charging stations in California,9 the vast majority of these are intended to accommodate light duty passenger vehicles and lack the accessibility for medium - and heavy-duty trucks. California’s first publicly accessible DC fast charging station for medium- and heavy-duty trucks opened in M arch 2023 in Otay Mesa. 10 In addition, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, as of February 2025, there are currently 12 publicly accessible DC fast charging stations with a total of 129 EV charging ports across the United States an d Canada that are capable of accommodating heavy -duty (class 6 -8) trucks. 11 Therefore, at one time, only 129 heavy-duty trucks would be capable of charging across Canada and the United States. As of early 2024, medium - and heavy-duty truck DC fast charging depots are planned for three locations in California along Interstate (I) 5 in the Central Valley as well as in Blythe 12, the lack of charging stations severely limits the useful range of battery electric trucks, effectively restricting their use to local routes only.
Adoption and implementation of hydrogen fuel cell trucks face similar challenges. Based on data provided by the California Energy Commission, there are currently 68 light -duty vehicle hydrogen refueling stations in California. 13 However, similar to DC fast chargers, these stations are intended for use by light duty passenger vehicles and would not be capable of accommodating medium- and heavy-duty trucks. According to the United States Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, as of February 2025, there are five hydrogen refueling stations across the United States and Canada that are capable of accommodating heavy-duty (class 6-8) trucks.14
Although infrastructure improvements and the installation of medium- and heavy-duty truck capable DC fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations are currently in progress, the current state of charging and refueling infrastructure severely limits the feasi bility of ZEV trucks beyond local routes where charging or hydrogen refueling would not be necessary outside of the location where trucks would be domiciled.
Finally, according to SCAQMD, based on the current state of the electrical grid and the increasing adoption of electric vehicles in California, significant investments in the grid will need to occur in the coming decades to keep pace. However, these upgrad es will be spread out over a period of decades such that the costs, which would equate to billions of dollars, of infrastructure upgrades in any given year may be kept reasonable.15
As such, GHG impacts would remain significant despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. The commenter provides various lists, in subsequent comments, of suggested mitigation measures and policies, 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
9 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/electric-vehicle 10 https://www.sempra.com/cas-first-public-dc-fast-chargers-electric-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles-truck-stop-open-public 11 https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest
12 https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/ev-charging/big-electric-truck-charging-depots-are-coming-soon-to-california 12https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/hydrogen- refueling
14 https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/find/nearest
15 SCAQMD. (2021). Letter from Office of the Executive Officer to Partners in Environmental Justice and Environmental Health.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
52 require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002).
As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR” (Ibid.). Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v.
Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365).
The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, Mitigation Measure GHG-5 would require electric vehicle charging conduit 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 consid ered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions an d no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required. The comment does not identify any new substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.33: The comment cites and summarizes Assembly Bill 1279 which requires the State to achieve net zero GHG as soon as possible. The comment notes that as the CEQA lead agency, the City must ensure land use decisions align with statewide emissions reduction mandates. Based on this, the commenter contends that the Project should be required to achieve net-zero emissions or establish equivalent performance targets.
The comment suggests on-site measures such as renewable energy generation and off-site investments.
Response 1.33: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.
In addition, Assembly Bill 1279 establishes statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals and planning -level targets for achieving carbon neutrality at the State level; it does not impose project-level mandates requiring individual development projects to achie ve net zero emissions. Under CEQA, consistency with statewide climate policy is evaluated through a project’s contribution to applicable thresholds of significance and adopted regulatory frameworks, rather than by requiring each project to independently ac hieve net zero emissions. The comment does not identify any new substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.34: The comment states that the
EIR does not explain or show how the Project would comply with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan’s strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions, especially relative to reductions of Vehicle Miles Traveled.
Response 1.34: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 and 1.33 above.
The Project would provide contemporary, energy -efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. In addition, the Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
53 with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022) .
Consistency with CARB’s Scoping Plan is discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 5.6-14 in the DEIR, where it was concluded that the Project would be consistent with the State policies that were adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions . The comment does not identify any new substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.35: The comment argues that the proposed Project does not align with California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those emphasizing sustainable transportation systems and reduced vehicle dependence. They note that the Project does not provide public transit access and does not incorporate rec ommended on -site design features such as renewable energy generation or all -electric building design and does not consider CARB -recommended local mitigation strategies. The comment contends that feasible on-site and off-site GHG reduction measures identified in state guidance were not incorporated into the Project’s mitigation framework.
Response 1.35: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.36: The comment states the proposed Project does not satisfy CARB’s VMT targets or adopt feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts.
Response 1.36: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.
As discussed in DEIR Section 5.12, Transportation, consistent with the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, the VMT screening thresholds were used to identify if the Project could have an impact on VMT. When a project fails to meet any of the outlined screening criteria, a more comprehensive VMT analysis is warranted. The Project failed to meet any of the screening criteria included in the City of Menifee TIA Guidelines, and as such, a more comprehensive VMT analysis was prepared and included as DEIR Appendix L, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. The VMT analysis was conducted in accordance with the Riverside County Model (RIVCOM) for VMT analysis. The RIVCOM model utilizes socio -economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, employment, etc.) instead of land use information for the purposes of commute VMT estimation. Project building square footage must first be converted to an appropriate employment type and employee estimate for input into RIVCOM. The threshold VMT/Service Population (SP) (which is equal to the County of Riverside General Plan Buildout VMT/SP) is 35.68 VMT/SP. The VMT/SP was calculated by dividing project generated VMT by the Project’s employee estimate to obtain the efficiency metric of VMT per employee.
As shown in DEIR Table 5.12-4, VMT Analysis Summary, the Project VMT/SP would be 25.94 for the Baseline (2018) scenario and 27.12 for the Cumulative (2045) scenario. As such, the Projects VMT/SP would be below the threshold for both the Baseline (2018) and Cumulative (2045) scenarios. Therefore, Project VMT impacts were concluded to be less than significant.
Since the Project would result in less than significant VMT impacts, there is no nexus for mitigation, and the Project would not impede the achievement of the State’s GHG reduction goals as it relates to VMT. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.37: The comment states that the EIR references the County of Riverside’s VMT thresholds and should therefore consider mitigation measures within Riverside County’s Climate Action Plan. The commenter Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
54 also mentions encouraging local hiring to reduce VMT and recommends considering measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, et al.
Response 1.37: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.36 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1. 38: The comment cites the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan which explains that achieving carbon neutrality depends on reducing VMT and states that the proposed Project should adopt further VMT measures.
Response 1.38: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.36 above. The comment does not evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.39: The comment states that transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the state and therefore the City must implement appropriate mitigation measures. The commenter recommends that the Project be conditioned to require future implementing projects to expand zero- emission vehicle infrastructure.
Response 1.39: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.40: The comment states the proposed Project should establish fleet-efficiency and zero-emission vehicle requirements The commenter further proposes a “Diesel Minimization Plan” that would phase in increasing percentages of zero -emission trucks over time until full electrification is achieved. The comment also notes that such measures would help reduce noise impacts.
Response 1.40: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.41: The commenter cites studies and agency data to support the feasibility and environmental benefits of zero-emission vehicles for the Project. The comment notes that requiring zero emission semi-trucks would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions and should be considered feasible mitigation.
Response 1.41: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.42: The comment lists numerous mitigation measures to reduce GHG.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
55 Response 1.42: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.
Several of the measures identified by the commenter are already required by existing regulations or are already incorporated through project-specific Design Features (PDF) and mitigation measures. For example, construction-related emissions controls, including the use of cleaner equipment, are regulated by applicable federal, State, and regional requirements, including CARB regulations and South Coast AQMD rules. In addition, the Project includes PDF GHG -1, which requires use of at minimum Tier 4 Interim co mpliant construction equipment (or electric equipment where feasible), consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies and federal off -road engine standards. PDF GHG -1 further includes compliance verification, recordkeeping requirements, and limits on exemptions, ensuring that lower-emission construction equipment is used to the maximum extent feasible during construction. Furthermore, the Project incorporates electrification measures through Mitigation Measure GHG-8, which requires that cargo handling equipment be electric and prohibits natural gas use, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Policies. The Project also exceeds Title 24 energy requirements and incorporates renewable energy features through Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires installation of on-site solar PV or equivalent renewable energy measures, and Mitigation Measures GHG -5 and GHG -7, which provide EV -ready infrastructure and future electric truck charging capability , collectively reducing operational emissions beyond standard regulatory requirements.
Several additional measures identified by the commenter are either already addressed through applicable regulatory standards or incorporated into the Project’s mitigation framework. For example, building electrification requirements, EV infrastructure provisions, and renewable energy use are addressed through Mitigation Measures GHG- 1, GHG- 5, GHG -7, and GHG -8, which collectively require substantial electrification of building systems, transportation infrastructure, and cargo handling equipment. Similarly, requirements related to air quality-related construction practices, including low-VOC architectural coatings, are regulated through South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 and are already reflected in standard construction compliance obligations.
Other recommended measures, such as mandatory 100 percent solar energy self -sufficiency, enhanced parking lot shading percentages, strict truck model year restrictions, mandatory truck NOx performance standards beyond CARB requirements, limits on truck idling beyond applicable State and local regulations, and installation of high -capacity fast charging infrastructure beyond what is required in the DEIR, are not required under CEQA and are not supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that they are feasible or necessary to further reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts. Many of these measures would require operational control over third-party truck fleets or vehicle operators, which is not feasible for a speculative industrial facility and exceeds the reasonable control of the Project applicant.
Several of the commenter’s recommended measures, such as LEED certification, mandatory cool roof specifications beyond Title 24 requirements, or requiring 100 percent electrification of all construction tools, are not required under CEQA and are not suppor ted by substantial evidence demonstrating that they are necessary to further reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts beyond what is already required. CEQA does not require adoption of every possible mitigation measure, but only those that are feasible and supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that they would further reduce a significant impact (Public Resources Code Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)).
In addition, certain proposed measures are infeasible or not practicable for a speculative industrial development. Construction equipment availability, contractor fleet composition, and project phasing constraints limit the ability to mandate absolute equipment standards or exclusive use of electric tools. The Project already requires Tier 4 Interim equipment where available and includes a structured exemption Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
56 process only where such equipment is demonstrated to be unavailable, ensuring emissions reductions are achieved to the maximum extent feasible.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.43: The comment lists numerous best practices for warehouse developments from the California Attorney General.
Response 1.43: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within FEIR Section 2.18, Response to Letter O3: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated July 3, 2024, as well as within the Response to Letter L1: Advocates for the Environment, dated July 15, 2024. Please refer to Responses O3.21, O3.51, and O3.52, as well as Response 1.32 above.
As discussed in Response 1.42 above, many of the measures identified in the comment are either already addressed through the Project’s mitigation measures and PDF, are not applicable to the Project as currently designed, or are not required under CEQA because they are not supported by substantial evidence.
The referenced Attorney General document provides general policy-oriented “best practices” guidance for warehouse facilities and does not establish mandatory CEQA mitigation requirements or project -specific performance standards that must be incorporated i nto an EIR. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be tied to identified significant environmental impacts and supported by substantial evidence in the record. In addition, mitigation must be feasible, enforceable, and reasonably related to the impact being addressed (i.e., supported by an essential nexus and proportionality between the impact and the required mitigation, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 and case law including Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard).
The Project already incorporates a range of regulatory compliance measures and project-specific mitigation, including requirements for Tier 4 Interim construction equipment (PDF GHG-1), renewable energy installation or procurement (MM GHG-1), EV infrastructure, truck routing and circulation controls, and other operational and design features intended to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. These measures reflect applicable regulatory requirements and feasible project-level GHG reduction strategies evaluated in the EIR.
To the extent the comment proposes additional measures beyond those already adopted, such measures are not required under CEQA where the measures lack demonstrated feasibility, enforceability, or a clear nexus to a project -specific environmental impact. CE QA does not require a lead agency to adopt generalized policy recommendations or every conceivable “best practice” measure in the absence of substantial evidence demonstrating that such measures are necessary to mitigate a significant environmental effect. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.44: The comment states that CEQA Appendix F requires EIRs to reduce inefficient energy use and reliance on fossil fuels and asserts the Project’s fuel and electricity consumption will create significant demand for energy resources.
Response 1.44: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR . Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 1.45: The comment states that compliance with Title 24 and other regulatory requirements is not sufficient for CEQA compliance and the Project must adopt energy mitigation measures.
Response 1.45: Under CEQA, energy impacts are evaluated pursuant to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on whether a project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
57 consumption of energy resources. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines does not rely on a quantitative significance threshold based solely on total energy demand. Rather, it considers whether projected energy use is consistent with existing supply conditions, regulatory requirements, and the nature of the proposed land use.
This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 15204(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 F EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the 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 commenter does not present evidence that the Project would consume energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner during construction or operation. Instead, the comment focuses on the overall magnitude of Projects energy demand. Under CEQA, however, increased energy demand alone does not constitute a significant impact absent evidence that such demand would result in inefficient use of resources or exceed available supply in a manner that creates environmental consequences.
Furthermore, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519) . “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR” (Ibid.).
Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365).
As described in DEIR Section 5.5, Energy, the Project would result in less -than-significant impacts related to energy use. Because no significant energy impact was identified, there is no legal basis to impose additional mitigation measures absent an essential nexus between the proposed condition and an identified environmental effect. CEQA mitigation must be tied to a specific significant impact and must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the measure would substantially lessen that imp act. Here, the requested measures exceed what is required to address the Project’s disclosed impacts and are not necessary to reduce a significant effect.
As discussed in Section 5.5, Energy, the proposed Project incorporates renewable energy beyond the requirements of Title 24, included as GHG Mitigation Measures. The Project would implement MM GHG-1, which requires the Project applicant to install a minimum 101.3 kW DC solar photovoltaic (PV) system or offset an equivalent amount of energy demand through the purchase of renewable energy or implementation of alternative renewable measures. The solar photovoltaic system would supply 20 percent of the proposed Project’s yearly energy consumption , which exceeds the Title 24 requirement of 15 percent. The Project would also provide 20 percent of the employee parking stalls on -site as "EV ready" with all necessary Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
58 conduit installed, and equip 5 percent of these EV-ready stalls with working Level 2 Quickcharge EV charging stations.
It should also be noted that as of 2022, approximately one -third of the power generated by Southern California Edison is from renewable sources, and this is anticipated to continue to increase under the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 44 percent of total retail sales by 2024. The amount of retail electricity provided from renewable sources is expected to further increase significantly in order to meet the state goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
Accordingly, the Project’s energy use is consistent with the characteristics of urban industrial development and would not involve extraordinary or inefficient consumption of energy resources. The Project already exceeds applicable Title 24 requirements and incorporates renewable energy commitments beyond baseline standards. Because impacts were determined to be less than significant, no additional mitigation is required under CEQA. The commenter has not identified substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.46: The comment states the EIR should propose measures that ensure compliance with Senate Bill 100 and states that the proposed Project much be conditioned so that 100 percent of its energy demand is met by solar PV. This comment concludes by saying MM GHG-1 is vague and unenforceable.
Response 1.46: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.45.
SB 100 establishes statewide renewable energy and carbon neutrality goals applicable to electricity providers and statewide energy planning; it does not impose project -level mandates requiring individual development projects to achieve 100 percent renewable energy or net-zero emissions. Under CEQA, energy and greenhouse gas impacts are evaluated based on whether a project would result in significant environmental effects and whether feasible mitigation measures are available to substantially lessen those effects. CEQA does not require individual projects to independently achieve statewide policy goals.
Requiring the Project to meet 100 percent of its energy demand through on-site solar PV systems would be infeasible. The Project is a speculative industrial development, and future tenant operations and associated energy demands are not known at this time; therefore, designing a system to fully offset unknown loads is not practicable. In addition, physical and operational constraints limit the feasibility of full on-site renewable generation, including available rooftop area relative to building energy demand, structural limitations, fire access requirements, and the need to accommodate rooftop mechanical equipment. Utility interconnection constraints under Southern California Edison’s Rule 21 may also limit the ability to export excess generation, further constraining system sizing. Accordingly, a requirement for 100 percent on -site renewable energy would not be technically or economically feasible. The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.47: The comment states that use of on-site renewable energy system would help reduce GHG impacts and contribute to California’s renewable energy commitment.
Response 1.47: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.45.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.48: The comment states that the Project must take steps to reduce the Project’s field consumption and lists measures to do so.
Response 1.48: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.45.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
59 Comment 1.49: The comment states that the EIR’s conclusions regarding construction and operational noise impacts are not supported by substantial evidence.
Response 1.49: Please refer to Responses 1.50 through 1.52 below. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR or FEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 1.50: The comment asserts that construction noise would exceed applicable thresholds and should be considered significant. The comment contends the EIR relies on an unsupported threshold, that allowable construction hours do not reduce impacts, and that there is insufficient evidence to support conclusions regarding nighttime noise levels.
Response 1.50: The commenter’s interpretation of the analysis is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of DEIR Table 5.10 -4, Construction Reference Noise Levels . Table 5.10 -4 presents generalized reference noise levels for standard construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet, consistent with Federal Transit Administration guidance for general construction noise assessment. It reflects theoretical combined noise levels for the loudest equipment operating simultaneously and is intended as a reference point, not as a prediction of actual Project-specific noise exposure at nearby receptors.
Project-specific construction noise impacts were evaluated using the anticipated mix of equipment, construction phasing, and actual distances to the nearest sensitive receptors. As shown in DEIR Table 5.10-5, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, predicted construction noise levels at nearby receptor locations would range from 52.2 to 68.8 dBA Leq. These modeled levels reflect the actual conditions of Project construction and are substantially lower than the generalized reference values cited by the c ommenter.
Based on this Project -specific analysis, the nearest receptor locations would remain below the reasonable daytime construction significance threshold of 80 dBA Leq during construction activities. Accordingly, construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. Furthermore, the 80 dBA Leq daytime threshold is supported by substantial evidence and reflects accepted practice in the absence of a City - adopted quantitative construction noise threshold. As disclosed in the DEIR, the t hreshold is based on established Federal Transit Administration guidance and represents a reasonable standard for evaluating temporary daytime construction activity.
With respect to nighttime concrete pouring, the DEIR evaluated such activities separately and concluded they would not exceed the applicable 70 dBA Leq threshold. Accordingly, the DEIR’s construction noise analysis is supported by substantial evidence, applies accepted methodologies, and provides a reasonable and accurate assessment of temporary construction impacts. The commenter has not identified any deficiency i n the analysis requiring revision to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.51: The comment states that the Noise Analysis omits information and did not include noise measurements at locations that would be the most impacted, rendering the analysis incomplete.
Response 1.51: Noise measurements were taken at representative sensitive receptor locations surrounding the Project site, as shown in DEIR Figure 5.10-1, Noise Measurement Locations. These locations were selected to characterize the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the Project and to establish baseline conditions for the analysis. As described in Response 1.11 above, 24-hour measurements were conducted at each location to document daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels.
The measurement locations are as follows:
• L1: Located north of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25815 Floyd Avenue • L2: Located north of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25955 Floyd Avenue • L3: Located east of the Project site near a construction company at 26414 Murrieta Road Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
60 • L4: Located south of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25910 Camino Juarez • L5: Located southwest of the Project site near the single-family residence at 25735 McLaughlin Road The L1 and L2 locations are situated along the Project site’s northern boundary at representative distances corresponding to the nearest northern receptors and are therefore appropriate for establishing existing ambient noise conditions. The L4 and L5 locations are situated near single family residences along McLauglin Road and are representative of the nearest southern sensitive receptors. DEIR Table 5.10-2, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, provides the equivalent noise levels used to characterize daytime and nighttime conditions at these locations, while Appendix 5.2 of DEIR Appendix H includes the detailed hourly measurement summaries.
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general si te location guidelines which indicate that sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Caltrans recommends avoiding sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noi se exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community.
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting refer ence ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels
and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.
In addition, the commenter’s assertion conflates baseline ambient noise monitoring with Project operational impact modeling. Ambient measurements are intended to characterize the existing noise environment, not to replicate future operational conditions at every receptor location. The purpose of these measurements is to establish representative baseline conditions against which Project -generated noise can be evaluated.
Project-related operational impacts, including those associated with the truck court and loading dock activities, were separately analyzed using source- specific modeling at the identified sensitive receptors, including the nearest northern receptor locations. This analysis incorporated the most intensive operational activities and evaluated their effects at those receptors using conservative assumptions regarding equipment, activity levels, and proximity.
Accordingly, direct ambient monitoring adjacent to the truck court area is not required for a complete analysis, as operational impacts were independently modeled at the relevant receptors. The DEIR therefore provides both representative baseline measurements and a Project-specific assessment of future operational noise. The commenter has not demonstrated that the methodology is incomplete or inconsistent with accepted practice. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.52: The comment states that the Project’s nighttime operational noise would exceed applicable standards at all receptor locations and that noise increases would exceed the 3 dBA threshold. The Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
61 commenter also contends the analysis is inconsistent and unclear, including the use of daytime ambient noise levels in evaluating nighttime impacts.
Response 1.52: The commenter’s analysis conflates different noise standards that apply to distinct source types. The exterior 45 dBA Leq standard cited from City of Menifee Municipal Code Table 9.210.060 -1, Stationary Source Noise Standard, applies to stationary noise sources, such as HVAC systems, generators, or diesel fire pumps. It is not intended to regulate the full range of operational activities associated with a development, including mobile and intermittent sources such as loading dock activity, tr uck movements, parking lot circulation, or trash enclosure operations.
The operational noise analysis in the DEIR appropriately evaluated all relevant on -site Project -related sources, including loading dock activity, rooftop air conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, diesel fire pump operation, trash enclosure act ivity, and truck movements. These sources were assessed using accepted acoustical modeling methods and compared against the appropriate significance criteria for operational noise increases, rather than solely against stationary source limits that are not applicable to all analyzed activities. As shown in DEIR Tables 5.10 -10 and 5.10 -11, the Project would not exceed the applicable thresholds for daytime or nighttime operational noise level increases at the analyzed receptors.
Accordingly, the DEIR concluded that operational noise impacts would be less than significant under the established criteria.
With respect to the commenter’s assertion regarding ambient noise references, the analysis in DEIR Appendix H, including Table 9 -5, correctly utilizes the applicable nighttime ambient noise levels for the nighttime operational noise increase evaluation. The commenter’s suggestion that daytime ambient levels were used for the nighttime analysis is not supported by the record. The reference ambient noise values in the technical report are consistent with the baseline measurements documented in DEIR Appendix H, and Table 5-1 of the Noise Report.
Accordingly, the commenter’s comparison of inapplicable standards and misunderstanding of the technical methodology do not demonstrate a deficiency in the DEIR. The operational noise analysis is supported by substantial evidence and uses the appropriate standards and baseline conditions for evaluation. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.53: The comment asserts that the EIR shows the Project would exceed City Noise Ordinance standards and result in significant permanent noise impacts. The commenter contends that additional analysis and mitigation are required.
Response 1.53: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Responses
1.50 through 1.52 . The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.54: The comment asserts that the Project would result in significant traffic impacts at the Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road intersection and contends that reliance on a “fair share” fee-based mitigation program is inadequate. The comment also argues that the EIR does not demonstrate with substantial evidence that the mitigation program will ensure timely implementation of needed improvements, and therefore claims the mitigation is insufficient under CEQA.
Response 1.54: 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.” Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
62 Comments 1.54 through 1.58 refer to the LOS analysis disclosed within the DEIR and therefore do not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA.
The commenter’s assertion that the Project should be conditioned to fully construct the improvement at the Murrieta Road and Ethanac Road intersection is inconsistent with established nexus and proportionality principles. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) establishes that development conditions must bear an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” to the impacts of the project. The identified operational deficiency at that intersection is the result of cu mulative regional growth rather than the Project alone. As documented in the TIA , the Project contributes only a small percentage of total traffic at this location. Requiring the Project to fund or construct the entirety of an improvement addressing broader cumulative conditions would exceed the Project’s fair and proportional responsibility. In addition, California’s Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code Sections 66001 and 66005) requires that any development exaction or fee be reasonably related to the impacts of the development and proportional to the burden created by that project. Requiring the Project to fully fund or construct an intersection improvement necessitated by cumulative regional growth, where the Project contributes only a minor percentage of total traffic, would exceed these proportionality requirements.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3), recognizes that a project’s cumulative contribution may be addressed through fair share contributions toward planned improvements or mitigation programs, rather than requiring a single project to independently resolve c umulative impacts. For this reason, a fair share contribution is the appropriate mechanism to address the Project’s incremental contribution to future improvements. This approach is consistent with accepted transportation planning practice and ensures that the Project contributes proportionally toward local and regional infrastructure needs without imposing obligations unrelated to its actual impact. Fair share contributions are a recognized means of allocating responsibility for cumulative transportation improvements, particularly where multiple future developments contribute to the need for infrastructure upgrades.
The commenter further asserts that the absence of a specific fee program or identified implementation schedule renders the approach inadequate under CEQA. However, because LOS is not a CEQA significance criterion, the fair share contribution is not a CEQA mitigation measure. Rather, it is a planning -based improvement mechanism implemented through conditions of approval and local transportation funding structures. As such, it is not required to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which applies only to CEQA mitigation measures adopted to reduce significant environmental effects.
With respect to the Murrieta Road and Floyd Avenue intersection, DEIR Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, followed the City of Menifee’s adopted TIA Guidelines in defining the study area. The analysis focused on signalized intersections and two -way stop -controlled intersections, consistent with those guidelines. The Murrieta Road and Floyd Avenue intersection is unsignalized and does not operate as a two -way stop- controlled intersection; therefore, it was not required to be analyzed as a study intersection under the applicable methodology. Importantly, traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway network were still evaluated through roadway segment analysis. Specifically, the Murrieta Road segment between Ethanac Road and McLaughlin Road was included as a study roadway segment, thereby capt uring Project-related travel effects along the corridor that serves access to the site. This segment -based analysis appropriately accounts for circulation conditions in the vicinity of Floyd Avenue. Furthermore, it should be noted that the DEIR analysis, including Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, evaluated the northernmost driveway along Murrieta Road under scenarios both with and without the installation of a traffic signal. Under the signalized condition, truck traffic would exit the Project site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northernmost driveway. Accordingly, implementation of the traffic signal would be required should the Project operate under the signalized access configuration.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
63 Accordingly, the transportation analysis was prepared in conformance with current requirements and applicable local guidelines. The commenter has not identified a deficiency in the analysis, and no revisions to the EIR are required.
Comment 1.55: The commenter notes that the EIR identifies a specific roadway improvement to address increased delay at the Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road intersection but does not require its implementation as a project condition. Instead, the commenter states the Project would only be responsible for a proportionate “fair share” of costs, which the commenter implies is inadequate mitigation.
Response 1.55: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.56: The comment states that the identified improvement at Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road is not part of any planned program and therefore lacks evidence of implementation. The commenter contends that, without such a program, the “fair share” mitigation is inadequate and unenforceable under CEQA.
Response 1.56: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.57: The comment states that the proposed Project’s “fair share” fee -based mitigation is unenforceable because it is not included in the MMRP and a program has not been established with respect to the improvement in question. The comment concludes that the mitigation is inadequate under CEQA without a defined and enforceable program committing to implementation.
Response 1.57: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.58: The comment asserts that the Traffic Impact Analysis is incomplete because it does not include the Murrieta Road/Floyd Avenue intersection in the study area. The commenter contends this is a significant omission because all truck traffic is expected to u se this route and therefore impacts to this residential intersection were not properly analyzed.
Response 1.58: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.54.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.59: The comment asserts that the City’s rejection of the environmentally superior Alternative 3 is not supported by substantial evidence. The commenter notes that Alternative 3 would reduce project intensity, vehicle trips, and potentially significant GHG impa cts, and would provide greater setbacks and reduced development on the site. The commenter contends that the reasons for rejecting the alternative do not amount to substantial evidence under CEQA.
Response 1.59: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to within Response O3.33. The comment does not provide substantial evidence that the EIR’s alternatives analysis is inadequate. CEQA does not require the EIR to analyze every conceivable alternative, nor does it require that all alternatives meet all project objectives (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). 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 thos e 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 Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
64 Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.
DEIR page 8 -1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this DEIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” As permitted b y CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative are discussed in less detail than those of the Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the Project. As detailed in DEIR Section 8.0, Alte rnatives, the 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 Alternative (Alternative 1), a 30 Percent Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2), a 51 Percent Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3), and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative (Alternative 4) were selected for further analysis.
As such, the alternatives utilized by the DEIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
Table 8-4 of the DEIR provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8-5 provides a comparison of the ability of each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the Pr oject. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 3) and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the 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.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093:
(a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its a ction based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
CEQA does not require the Lead Agency (the City of Menifee) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. The environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 3 (51 Percent Reduced Project Alternative), was found to result in less economic gain and fewer employment opportunities than the Project. This alternative would also have the ability to attract less business activity and fewer employment opportunities for area residents. In addition, the smaller development would not fully develop an underutilized property. Fewer members of the local workforce would be able to obtain local employment.
In making this determination, the City found that when compared to the alternatives described and evaluated in the D EIR, the Project, as mitigated, provides a reasonable balance b etween satisfying the Project Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Response to Comments
65 objectives and reducing potential environmental impacts to an acceptable level. As such, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respec t to these impacts. The City has also examined alternatives to the Project, none of which meet the Project objectives and are environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed above.
Therefore, contrary to the comment’s statements, Alternative 3 was not rejected and was not found infeasible; the City has merely found that the benefits of the Project override the significant impacts. The comment does not identify any substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.60: The commenter asserts that CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible alternatives that would reduce significant environmental impacts, and that rejected alternatives must be supported by substantial evidence of infeasibility. The commenter contends that the City has not provided evidence that Alternative 3 is economically or otherwise infeasible and argues that the environmentally superior alternative must be adopted.
Response 1.60: This comment has been extensively discussed and responded to above within Response 1.59.
The comment does not identify substantial evidence requiring revisions to the EIR. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Comment 1.61: The comment concludes the letter and states that the proposed Project is incompatible with the residential community, it will degrade the character, and that the City Council should uphold denial of the Project.
Response 1.61: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the DEIR analysis. This comment will be provided to City Council decisionmakers as part of the staff report for the Project. Therefore, no further response is warranted.