Date:
October 23, 2024
Prepared by: Konnie Dobreva, Vice President of Environmental Planning Alex Garber, Senior Technical Planner
To: 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 CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the D raft 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 City of Perris comment letter, dated O ctober 23, 2024, 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 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.
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 alt ernative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Draft and Final EIR are not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
Please find the letter and response to comments attached.
Respectfully,
Konnie Dobreva, JD
LETTER 1: CITY OF PERRIS (3 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER
RESPONSE TO LETTER 1: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED OCTOBER 23, 2024
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.
Response 1.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR.
No further response is warranted.
Response 1.2: The comment states that the fails to address the replacement of residential units in compliance with Senate Bill 330. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses O3.2 to O3.4. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Response 1.3: The comment states that the proposed Project is not consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan, specifically Policy LU 1.10. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses 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 goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” ( Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).
Furthermore, the proposed Project provides a sufficient buffer to the nearest residential uses, and is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR . No further response is warranted.
Response 1.4: As indicated by the commenter, the Project is not required to comply with AB 98. This comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration.
Response 1.5: The comment introduces the RK Engineering Group attachment to the City of Perris comment letter, as shown below, which addresses concerns over traffic safety issues. The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact . This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Fi nal EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments , within response to comment letter O3.
Additionally, please refer to responses 1 through 7 below, for a response from EPD’s senior technical planner Alex Garber to the RK Engineering Group Inc. comment letter. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Response 1.6: The comment states that the site-specific traffic study for the proposed Project is premature given the that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area. The comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and continues to rely on argument and inaccurate facts. This comment was thoroughly responded to in in the Final EIR within Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as responses A3.5. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Response 1.7: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the EIR analysis. This comment does not contain any new information. T herefore, no further response is warranted.
ATTACHMENT 1: RK ENGINEERING GROUP INC. (4 PAGES) COMMENT LETTER
RESPONSE TO ATTATCHMENT 1: RKA CONSULTING GROUP INC., DATED OCTOBER 23, 2024 Response 1: This comment is informative in nature and does not provide substantial evidence conflicting with the analysis or findings provided in the EIR.
Response 2: The scope of the proposed Project does not include the MEDC roadway improvement as the project is not dependent on the development of this project. It is speculative to assume that turning movements on specific intersections may change as a result of the MEDC roadway project; at such time that the MEDC study is complete, it would determine the impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that would apply to project in the area. The MEDC roadway project is not guaranteed, and can be rejected by the City Council, making any analysis relying on the construction of it speculative and opening up the project to legal challenges.
The TIA prepared for the proposed Project is technically adequate to analyze the intersections west of Case Road and Barnett Road, in the worst case scenario, analyzing 100% of Truck trips , as well as the realistic circulation of the project based on the existing roadway infrastructure. No additional analysi s is required and no revisions to the EIR are required.
Response 3: The Project-specific TIA analyzed all of the Cumulative Projects and information associated with those projects made available at the time the Notice of Preparation was released. Additionally, based on the City of Perris ’ own Traffic Study guidance, only intersections that are anticipated to experience 50 or more Project -generated trips should be analyzed. Green Valley Parkway/Murrieta Road would experience less than 50 project generated trips, therefore, was and is not be required to be analyzed as part of the TIA. No additional analysis is required and no revisions to the EIR are required.
Response 4: The statements claiming to the intersection of Case Road and Barnett Road are two intersections that should be analyzed separately are inaccurate. While to comment is correct to state the intersection is offset, the totality of the intersection is controlled by one Traffic Signal Controller, making it a single intersection with a split phase for the north and south movements. Additionally , the accidents identified by TIMS for 2020 -2023 do not meet the criteria for a significant design safety concern, which require 5 accidents over a 12 -month period, not a three -year period. These years are more appropriate than the 2015-2017 timeframe as they are more representative of the existing conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation.
Response 5: The TIA analyzed the Intersections of Ethanac Road and I -215 NB/SB ramps, identifying improvements to the intersections greatly reducing the intersections LOS significantly below baseline as shown in table 6.1 and 6.2.
Response 6: A subsequent Queuing Analysis was prepared for the project analyzing the driveway queueing impacts, Truck Turning, and on-site storage capacity.
Response 7: As stated in response 4, th e statements related to the intersection of Case Road and Barnett Road are inaccurate. While to comment is correct to state the intersection is offset, the totality of the intersection is controlled by one Traffic Signal Controller, making it a single intersection with a split p hase for the north and south movements.