Date:
February 5, 2025
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning To: Ryan Fowler, City of Menifee Principal Planner
Site: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project
Subject: Late Comment Letter on the Final EIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2023110162)
Dear Mr. Fowler,
The 45-day public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project began May 24, 2024, and ended on July 8 , 2024, as documented on the City of Menifee’s website, Riverside County Clerk’s website, and State Clearinghouse.
Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the 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 Floyd Avenue Residents comment letter, dated January 30, 2025 , was received by the Lead Agency after the 45-day 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 proposed Project. The number designations 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 Lead Agency’s consideration in review of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.
Please find the letter and response to comments attached.
Respectfully,
Konnie Dobreva
LETTER 1: FLOYD AVENUE RESIDENTS (4 PAGES) LATE COMMENT LETTER
RESPONSE TO LETTER 1 : FLOYD AVENUE RESIDENTS , DATED JANUARY 30, 2025
This comment letter was received after the public review and comment period ended (May 24, 2024, through July 8, 2024). As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, Lead Agencies are not required to respond to letters received outside of the noticed comment period. However, the following responses have been prepared to provide clarity regarding the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Comment 1: This comment states that the residents of Floyd Avenue submit this comment letter regarding the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project, to the City of Menifee to reconsider the approval of the Project due to the environmental, traffic, noise, and visual impact it will have on the health and safety of the residents of Floyd Avenue.
Response 1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Concerns regarding impacts related to traffic, noise, and visual impact are addressed below in Responses 3 through 7. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment 2: The commenter expresses concern about the significant increase in traffic generated by the proposed warehouse, specifically 1,135 truck trips and 1,489 passenger vehicle trips daily, totaling 2,624 trips. The commenter highlights the safety risks posed by the dramatic increase in truck traffic, particularly for pedestrians, cyclists, and children, as these streets are used for daily activities and as play areas.
Response 2: This comment has been previously responded to in Response A3.2 and I3.2 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The DEIR and the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Project have thoroughly analyzed the potential transportation and safety impacts associated with the projected increase in truck and passenger vehicle trips. As stated in Section 5.12, Transportation, of the DEIR, the proposed Project includes roadway improvements designed to accommodate projected traffic volumes and enhance safety measures. Specifically, Geary Street would be improved and paved to a 36-foot width, and Murrieta Road would undergo frontage improvements to ensure compliance with City standards.
Truck routing has been planned to minimize conflicts with residential areas. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily use Ethanac Road westbound to Murrieta Road southbound, utilizing designated truck routes, as shown within Appendix B of the FEIR. The proposed Project also includes a private truck-only driveway along the southern portion of the site to reduce truck circulation on local streets. Furthermore, all trucks exiting the site onto Murrieta Road would do so via a signalized intersection to enhance traffic flow and safety.
Regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety, the City of Menifee’s review process ensures that roadway improvements comply with applicable safety standards. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction and grading permits to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. As stated in the DEIR, truck movements would be regulated through on-site signage, striping, and access control measures to avoid potential conflicts between heavy vehicles and non-motorized road users. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would comp ly with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses; protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities.
While the proposed Project would contribute to an increase in traffic along Geary Street and Murrieta Road, the DEIR has adequately disclosed and assessed these impacts, and measures have been incorporated where feasible. Thus , the proposed Project's transportation and safety impacts have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA requirements, and the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The City will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with all applicable standards to avoid potential effects on the community. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 3: The commenter expresses concern that the EIR does not fully address the potential health impacts of increased diesel truck traffic. They note that the EIR assessed air pollution at a regional level rather than a project-specific level, excluding residents of Floyd Avenue and surrounding homes from consideration. The commenter highlights the health risks of diesel particulate matter ( DPM), particularly for those living within 300 to 500 feet of the Project site. Additionally, they argue that the Project conflicts with Menifee General Plan Policy LU-1.10, which calls for buffering sensitive land uses from major air pollutant sources.
Response 3: This comment has been addressed in Responses O3.7, A 3.2, and A6.4 of the FEIR. The DEIR provides a comprehensive analysis of air quality and health risk impacts associated with the proposed Project. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and supported by the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (Appendix G of the DEIR), potential health risks from DPM emissions have been analyzed at both the construction and operational phases, for both regional and local impacts.
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) evaluated exposure to DPM from heavy- duty truck traffic and on- site operations. The results indicate that the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction-related DPM emissions is 0.77 in one million, well b elow the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) cancer risk significance threshold of 10 in one million. For operational emissions, the maximum estimated cancer risk is 3.02 in one million under Scenario 1 and 3.04 in one million under Scen ario 2— again, significantly below the SCAQMD threshold . Additionally, non-cancer risks were found to be ≤ 0.01, well below the applicable significance threshold of 1.0.
The EIR also assesses cumulative air quality impacts, including potential combined effects from other industrial projects in the region. Based on SCAQMD guidance, projects that do not exceed individual significance thresholds are generally considered to have a less than significant cumulative impact. The cumulative cancer risk assessment demonstrates that even when accounting for other industrial projects in the vicinity, the total estimated risk remains below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ) standard cumulative cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million.
As described in Section 5.9, Land Use of the DEIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with Menifee’s General Plan Land Use Policy LU-I.10, which states that sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, and similar uses shall be buffered. The proposed Project would provide a buffer between the proposed Project and residence s located north of the Project site through the implementation of a 14-foot-high retaining and screen wall along the interior of the northern truck court which would be outside facing 8-feet high for the residences to the north. Further, the proposed Project would also be setback from the residences to the north with landscaping and parking.
In conclusion, the air quality and health risk impacts have been adequately analyzed in compliance with CEQA and SCAQMD methodologies. The proposed Project’s emissions, including DPM, have been determined to be less than significant, and appropriate measures have been incorporated where feasible. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the FEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment L.4:
The commenter notes that the Staff Report dated October 23, 2024, acknowledges significant and unavoidable noise impacts along Murrieta Road and Geary Street. The commenter express es concern that the Noise & Vibration Analysis dated July 15, 2024, only evaluated A-weighted noise levels and did not account for C-weighted low-frequency noise, which can be more disruptive to residents and more difficult to mitigate.
Response 4: The DEIR has thoroughly analyzed the noise impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR, which determined that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI -1 and PPP NOI-2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant . However, the analysis determined that off -site traffic noise increases along Murrieta Road and Geary Street would result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to increased vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project. The DEIR evaluated both the cumulative noise increase over existing conditions and the incremental increase due to the proposed Project itself. Table 5.10- 24 of the DEIR identifies roadway segments where noise levels are expected to exceed applicable thresholds.
Regarding the use of A -weighted (dBA) versus C -weighted (dBC) measurements, standard environmental noise analyses, including those conducted under CEQA, rely on A -weighting because it aligns with human hearing sensitivity and regulatory thresholds set by agencies such as the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). While C-weighted measurements capture low-frequency noise more effectively, regulatory noise limits and mitigation strategies are typically based on A-weighted levels.
The DEIR also considered feasible mitigation measures, such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt, but determined that these would not be sufficient to reduce traffic noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Consequently, the proposed Project’s off-site traffic noise impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
In summary, the noise analysis in the D EIR follows CEQA guidelines and industry standards, utilizing methodologies that provide a reliable assessment of potential impacts. While the proposed Project includes design features to minimize noise where feasible, the off -site traffic noise impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the F EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 5: The commenter raises concerns about the visual impact of the proposed 55-foot-tall warehouse on residents of Floyd Avenue. The commenter states that structures may be visible from backyards and second-floor bedrooms. Additionally, they express concern over the lack of details regarding on -site and off-site lighting design, which could impact privacy and disrupt the residential environment. The commenter also states that the project does not align with Menifee General Plan Policy LU -1.4, as it lac ks a well - designed transition between the residential neighborhood and the industrial development.
Response 5: The DEIR fully evaluated the visual impacts of the proposed warehouse, including building height, massing, and potential effects on surrounding residential areas and determined impacts would be less than significant. As stated in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed Project incorporates design measures to minimize visual disruption, including setbacks, landscape buffering, and architectural treatments to reduce the perception of mass and scale.
Furthermore, under CEQA, visual impacts are analyzed based on public viewpoints rather than private residential views. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e) states that economic or social effects, including impacts on private views, are not considered environmental impacts unless they result in a significant physical change to the environment. Courts have consistently held that CEQA does not protect private views, as its purpose is to assess broader community and environmental impacts rather than individual prop erty concerns (e.g., Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720).
Regarding concerns about the availability of detailed plans, CEQA does not require final design plans to be included in an EIR, only that sufficient information is provided for public and agency review (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). The DEIR includes conceptual site plans, elevations, and simulations that illustrate the anticipated visual character of the proposed Project. Further refinements to the building design and landscaping w ould be subject to the City of Menifee’s site development review process to ensure compliance with applicable design standards.
In response to concerns about lighting impacts, the DEIR includes an analysis of lighting design in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates light spillover and glare. The proposed Project w ould incorporate downward-shielded LED fixtures to minimize light trespass onto adjacent properties. In addition, final design review would be required to confirm compliance with City standards, including height and placement of lighting fixtures.
With respect to Menifee General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1.4, the DEIR concludes that the proposed Project is consistent with the intent of this policy. The proposed P roject integrates transitional design elements such as landscaping, setbacks, and screening to buffer the residential areas along Floyd Avenue.
In conclusion, the DEIR fully discloses the proposed Project's potential aesthetic and lighting impacts. The City would ensure compliance with all applicable design and lighting regulations through the final review and approval process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 6: The commenter expresses concerns about the potential negative impact of the proposed development on property values.
Response 6: Under CEQA, economic and social effects, including potential changes in property values, are not considered environmental impacts unless they lead to or are caused by a physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15131). The DEIR evaluates the proposed Project's potential environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetics, including measures to mitigate significant effects where feasible. However, CEQA does not require an analysis of potential changes in property values unless they directly result in a significant environmental impact.
The DEIR has already disclosed and analyzed environmental factors such as air quality, noise, and aesthetics, including identifying significant and unavoidable offsite traffic noise impacts. While concerns about property values are acknowledged, CEQA focuses on physical environmental changes rather than economic speculation.
The City Council may consider economic and social factors outside the CEQA process when making a final decision on the proposed P roject. However, within the scope of CEQA review, the D EIR has adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and incorporated mitigation measures where required. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment 7: The commenter requests that the Project be denied, stating that the only acceptable solution is to wait until the properties along Floyd Avenue are bought out. The commenter expresses dissatisfaction with proposed alternatives, stating that they do not adequately address their concerns. The commenter emphasizes that their health, safety, and property values should take priority over the project, and they urge the City of Menifee to reconsider the approval.
Response 7: The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR and has been previously addressed in Response O3.33 of the FEIR. The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) 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. Additionally, an alternative is not required to meet all project objectives and eliminate all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as incorrectly stated by the Commenter.
DEIR page 8 -1 states that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this EIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project”. As detailed in DEIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning, a 30 percent Reduced Project Alternative, a 51 percent Reduce d Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative 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 proposed Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8 -5 provides a comparison of the ability of each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed Project, to a less than significant determination. Noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. We recognize that the impacts of the proposed Project are a source of concern for the community, and the City of Menifee will continue to consider these concerns as part of the decision-making process.