September 2024
Final Environmental
Impact Report
MURRIETA ROAD
WAREHOUSE PROJECT
SCH NO. 2023110162
prepared for
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
prepared with the assistance of
EPD, Solutions Inc.
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 794-1180
www.epdsolutions.com
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Table of Contents
City of Menifee i
Final EIR
September 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
2. Response to Comments ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................................................. 4-1
Tables
TABLE 2-1: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIR................................................................................................................ 2-1 TABLE 4-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................................................................ 4-3
Appendices
APPENDIX A REVISED NOISE REPORT
APPENDIX B REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C CADO MENIFEE LLC VS CITY OF PERRIS
APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LETTER
APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - GOLDEN STATE LETTER
APPENDIX F DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Table of Contents
City of Menifee ii
Final EIR
September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 1.0 Introduction
City of Menifee 1-1
Final EIR
September 2024
1. Introduction
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR ; Final EIR ) has been prepared in conformance with the environmental policy guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects that may result from construction and operation of the proposed Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (proposed Project).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR; Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft EIR; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period, which began May 24, 2024, and ended on July 8, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency, the City of Menifee. This document and the circulated Draft EIR comprise the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.
1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR
The following chapters are contained within this document:
Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes CEQA requirements and the contents of the Final EIR.
Chapter 2, Response to Comments. This chapter provides a list of agencies and organizations who commented on the Draft EIR, as well as copies of their comment letters received during and following the public review period, and individual responses to their comments.
Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions made to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received by agencies and organizations as described in Chapter 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review.
The City of Menifee has determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
The additional material clarifies existing information prepare d in the Draft EIR and does not present any new substantive information. None of this new material indicates that the project would result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Chapter 4, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The MMRP was prepared based on the mitigation measures included in this Final EIR and the Draft EIR.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 1.0 Introduction
City of Menifee 1-2
Final EIR
September 2024
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be “ on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible … CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters . When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “ Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall n ot be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information german e to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies are being forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the F inal EIR, with copies of this Final EIR document, which conforms to the legal standards established for response to comments on the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b), lead agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the Final EIR by the public or by commenting agencies before a project is approved but is not required to do so.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-1
Final EIR
September 2024
2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals who reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) and prepare written responses. This section includes copies of all written comment letters received on the DEIR and the City of Menifee’s responses to the comment letters. Comment letters and specific comments are numbered for reference purposes which correspond with the City’s response. A summary of each numbered comment in the commenter’s letter precedes the City’s response.
The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the DEIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the Project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. Where text changes in the DEIR are warranted based on comments received, updated Project information, or other information provided by City staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment and the reader is directed to Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
These changes to the analysis contained in the DEIR represent only minor clarifications/amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the DEIR is not required.
The following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals or interested parties that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review and comment period (May 24, 2024, through July 8, 2024).
All of the comment letters received on the DEIR and responses to those comments are provided on the following pages.
Table 2-1: Comments Received on the DEIR
Letter Number Agency/Organization/Name Comment Date Received Agencies
A1 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians July 3, 2024
A2 Airport Land Use Commission May 28, 2024
A3 City of Perris July 8, 2024
A4 Riverside County Department of Waste Resources July 3, 2024 A5 Southern California Gas May 24, 2024
A6 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 24, 2024 Organizations
O1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
July 2, 2024
O2 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice July 8, 2024 O3 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance July 3, 2024 O4 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance July 5, 2024 Individuals
I1 Adrienne Vendor May 28, 2024
I2 Bob Powell May 28, 2024
I3 Kimberly and Moo Tang June 26, 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-2
Final EIR
September 2024
2.1 LETTER A1: AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS (1 PAGE)
AGUA CAl 1€N TE BAND O F CA HUIILLA INDIAN
July 03, 2024
[VIA EM.A.IT., 10:bhami.U
City ofMeJli.fee
Mr. B1,etil Hamilton
9844 Ha1!111 Road
Menifee,, CA 92 586
Re: Ar,es Ware-house DEIR
De.ar :Mr. Brett Hamilton,
ityofmeuifee.us]
The. Agua Calie.nte Band ofCahuilJa Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the 'fribal Historic Preserva.hon Office. (IHPO) m the Ares Jvhurieta Road Warehouse project We h.1.ve reviewed the documents and have file following connnents:
*Please provide a copy of the final Monitoring Report once. it is available.
Again, the. Agua Caliente. appreciates. yow-:interest in our cultural heritage. If you hav e questlons or reqwre additional information, please call me. at (760) 4 23-3485. You may also email me at ACB0 [email protected]
Cordially,
,t.-4J ~ :r-..R
Xitlaly Madrigal
Cultural Re;;;ourc.es A.nalyst
Tnllal Historic Pre;Servation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF C.1\HUILIA INDIANS
5 4 0 I D I r, .,_ ► I 5 11 o A D '1 I ~ , P L S- r ~ 1 c; s , C A e _ 2. G 4 T 71;0 1 609 GBOV r ?6l> 1 ll9~ l!!!I~~ , W'wW , /i.(:;Vf'.C/liL I Chl T C - NSit, 1.:iov A 1
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-3
Final EIR
September 2024
2.2 RESPONSE TO LETTER A1: AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Comment A1.1: This comment requests a copy of the final monitoring report for the Project and appreciates the City’s interest in cultural heritage.
Response A1.1: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. As requested, the City will coordinate regarding the future final monitoring report for the Project. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-4
Final EIR
September 2024
2.3 LETTER A2: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (1 PAGE)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-5
Final EIR
September 2024
2.4 RESPONSE TO LETTER A2: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION, DATED MAY 28, 2024
Comment A2.1: This comment states that the Riverside County ALUC has reviewed the proposed Project. The comment also states that the proposed Project is located within Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport Influence Area and that ALUC review is only required if the proposed Project proposes a legislative action (i.e., zone change or amendment to a SP or GP).
Response A2.1: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided . However, it should be noted that the proposed Project does not include any legislative action that would require ALUC review.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-6
Final EIR
September 2024
2.5 LETTER A3: CITY OF PERRIS (5 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-7
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-8
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-9
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-10
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-11
Final EIR
September 2024
2.6 RESPONSE TO LETTER A3: CITY OF PERRIS, DATED JULY 8, 2024 The responses provided below reference the following technical studies which have either been revised or included as appendices to the FEIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Project Noise and Vibration Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc., Revised July 15, 2024, Appendix A.
• Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), EPD Solutions, Inc., Revised September 2024, Appendix B. • CADO Menifee LLC vs City of Perris, Superior Cour t of California of the County of Riverside, 2023, Appendix C.
Comment A3.1: This comment includes introductory statements, a brief description of the Project, and a description of the Green Valley Specific Plan (GVSP) planning area. The comment states that Ethanac Road is not a truck route. Furthermore, the comment states that the City of Perris expressed concerns regarding the proposed Project during the NOP period, which they believe have not been adequately addressed.
Response A3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses general concerns regarding the DEIR’s evaluation of land use, noise, and transportation. However, the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to. Thus, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A3.2: The comment states that the proposed industrial development is incompatible with the residential development in the City of Menifee due to its proximity to residential development in the City of Perris across Ethanac Road to the north of the Project site. The comment states that the GVSP area, within the City of Perris, consists of residences with some commercial development, t herefore, no industrial development in the City of Perris is allowed to utilize Ethanac Road as a truck route to avoid impacts to the sensitive receptors. The comment states that the proposed industrial development could generate truck traffic along Ethanac Road that would result in significant traffic safety impacts to existing and future residential development.
Response A3 .2: As discussed throughout the DEIR, specifically Section 5. 9 Land Use and Planning , the proposed Project is consistent with the Menifee 2013 General Plan land use designation of Economic Development Corridor (EDC), consistent with the z oning designation of EDC Northern Gateway (NG) , consistent with General Plan goals and policies , and consistent with the City of Menifee Go od Neighbor Policies. In addition, the surrounding land uses all share the same land use and zoning designation of EDC and EDC-NG. The proposed Project would comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies whic h require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. Therefore, the proposed Project would be compatible with surrounding land uses within the City of Menifee.
As described in the DEIR on page 5.12-3, Ethanac Road is classified as an Expressway according to the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Furthermore, as shown on Exhibit C-7 of the Menifee General Plan, Potential Truck Routes, Ethanac Road is designated as a truck route by the City of Menifee. As such, trucks utilizing Ethanac Road for access is appropriate. In addition, as explained by the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside: “(i) the portion of Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road and east of Goetz Road is within the ju risdictions of both the City of Menifee and City Perris; (ii) Vehicle Code section 35702 prohibits the City of Perris from unilaterally adopting an ordinance or resolution prohibiting vehicles in excess of five tons on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road wit hout consent from the City of Menifee; (iii) any ordinance or resolution adopted by the City of Perris purporting to prohibit vehicles in excess of five tons on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road without consent from the City of Menifee, including Resolution No. 6008 and Ordinance No. 1418 adopted by the City of Council of the City of Perris in June and July of Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-12
Final EIR
September 2024
2022, is unlawful and void to the extent that it affects Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road as adopted in violation of Vehicle Code section 35702. (iv) properties located to the north and south of Ethanac Road and west of Barnett Road in the City of Penis and City of Menifee, including the properties owned by Plaintiffs, may continue to have ingress and egress access pursuant to Vehicle Code section 35703 in the event that vehicles in excess of five tons are later lawfully prohibited from travelling on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road pursuant to the Vehicle Code, including, without limitation, Vehicle Code sections 35701 and 35702.” (CADO Menifee, LLC, vs City of Perris . Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case Number CVRI2203602. June 12, 2023.).
It should also be noted that a Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. The Project specific Traffic Impact Analysis, included as Appendix K of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road . The Traffic Impact Analysis determined that intersections 4, 8, 9, and 10 would improve to a satisfactory LOS, based on the City of Menifee and City of Perris LOS Standards and Significance Criteria for Traffic Studies, with the recommended improvements.
As described in Section 5.12 of the DEIR, Transportation , trucks accessing and leaving from the Project site would be routed away from roadways with significant passenger vehicle usage and trucks would be required to utilize existing City -designated truck routes to access I -215 and SR -74 and I -15, which would limi t potential safety conflicts between passenger vehicles and trucks. Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the Project.
Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts.
Also, as described in further detail in Response O 3.7 and Response A6.4 below, the DEIR provides a n evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. As described under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in non- attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
In addition, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) . The Health Risk Assessment determined that the proposed Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity or operational activity. In summary, all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation and construction related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to sensitive receptors, within the City of Menifee or the GVSP. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-13
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment A3.3: The comment states that the DEIR utilized incorrect methodology to evaluate cumulative roadway noise impacts. The comment specifically states that the DEIR should include the future plus project noise levels compared to the existing (no project) roadway noise levels instead of the Project’s increase over future noise levels.
Response A3.3: Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity.
The cumulative impact analysis and determination provided in Section 5.10, Noise , of the DEIR would no t change with the inclusion of the existing without Project noise levels compared to the opening year with Project noise levels, as detailed below. Only two impacted roadway segments would experience cumulative roadway noise impacts and both methodologies support the same determination. Therefore, the DEIR accurately disclosed cumulative offsite traffic noise levels and impacts. However, in response to this comment Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR has been revised . The following revisions (with additions in bold, double underlined text) are included in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR , of the Final EIR to provide additional supporting analysis:
5.10.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area. A significant impact would result only if both the difference between existing and opening year with project (combined effects) and difference between opening year without project and opening year with project (incremental effects) thresholds have been exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise standard. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Therefore, cumulative traffic- generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the opening year cumulative traffic volumes on the roadways in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project were identified in DEIR Tables 5.10-20 and 5.10-21.
As shown, cumulative development along with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels above the threshold for those roadway segments, therefore cumulative impacts associated with traffic noise would also be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, consistent with the cumulative traffic noise impact identified by the 2013 General Plan EIR.
Additionally, Ta
ble 5.10-24 presents a summary of the cumulative and project incremental noise level increases for each of the study area roadway segments. The cumulative traffic noise analysis describes the future changes in noise levels in comparison to the existing baseline noise levels. As shown on Table 5.10-24 the overall increase in off -site traffic noise levels from the e xisting (baseline) to the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 conditions ranges from 0.5 to 17.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10-3, nine of the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant off- site traffic noise level increases due to cumulative traffic conditions. The Project increment shown in Table 5.10-24 represents the difference between the Opening Year without Project and the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 is shown to range from 0.0 to 17.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10 -3, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant noise level impacts due to the Project -related traffic. Therefore, the Project contributions to the off-site cumulative traffic noise levels are cumulatively considerable for two of the impacted roadway segments, as identified above.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2. 0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-14
Final EIR
September 2024
Figure 5.10-24: Cumulative Offsite Traffic Noise Increases ID Roadway Segment Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA CNEL) Cumulative Conditions
Cumulatively
Considerable Project
Contribution
Existing
No
Project
(a)
OY
Without
Project
(b)
OYP2
With
Project
(c)
Cumulative
Increase
(c-a)
Cumulative
Limit
Cumulative
Impact?
Project
Increment
(c-b)
Project
Limit
Project
Impact?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 48.3 48.7 65.9 17.6 1.5 Yes 17.2 1.5 Yes 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 64.9 71.4 71.4 6.5 1.5 Yes 0.0 1.5 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 68.1 68.6 70.3 2.2 1.5 Yes 1.7 1.5 Yes 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation
Dwy.
Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.8 69.7 1.5 1.5 Yes 0.9 1.5 No
5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin
Rd.
Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.7 68.7 0.5 1.5 No 0.0 1.5 No
6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 73.6 75.9 75.9 2.3 1.5 Yes 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta
Rd.
Sensitive 73.8 75.9 76.5 2.7 1.5 Yes 0.6 1.5 No
8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 74.4 78.3 79.0 4.6 1.5 Yes 0.7 1.5 No 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 74.3 78.2 79.0 4.7 1.5 Yes 0.8 1.5 No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 79.8 80.4 4.4 1.5 Yes 0.6 1.5 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024 (Appendix H).
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-15
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment A3.4: The comment states that the DEIR does not adequately defin e “Project Scenario 1” and “Project Scenario 2” within the DEIR and that these terms are only fully defined in the Traffic Analysis and that it is unclear whether these definitions are intended to be consistent throughout the document. The comment states that Lack of clarity regarding these definitions misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts associated with noise impacts.
Response A3.4: This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact. However, in response to this comment the DEIR Section 5.10, Noise, has been revised to include the full definitions of Project Scenario 1 and Project Scenario 2. The definitions are consistent throughout the document and with those provided in Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis. Revisions have been included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this FEIR and include the following:
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The proposed Project would generate traffic -related noise from operation. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. To identify the potential of traffic from the proposed Project to generate noise impacts, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix K. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.
The proposed Project includes two Project Scenarios in order to analyze the proposed provision of a traffic signal at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the first scenario (Project Scenario 1 – No Signal), only right-in, right-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the second scenario (Project Scenario 2 – With Signal), right-in, right- out, and left-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. Under Project Scenario 2, the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road would be a signalized intersection upon activation.
Comment A3.5: The comment states that the site-specific traffic study for the proposed Project is premature given the that the overall traffic study for the Menifee Economic Development Corridor (MEDC) needs to be completed first to master plan the entire MEDC area. The comment states that a more comprehensive review of the entire area along Ethanac Road needs to be completed before site-specific studies can be prepared for individual projects.
Response A3.5: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation , where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non -CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Comments A3.5 through A3.19 refer to the LOS analysis disclosed within the DEIR and therefore do not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA.
It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Since the global Traffic Study for the MEDC area has not been completed, the Project Traffic Study analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road. The analysis for this Project cannot speculate about alternative truck routes that might later be identified. Additionally, it is not premature to prepare a specific traffic study for Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-16
Final EIR
September 2024
development of the site pursuant to the proposed Project. Conversely, it is beneficial as the Traffic Study for the MEDC area can include the specific trips from the Project specific Traffic Study and the related improvements; versus an estimation of what could potentially be developed on the site and potential future improvements. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst-case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic-related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. This information is available for us e in evaluating build out of future projects in the area. Additionally, fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements and into an established RBBD would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project.
Comment A3.6: This comment states that the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Project identifies roadway segments within the City of Perris jurisdiction. The comment states that the City of Perris traffic impact criteria must be utilized for all intersections identified within the Traffic Impact Analysis and that the Project would be responsible for implementing mitigation.
Response A3.6: As noted in Response A3. 5 above, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA . As described in Section 2.4 of Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR , the City of Perris LOS Standards and Traffic Criteria for Traffic Studies are as follows:
City of Perris
The City of Perris LOS Standards and Significance Criteria for Traffic Studies identifies LOS D as the threshold for acceptable operating conditions for intersections except at constrained intersections and roadway segments in close proximity to State Route (SR) 74, the Ramona-Cajalco Expressway, or at I-215 freeway ramps, where LOS E is accepted during peak hours.
As per the TIA guidelines, a project would not meet the LOS standard under the following conditions:
1. A project-related impact is considered direct and significant when a study intersection operates at an acceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips causes the intersection to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing plus project conditions.
2. A project-related impact is considered direct and significant when a study intersection operates at an unacceptable Level of Service for existing conditions (without the project) and the addition of 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.
3. A cumulative impact is considered significant when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour project trips.
Based on review of the study intersections, below are study intersections located within Caltrans right -of- way (ROW) or located entirely or a majority within the City of Perris:
• Geary St/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
• Murrieta Rd/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
• Case Rd-Barnett Rd/Ethanac Rd (City of Perris)
• I-215 SB Ramps/Ethanac Rd (CalTrans)
• I-215 NB Ramps/Ethanac Rd (CalTrans)
Based on review of the City of Perris significance criteria and applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris, the recommended improvements noted in Appendix K at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS, Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-17
Final EIR
September 2024
would more than offset the project-related effect, and would address the City of Perris significance criteria.
Therefore, the City’s criteria was utilized as appropriate and improvements have been included.
Comment A3.7: The comment states that the distribution and assignment of truck traffic would be using non- truck routes within the City of Perris. The comment states that no trucks are allowed along Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road, and therefore the DEIR misleads the public and decision makers regarding the potential impacts related to traffic safety and increased truck traffic.
Response A3.7: Please refer to Response A3.5. It should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project specific traffic-related impacts and cumulative traffic-related impacts. The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project.
Please refer to response A3.3. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Projec t would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.8: The comment states that the Master Plan for the MEDC will be providing roadway connections for trucks that will not impact City of Perris non- truck route roadways. This must be considered as part of the traffic study and the analysis should be revised accordingly.
Response A3.8: Please refer to Response A3.5 and A3.7 above. The DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road . The global Traffic Study for the MEDC area would analyze the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road and would include proposed improvements . Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements , including the truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. As described in Response O3.11, the implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.9: The comment states that traffic study will need to clearly identify what improvements are necessary, whether they have a direct or indirect impact from the project, and how they will be implemented and states that the City of Perris traffic criteria should be used.
Response A3.9: Please refer to Response A3.6 above. T he City of Perris significance criteria have been utilized for the applicable intersections located within or adjacent to the City of Perris . The recommended improvements noted in Appendix K at deficient study intersections and roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS and would more than offset the Project -related effect, pursuant to the City of Perris significance criteria.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-18
Final EIR
September 2024
Additionally,, fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements, through an established Road and Bridge Benefit District, would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the proposed Project.
Comment A3.10: The comment states that the Study Intersection #8 consists of two separate (offset) intersections (Barnett Road & Case Road) and should be analyzed separately (from a LOS and queuing standpoint), and the recommended improvements should involve realigning Barnett Road with Case Road (and other associated intersection improvements if necessary).
Response A3.10: The intersection of Barnett Road and Case Road at Ethanac Road, identified as Intersection #8 in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, operates as one intersection and should be analyzed as one for analysis purposes. Furthermore, once the Master Plan for the MEDC is completed and improvements and costs are identified for the intersection of Barnett Road and Case Road at Ethanac Road the proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share contribution into an established Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.11: The comment states that the traffic study will have to follow the latest City of Perris requirements for those intersections and roadway segments within the City of Perris. The comment states that for roadway segments and intersections in the City of Perris, the City of Perris criteria should be utilized.
Response A3.11: This comment has been previously responded to in Response A3.6 above. The recommended improvements noted in Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, at deficient roadway segments would cause the study locations to operate at an acceptable LOS. Recommended improvements would more than offset the Project-related effect and would address the City of Perris roadway capacity criteria. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.12: The comment states that Intersection #8 should be shown and analyzed as two separate intersections, since they do not align with each other. The City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS for these intersections is LOS D.
Response A3.12: This comment has been previously addressed. Please refer to Responses A3.10 and A 3.7 above. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.13: The comment states that the City of Perris Planning Department will need to review and confirm the list of cumulative projects is accurate/comprehensive.
Response A3.13: Acknowledged. As specified in Section 5.11 of the DEIR, Transportation, since the proposed development is located in proximity to the boundary of the City of Perris, cumulative projects in the City of Perris were included in the cumulative analysis and within Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR. Data and information utilized to develop the list of cumulative projects within the City for Perris included a list of current development projects that are either approved or under construction as well as a list of development projects under review with the City, at the time the NOP for the proposed Project was released. These lists were accessed through the City of Perris website and included the webpages Environmental Documents for Public Review and Current Projects, and are referenced in the DEIR.
Comment A3.14: The comment states that per the City of Perris truck routes, no trucks are allowed on Ethanac Road west of Barnett Road/Case Road.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-19
Final EIR
September 2024
Response A3.14: This comment has been preciously responded to. Please refer to Response A3.7 above.
This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.15: The comment states that Intersection #8 operates deficiently per City of Perris standards (i.e., LOS is the City of Perris minimum acceptable LOS). These tables need to be updated accordingly and determine whether the project directly or indirectly impacts this intersection.
Response A3.15: Tables 5.1 and 5.2 within Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis , shows the Existing Plus Project Level of Service for Project Scenario 1 and Project Scenario 2. It was noted upon further review that in Scenario 1 (No Signal), the AM peak hour would add a delay of more than 2 secs to an already existing deficiency of LOS E at Intersection #8 per City of Perris Standards. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 have been updated accordingly in Appendix B of the FEIR, revised Traffic Impact Analysis . This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.16: The comment asks for clarification as to why the LOS results are different at Intersection 8 between both scenarios.
Response A3.16: Both Table 5.5, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 1 – No Signal), and Table 5.6, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 2 – With Signal), of the Traffic Impact Analysis (DEIR Appendix K), would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour at Opening Year and at Opening Year Plus Project. However, the AM Peak Hour delay for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in the Opening Year are different, this was an error and has been updated within the revised Traffic Impact Analysis, included as Appendix B of the FEIR. The revision does not result in any changes in the analysis or determinations within Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.17: The comment states that the realignment of Barnett Avenue/Case Road at Ethanac Road needs to be considered as a recommendation for improving the Level of Service and queuing along Ethanac Road. The comment asks for clarification regarding roadway segments 2 & 5, stating that these improvements have not been identified.
Response A3.17: Please refer to Responses A3.9 and A3.10. Furthermore, as identified in Tables 5.7 and
5.8 of Appendix K of the DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, roadway segments 2 and 5 would be overcapacity in the Opening Year without Project. The proposed Project’s fair share to these segments have been identified on page 61 of the traffic study document. Page 57 of the traffic study states that the ultimate planned configuration of Ethanac Road is that of a six -lane roadway. The roadway expansion would help reduce the delay experienced at the intersections of I-215 SB Ramps/NB Ramps and Ethanac Road.
Additionally, the proposed Project would add traffic to the already over-capacity segment of Ethanac Road between Case Road and I-215 SB Ramps and between Murrieta Road and Barnett Road. Widening Ethanac Road to its General Plan designation would result in satisfactory operations. Please note that the proposed Project would be widening the Project frontage on Murrieta Road per the City of Menifee General Plan designation.
Comment A3.18: The comment states that the traffic study does not include an analysis of queuing at the I- 215 freeway ramps. Additionally, the comment states a review of the storage lane requirements at the study area intersections is necessary, because of potential excess queuing. Furthermore, the comment states a simulation analysis should be conducted to identify any queuing deficiencies and if applicable, improvements should be identified.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-20
Final EIR
September 2024
Response A3.18: As described in Response A3.10 above, once the Master Plan for the MEDC is completed and improvements and costs are identified the proposed Project would be required to pay its fair share contribution into an established Road and Bridge Benefit District. Fair share contributions towards the MEDC Master Plan improvements would be conditioned as part of the proposed Project. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.19: The comment states that the proposed driveways are not analyzed with respect to truck turning templates, queuing analysis and driveway spacing requirements.
Response A3.19: As described previously, traffic congestion is no longer a significant impact for purposes of CEQA, and therefore queuing analysis are outside the scope of the EIR. Notwithstanding that further response to this comment is not required, Section 5.12 of the DEIR, Transportation, describes that sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Additionally, Project frontage improvements and site access points would be constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross-sections in accordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through t he City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, truck turning, and driveway spacing requirements would be reviewed during the permitting process and the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable rules and regulations. Furthermore, there is a minimum proposed distance of 214 feet between the proposed rolling gates and property line, allowing for adequate truck queuing into the Project site. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment A3.20: The comment states that the City of Perris reserves the right to provide further comments on the proposed Project. The comment requests that future notices prepared for the Project and notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA be provided to the City of Perris.
Response A3.20: The City of Perris will be provided future notices for the proposed Project. This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the EIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted or provided.
Comment A3.21: The comment states that due to nearby sensitive uses, it is requested that property owner notification within 1,800 feet of the Project site is provided.
Comment A3.21: Comments regarding the property owner notification within 1,800 feet have been noted.
This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted or provided.
Comment A3.22:
The comment states that the City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Project and related DEIR and provides contact information.
Response A3.22: This comment includes conclusionary statements and does not identify a concern regarding the DEIR analysis. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-21
Final EIR
September 2024
2.7 LETTER A4: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE RESOURCES (3 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-22
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-23
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-24
Final EIR
September 2024
2.8 RESPONSE TO LETTER A 4: RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE RESOURCES, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Comment A4.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and a summary of the proposed Project.
Response A4.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A 4.2: This comment lists the surrounding landfills to the Project site. The comment includes information on El Sobrante, Lamb Canyon, and Badlands Landfill average daily tonnages as well as their max daily permitted tonnage based on the 2023-2024 reports.
Response A4.2: This comment is informational in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. In addition, the information provided within the DEIR in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, is consistent with the landfill information provided within the comment letter on the El Sobrante and the Badlands Landfill. The DEIR provides a conservative analysis by utilizing the peak daily disposal tonnage rather than the average daily disposal tonnage. Therefore, no revisions are required within the DEIR based on the information provided in the comment.
Comment A 4.3: This comment suggests the inclusion of two different measures to reduce the Project’s anticipated soil waste impacts and enhance compliance with SB 1383 and AB 1826.
Response A4.3: The Project would be required to comply with Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 1826.
Chapter 9.225 Waste Storage Facilities of the Menifee Development Code would also require the proposed Project to provide a covered storage area, that is accessible for truck loading shall be incorporated into each waste enclosure for collection of recyclable and organic materials, consistent with California State Law (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act, Public Resources Code Sections 42900 through 42911). As the proposed Project would be in compliance with the suggested waste reduction measures no further response is required or provided.
Comment A4.4: This comment requests that the Department of Waste Resources be notified with future transmittals pertaining to the Project. In addition, the comment provides contact information if the City has any questions on the Department of Waste Resources comment letter.
Response A4.4: The Department of Waste Resources will be added to the notification list for the proposed Project. This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-25
Final EIR
September 2024
2.9 LETTER A5: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS (2 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-26
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-27
Final EIR
September 2024
2.10 RESPONSE TO LETTER A 5: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS , DATED MAY 24, 2024
Comment A5.1: The comment states that the commenter has reviewed the Notice of Availability for the proposed Project and that SoCalGas Distribution does have facilities in the area. The comment states that the proposed Project would need to contact the specified contact information prior to any excavation or demolition activities so that SoCalGas can locate and mark out existing facilities. The comment also states that should new gas service be required; the Developer would have to contact the Builder Services group.
Response A5.1: The commentor’s statement of the existing facilities within the Project area has been noted.
Demolition would not occur within any existing facilities; however, the Project Applicant shall contact Southern California Gas Company at the time any excavation is needed locate and mark out existing facilities near the Project site. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would not include any natural gas and would not connect to any existing facilities, as stated throughout the D EIR and as conditioned through Mitigation Measure GHG- 8. This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR.
Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-28
Final EIR
September 2024
2.11 LETTER A6: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (5 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-29
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-30
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-31
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-32
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-33
Final EIR
September 2024
2.12 RESPONSE TO LETTER A 6: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, DATED JUNE 24, 2024
The responses provided below are based on the following technical memorandum included as Appendix D of this FEIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Response to Comments, Urban Crossroads, Inc., July 23, 2024, Appendix D.
Comment A6.1: This comment states that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has reviewed the DEIR for the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.
Response A6.1: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A6.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project location and Project description.
Response A6.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A6.3: This comment states that the Project site is 86.3 to 84.9 miles from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, respectively. Therefore, the comment states that the air quality analysis underestimated the emissions from trucks traveling from the Ports to the proposed Project site. The comment states that the proposed Project should utilize conservative trip lengths, such as designating 40 miles for local trips and 90 miles for Port-related trips.
Response A6.3: The comment states that the truck trip length is not appropriate given the proposed Project’s distance from the Ports of Los Angles. However, it should be noted that the analysis utilizes truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which recommends the use of a 14.2- mile trip length for class 4 -7 trucks (light -heavy-duty truck 1/2 and medium-heavy-duty truck) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (heavy-heavy duty trucks). As described in Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, 1.3 percent of vehicle trips would be 2 -axle trucks, 2.5 percent would be 3 -axle trucks, 3.8 percent would be 4- axle trucks, and 10.2 percent would be 5+ axle trucks, and the remaining vehicle trips would be passenger vehicles. As such, the majority of anticipated truck trips would be from heavy-heavy duty trucks and a weighted average truck trip distance of 34.5 1 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix.
Additionally, these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter. Furthermore, it should be noted that the DEIR provides a conservative analysis of the proposed Project as the DEIR includes a development buffer in order to account for final design changes. Therefore, the DEIR utilized a conservative approach and appropriate ly analyzed vehicle trip lengths based on SCAQMD guidance. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment A6.4: The comment states that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff is primarily concerned with the cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of air toxics in the Perris Valley Commerce Center Specific Plan (PVCCSP) region. The comment states that the SCAQMD staff recommends that, at minimum, the Lead Agency perform a qualitative analysis to provide the potential cumulative impacts from air toxics in consideration by listing all surrounding past, present, and probable future projects.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-34
Final EIR
September 2024
Response A6.4: The comment states that the DEIR’s analysis does not consider cumulative impacts resulting from increased concentrations of air toxics in the region associated with cumulative projects. Specifically, the comment mentions six current or future projects identified on the City of Menifee’s Planning webpage under Planning – Environmental Documents for Public Review. A review of this webpage has identified the following industrial projects:
1. Northern Gateway Logistics Center
2. CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project
3. Freedom Business Park
4. McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses
5. Northern Gateway Commerce Center
6. Compass Northern Gateway Project
It should be noted that although SCAQMD has held several working groups aimed at developing methodology for the evaluation of cumulative health risks, there is currently no recommended methodology, policy, or guidance for evaluating these cumulative impact s. However, based on guidance published in SCAQMD’s White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution 1, projects that do not exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to have a less than significant cumulative impact as well. As demonstrated in the DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, and as described Response O3.5 below, the proposed Project does not exceed the SCAQMD’s cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million or the non-cancer risk threshold of 1.0. As such, under this guidance the proposed Project would be considered to have a less than significant health risk impact both at the individual Project and cumulative levels.
As discussed below, even if the potential health risk from the proposed Project as well as the six cumulative projects identified in the comment is evaluated, the proposed Project would still result in a less than significant cumulative health risk impact to the community.
The Northern Gateway Logistics Center is proposed to consist of approximately 398,252 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 2,700 feet east of the proposed Project site. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the Northern Gateway Logistics Center Health Risk Ass essment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.13 per one million.
The CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project is proposed to consist of approximately 700,037 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet west of the proposed Project site.
Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet fr om the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered in the table below. Per the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 1.80 per one million.
The Freedom Business Park is proposed to consist of approximately 283,746 square feet of industrial and commercial uses and is located approximately 34,000 feet or 6.43 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project
1 Accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/cumulative-impacts-working- group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-35
Final EIR
September 2024
site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.
The McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses Project is proposed to consist of approximately 491,393 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 10,600 feet or 2 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Because this project site and truck routes are located well over 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site and truck routes, any potential cumulative health risks from this project and the proposed Project would be less than significant.
The Northern Gateway Commerce Center Project is proposed to consist of approximately 1,316,741 square feet of warehouse space and is located approximately 1,300 feet east of the proposed Project site.
Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, because this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was considered. Because a health risk assessment for this project is not available, the project risk has been estimated based on the cancer risk per square footage of the proposed Project and other cumulative projects identified, as these land uses are similar in nature. Based on this, the estimated cancer risk for this project was estimated at 3.45 per one million.
The Compass Northern Gateway Project is proposed to consist of approximately 461,237 square feet of warehouse space spread across three separate sites, with Project Sites 1 and 2 located approximately 2,700 feet west of the proposed Project site and Project Site 3 located approximately 2,700 feet northeast of the proposed Project. Although this project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed Project site, this project has the potential to utilize the same truck routes of the proposed Project . Therefore, the cumulative cancer risk from this project was identified. Per the Compass Northern Gateway Project Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., at the MEIR, with mitigation the maximum estimated operational cancer risk from this project is 0.87 in one million.
Table 2-2: Cumulative Cancer Risk
Project Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (risk per million) Proposed Project 3.04
Northern Gateway Logistics Center 0.13
CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project 1.80
Northern Gateway Commerce Center 3.45
Compass Northern Gateway Project 0.87
Total Cancer Risk 9.29
The U.S. EPA rules generally consider a cancer risk of 100 in one million at the community level to be within the acceptable range, and this level is considered by many lead agencies in California as a cumulative cancer risk threshold.2
As shown above, even if the maximum cancer risk at the MEIR for each cumulative project in the vicinity of the proposed Project were totaled, the maximum risk would remain well below the EPA’s standard cumulative
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October 2009, p. 67 (noting that “the 100 in a million excess cancer cases is also consistent wi th the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area based on the District’s recent regional modeling analysis.” Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-36
Final EIR
September 2024
cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million. Additionally, the maximum incremental cancer risk shown above for each project represents the risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor for each project, and it should be noted that each of these receptors are in different locations. As such, the total cumulative cancer risk of 9.29 in one million shown above is highly conservative, and the actual risk contributions from each Project would be less than this combined value. A quantitative analysis has been provided in this response for the cumulative impacts from air toxics in the region. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.
Comment A6.5:
The comment describes SCAQMD’s new Rule 2305 and Rule 316 that are intended to reduce regional and local emissions. The comment states that the proposed Project will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, the comment states that SC AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation.
Response A6.5: The comment erroneously refers to the Project as a 643,419 square foot warehouse, whereas earlier in the comment letter it is accurately referred to as a 517,720 square foot warehouse. The comment has been noted and the proposed Project would comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2305 and Rule 316. However, as described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact individually and cumulatively, therefore, additional P roject requirements and CEQA mitigation measures are not required (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15126.4).
Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR has been revised to include SCAQMD Rule 2305 and Rule 316 as PPP AQ-5. Revisions have been included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and have also been included within Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , as part of this FEIR. Revisions to the DEIR are shown below:
Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
PPP AQ -3: Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel -Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. The Project is required to obtain a permit from SCAQMD for the proposed diesel fire pump and would be required to comply with Rule 1470, regulating the use of diesel -fueled internal combustion engines.
PPP AQ-4: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-37
Final EIR
September 2024
any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
PPP AQ-5: Rule 2305 - Rule 2305: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 2305 and Rule 316.
Comment A6.6: This comment states that if the Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, air permits from SCAQMD will be required and the role of SCAQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The comment continues by saying that if SCAQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, the Lead Agency must consult with SCAQMD and is included in deciding on the adequacy of the CEQA Document. The comment concludes by saying that the FEIR should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring SCAQMD permits and to identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency.
Response A6.6:
As discussed in Appendix B of the DEIR and Section 5.2 , Air Quality, of the DEIR, the proposed Project was conservatively assumed to include installation of a 300-horsepower diesel-powered fire pump. For analytical purposes, it is anticipated that the emergency diesel generator would result in a maximum operating time of up to one hour per day, 1 day per week for up to 50 hours per year. Emissions associated with the stationary diesel-powered emergency fire pump was calculated using CalEEMod. Thus, use of the fire pump was included in the analysis for operational emissions. Because the emergency engine is expected to exceed a rating of 50 horsepower, it is anticipated that the emergency engine would require an SCAQMD air permit. Furthermore, SCAQMD has been identified as a responsible agency in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR and states that the proposed Project would require “ Permits to install and operate a diesel fire pump from the South Coast Air Quality Management District” (DEIR page 3-3).
Additionally, building occupants are assumed to be warehouse distribution and logistics operators and light manufacturers; however, specific tenants and uses are currently unknown. Future occupants would be processed through the City’s permitting system. Should any additional stationary equipment be required, the City of Menifee will inform SCAQMD as the responsible agency. However, at this time it is unknown what other types of equipment may be required, and as such it would be speculative to include stat ionary equipment beyond the anticipated fire pump. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are required and no further response is warranted.
Comment A6.7: This comment states that the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. If the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendation provided in the comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why comments are not accepted must be provided.
Response A6.7: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Written responses to comments provided throughout the public comment period will be provided at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment A6.8: This comment states that SCAQMD has received the DEIR. The comment requests all technical documents related to air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses, electronic versions of all emission calculation files, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment files (complete files, not summaries), that were used to quantify the air quality impacts from construction and/or operation of the proposed Project be sent to SCAQMD review.
Response A6.8: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. In response to the request for information, the technical documentation was compiled, and a Dropbox link was emailed from the City to South Coast AQMD staff on June 13, 2024. Because the comment Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-38
Final EIR
September 2024
does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-39
Final EIR
September 2024
2.13 LETTER O1: ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO, ON BEHALF
OF COALITION FOR CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A RESPONSIBLE
ECONOMY (5 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-40
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-41
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-42
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-43
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-44
Final EIR
September 2024
2.14 RESPONSE TO LETTER O1 : ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH &
CARDOZO, ON BEHALF OF COALITION FOR CALIFORNIANS ALLIED FOR A RESPONSIBLE ECONOMY, DATED JULY 2, 2024, AND JULY 30, 2024.
Comment O1.1: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) requesting immediate access to any and all public records referring to or related to the proposed Project.
Response O1.1: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.
Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. On July 16, 2024, CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project or the DEIR based on review . Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project description and site location.
Response O1.2: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.3: This comment states that the request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 7920.000, et seq.) and summarizes the legal requirements behind the request.
The comment also provides contact information for correspondence.
Response O1.3: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.
Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. On July 16, 2024, CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.4: This comment states that the letter is written on behalf of Coalition for Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) regarding the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project.
Response O1.4: This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O 1.5: The comment states that on July 2, 2024, CARE CA requested access to documents referenced in the DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and immediate access to any and all public records related to the Project pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
Response O1.5: Please refer to Comment O1.6 below. CARE withdrew their comment letter dated July 2 and has withdrawn their request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Furthermore, CARE has no objections to the proposed Project, or the DEIR based on review. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O1.6: The comment states that on July 16, 2024, CARE contacted the City to request that the July 2 letter be withdrawn on the basis that CARE CA had the necessary information to review the Project’s DEIR.
The comment states that CARE CA is satisfied with the inf ormation found in its review of the DEIR and does not have any objections to the Project. The comment also provides contact information for correspondence.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-45
Final EIR
September 2024
Response O1.6: This comment will be provided to City decision makers as part of their review of the FEIR.
Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-46
Final EIR
September 2024
2.15 LETTER O2: CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (3 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-47
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-48
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-49
Final EIR
September 2024
2.16 RESPONSE TO LETTER O2: CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, DATED JULY 8, 2024
Comment O2.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. The comment states that the commentor is eager to see some mitigation measures will be implemented ; however, several of the measures identified have room for improvement to provide better future-proofing of the Project site to ensure that more robust measures can be undertaken in the future as they become available.
Response O2.1: The comment is introductory in nature and expresses a general concern regarding the DEIR’s proposed GHG mitigation measures. However, the comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR’s analysis in which to respond to Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O2.2: The comment states that the Project will provide 20 dedicated EV charging stalls and make room for 80 additional EV-capable stations which could be upgraded at a future date. The comment states that with EV sales in the state approaching 20%, the proposed Project should provide additional stations at opening such that it can exceed and help improve adoption which is critical for helping to reduce the mobile source emissions.
Response O2.2: The comment summarizes what is already proposed by the Project in terms of including 80 electric vehicle capable stalls and 20 electric vehicle charging stations as part of the Project’s design.
However, a s stated on page 5.6 -22 of the DEIR, MM GHG -5 would require that prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the Project shall be required to (1) provide twenty percent (20%) of the employee parking stalls on-site as "EV ready", with all necessary conduit installed, and (2) provide five percent (5%) of the twenty percent (20%) of the employee parking stalls on -site equipped with working Level 2 Quickcharge EV charging stations installed and operational. Therefore, the proposed Project already exceeds what is stated in the comment.
As described in DEIR Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a large majority of the GHG emissions from the Project would be generated from vehicle and truck emissions. As a part of the environmental review for the proposed Project, the City reviewed and included feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the proposed Project. However, the emissions from vehicles cannot be regulated by either the City or the Project Applicant. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measu re. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporati on of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-50
Final EIR
September 2024
electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large -scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel -powered vehicles and long charging times.
Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towa rds mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.
While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. I t is not possible to know the exact number of employee vehicles that would utilize such EV stalls, therefore the reduction in emissions from providing fur ther EV charging stations is not estimated. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O 2.3: The comment states that the plan to only have conduit installed for three heavy -duty charging stations is not enough. The comment states it would be preferable to see the installation of conduit for at least one charging station for every five dock doors to ensure that the Project is prepared for future milestones with CARB regulations that will come into effect during its life.
Response O2.3: The comment provides an assumption that three charging stations would not be enough and does not provide any evidence showing that more than three trucks would need charging at the same time on a regular basis and that additional charging stations would be needed and that they would substantively reduce additional GHG emissions. As described in Response O2.2, CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures wo uld [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mit igation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
As stated in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery-electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large-scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel-powered vehicles and long charging times. Therefore, requiring an increased number of heavy-duty charging stations would not result in effective mitigation that would substantially lessen emissions.
The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O2.4: The comment states that effective bike parking should be included as part of the Project and emphasizes the importance of using guidance available from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Any areas which are building out road infrastructure need to ensure that they provide the proper design for bicyclists based on the latest guidance from Caltrans.
Response O2.4: The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. The comment as well as the guidance sources provided for review have been noted.
As described in Section 5.2, Transportation, of the DEIR the City’s General Plan Circulation Element identifies Murrieta Road east of the Project site as a proposed Class II bike lane. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing or planned bike lanes or bicycle transportation, including the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-51
Final EIR
September 2024
ultimate buildout of Murrieta Road as a Class II bike lane. The full buildout of Murrieta Road would include striping for on street bicycle lanes, which would be reviewed and approved by the City Menifee Engineering Department. Additionally, as detailed in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would include on-site long-term and short -term storage for bikes including bike racks. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O2.5: The comment also provides contact information for correspondence and thanks the City for their time and consideration.
Response O2.5: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise any specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-52
Final EIR
September 2024
2.17 LETTER O3: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE (101 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-53
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-54
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-55
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-56
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-57
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-58
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-59
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-60
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-61
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-62
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-63
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-64
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-65
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-66
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-67
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-68
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-69
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-70
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-71
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-72
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-73
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-74
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-75
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-76
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-77
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-78
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-79
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-80
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-81
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-82
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-83
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-84
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-85
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-86
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-87
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-88
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-89
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-90
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-91
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-92
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-93
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-94
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-95
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-96
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-97
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-98
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-99
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-100
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-101
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-102
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-103
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-104
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-105
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-106
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-107
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-108
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-109
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-110
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-111
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-112
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-113
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-114
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-115
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-116
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-117
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-118
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-119
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-120
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-121
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-122
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-123
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-124
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-125
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-126
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-127
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-128
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-129
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-130
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-131
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-132
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-133
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-134
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-135
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-136
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-137
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-138
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-139
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-140
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-141
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-142
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-143
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-144
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-145
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-146
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-147
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-148
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-149
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-150
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-151
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-152
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-153
Final EIR
September 2024
2.18 RESPONSE TO LETTER O 3: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED JULY 3, 2024
Several of the responses below are based on the following technical memorandum provided as Appendix E of this Final EIR:
• Murrieta Road Warehouse Air Quality, Health Risk, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Response to Comments (Golden State Letter), Urban Crossroads, Inc., August 1, 2024, Appendix E.
Comment O3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the comment is submitted on behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Additionally, it states that GSEJA requests to be notified regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings for the Project. This comment includes a project summary of the proposed Project.
Response O 3.1 GSEJA will be added to the notification list and will be notified of any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and public hearings regarding the proposed Project. The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.2: The comment states that the DEIR does not accurately describe the proposed Project. This comment expresses concern that the proposed Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger project that includes TPM No 38469 (PLN22-018), which was approved as an NOE and included multiple right-of-way areas that were proposed to be vacated. The comment states that the TPM was a necessary precedent for the proposed Project and that the DEIR must be revised to comply with CEQA Section 15161 by preparing a project EIR which analyzes this prior action.
Response O3.2: As stated in the DEIR within Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM), No. 38469 (PLN22 -0180), to consolidate all the existing parcels within the site into one parcel was previously approved and was exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 through a NOE, Categorical Exemption (Class 15 – Section 15315, “Minor Land Divisions”).
However, the Final Tract Map has yet to consolidate all the existing parcels, therefore, the DEIR accurately described the Project site as currently being identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560-001 through 330 -560-040, 330-570-001 through 330 -570-033, and 330-571-001 through 330-571-005.
Generally, courts have considered distinct activities as one CEQA project and required them to be reviewed together: (1) when the project under review is designed to provide the necessary first step toward a larger development, and (2) when development of the project under review requires or presumes completion of another activity. The TPM, in and of itself, did not include any project features or entitlements that would result in physical effects on the environment. It should also be noted that the NOE that the TPM conformed to the City’s General Plan and zoning. Further, the courts have held that piecemealing occurs when such analysis is omitted where the reviewed project has as its purpose serving as a first step toward future development, or where it legally compels or practically presumes completion of another action; conversely, “specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in a planner’s eye” need not be analyzed. At the time the TPM was being processed by the City of Menifee, no industrial development had been proposed for the Project site. The TPM was processed to accommodate a hypothetical industrial facility that was not in the planning phase or proposed. Therefore, a future industrial facility (the Project) was unknown at the time and an analysis of such would have been speculative.
Furthermore, the TPM was processed and approved by the City of Menifee on May 19, 2023. Therefore, at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review (November 7, 2023), the City of Menifee had already approved the TPM through a N otice of Exemption.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-154
Final EIR
September 2024
CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(1) states that “Generally, the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the NOP is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective”.
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 describes that the existing setting constitutes the baseline conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. As the TPM was approved prior to the proposed Project being considered, the DEIR adequately discloses the environmental setting and describes the whole of the action proposed by the Project. The proposed Project did not rely on or require the completion of another activity, no piecemealing occurred, and the two actions are separate.
Further, the discretionary action for approval of the TPM was determined to have no physical impacts on the environment and would not cumulatively combine with the proposed Project to result in new or increased impacts. The TPM was adequately discussed as part of the Project Description and disclosed to the public.
The DEIR accurately analyzes all potential environmental impacts from the proposed Project and does not present unduly low environmental impacts. Conversely, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the DEIR’s analysis provides a conservative evaluation of total building square footage by considering a three percent buffer on the square footage of the building submitted to the City as part of the Project’s entitlements. Overall, the DEIR’s environmental analysis would not result in new or increased impacts from what is currently disclosed in the DEIR when considering the TPM. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of EDC, consistent with the zoning designation of EDC-NG. The TPM is not considered part of the environmental baseline, and the previously approved TPM did not result in any impacts.
Lastly, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project and are not required to be disclosed according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.3: The comment states the PD is inadequate as it does not provide entitlement history or ownership of the site. The comment describes the sites entitlement and history and states that all sections of the DEIR must be revised to note the Project site’s status as a n approved residential development and the City’s ownership of Lot 78 with reservation and dedication for parkland.
Response O3.3: Please refer to Response O3.2 above. The DEIR accurately described that the Project site is currently identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 330-210-010, -011, -013, and -062, 330-560- 001 through 330 -560-040, 330-570-001 through 330 -570-033, and 330 -571-001 through 330 -571- 005. The DEIR also adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE. Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis.
CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(3) states that “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline”. Thus, although Lot 78 may have been previously identified within Resolution No. 16- 500: Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, the DEIR is not required to include the hypothetical condition as part of the existing baseline. Furthermore, as shown in the City of Menifee Parks Master Plan, adopted July 2023, in Figure 5-2, Future and Existing Parks, Lot 78 is not identified as future parkland. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC- NG which allows for development of industrial warehouse land uses at a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.0.
Therefore, the proposed Project is an allowed land use under the Project site designations and would be consistent with the City’s development standards. Furthermore, the NOE for the TPM, approved by the City of Menifee on May 19, 2023, found that the proposed lot consolidation conformed to the City’s General Plan and zoning. Thus, the consolidation of the “ 77 lots subdivided for residential development and 1.96- acre parcel (lot 78)”, as stated by the commentor, was determined to comply with the General Plan Land Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-155
Final EIR
September 2024
use and zoning designation for the site and would not lead to any conflicts with the General Plan. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.4: The comment states that the Project Description does not provide a floor plan, detailed site plan, conceptual grading plan, written narrative, or detailed elevations. The comment states that a few figures have been edited to remove meaningful information. The comment requests that the D EIR must be revised to include an unedited floor plan, grading plan, site plan, elevations, and project narrative for public review.
Response O3.4: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the proposed Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for the evaluation and review of the environmental impact”. As such, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Figure 3 -8 of the DEIR provides conceptual building elevations for the proposed building and Figure 3-7 of the DEIR provides a conceptual site plan. As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th 1036, 1053, the EIR’s description of the proposed Project should identify the Project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. As long as the requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 are met, the Project Description may allow for the flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions that could impact the Project’s final design. The proposed Project is thoroughly described within DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and includes information such as the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), grading quantities , elevations, architectural features, parking, landscaping, and more. As such, detailed plans and elevations are not required to be included in the DEIR’s Project description and a general description of the Project and conceptual plans are allowed. Additionally, the conceptual grading plan and conceptual floor plan is on file with the City of Menifee. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.5: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the Project site as exclusively residential development due to the entitlement history . Therefore, the comment states that the proposed Project was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD.
Response O3.5: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O 3.3 and O3.4 above. Entitlement history is irrelevant to the description of a project under CEQA and are not included as part of the environmental baseline for analysis under CEQA.
As described in the City of Menifee General Plan and General Plan EIR, Exhibit LU-4 General Plan Future Buildout Summary is based on the theoretical buildout (dwelling units, population, nonresidential square footage, and employment) of each land use designation based on a range of allowable residential densities (expressed as units per acre) and nonresidential intensities (expressed as floor area ratio). A key assumption in understanding these projections is that they reflect a theoretical buildout of the entire City, rather than what is likely to appear on the ground over the 20-year planning cycle. Accordingly, the build-out estimates in the General Plan do not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity and instead are adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. Thus, the buildout summary identified in Exhibit LU- 4 of the General Plan is not site specific, and the Project site was not identified or analyzed within the General Plan or General Plan EIR as being developed as exclusively residential development. Therefore, the Project site was included for analysis as an employment generating use by the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD.
In addition, development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-156
Final EIR
September 2024
Furthermore, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (i)(2), “For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan .” The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. As described throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with both the General Plan l and use designation and the zoning designation for the Project site. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan, SCAG, and SCAQMD growth projections. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.6: This comment states that the DEIR does not include analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project to the surrounding community, such as SB 535 Disadvantage Communities. The comment states that according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 the Proposed Project’s census tract ranks in the 91 st percentile for ozone burden, the
51st percentile for particulate matter 2.5 burden, and the 74 th percentile for solid waste facility impacts.
The comment also states that the census tract consists of a diverse community that is especially vulnerable to impacts of pollution.
Response O3.6: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aestheti c significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are not considered effects on the environment (CE QA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, consistent with CEQA, the DEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice.
SB 535 established initial requirements for minimum funding levels to “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs).
The legislation also gives California EPA the responsibility for identifying those communities, stating that the designation of disadvantaged communities must be based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria .” SB 535 does not include project specific requirements or prohibit developments in proximity to the designated communities. Furthermore, CalEnviroScreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. However, the DEIR and Response O 3.4 provide a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin. The DEIR also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality, hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project.
Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the Project area is described in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality. Table 5.2-2, Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2020 -2022, of the DEIR provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (SRA 24 Perris Valley, SRA 25 Elsinore valley, and SRA 23 Metropolitan Riverside County). Data from the air quality monitoring stations indicates that the PM
2.5 federal standard had 2 exceedances in 2020, 13 exceedances in 2021, and no exceedances in 2022 . While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in development in the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-157
Final EIR
September 2024
South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has generally improved over the last 30 years largely due to cleaner air vehicles and fuel requirements.
As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. Therefore, criteria emissions impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Also, a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment activities from Project construction . The results of the health risk assessment determined that at the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction DPM source emissions from the proposed Project is 0.77 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Additionally, the non -cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity.
An operational diesel mobile source health risk (included as Appendix G to the DEIR) was also prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM from heavy- duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the proposed Project. The DEIR details that the results of the operational health risk assessment identified that the maximum cancer risk would be 3.02 in one million under Scenario 1 an d 3.04 in one million under Scenario 2 for the nearby residential land uses, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.
Additionally, the non-cancer risks were estimated to be ≤0.01 under both scenarios, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.11 in one million.
Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. In addition, the DEIR determined that because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than ¼ mile from the air pollution source, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents , workers, and schools from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
The DEIR also included a long -term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis which determined Project -related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would not impact nearby sensitive receptors including residences, workers, or schools. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O 3.7: This comment states that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved energy compliance modeling software. The comment states that since the DEIR did not accurately or adequately model impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made and a revised EIR with modeling in one of the three approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Response O3.7: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The commenter incorrectly assumes the purpose of Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs. The approved programs serve the purpose of being used under the performance approach (energy budget) method of compliance for Energy Stan dards. The programs mentioned are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-158
Final EIR
September 2024
associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Additionally, the proposed Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be verified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.8: The comment states that the Project did not analyze consistency with Exhibit LU Table LU-4 “Buildout Summary” and that industrial development within the EDC -NG analyzes a 0.40 FAR. In addition, the comment states that the EDC assumes buildout of 29 acres of residential which they claim is clearly meant for the Project site due to its entitlement history. The comment states that since the Project is inconsistent with the GP, it is also inconsistent with the RTP/SCS and AQMP.
Response O3.8: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.2, O3.3, and O3.5 above where this comment has been previously responded to.
As described in Response O3.5, the Project site was not analyzed as exclusively residential development by the City of Menifee General Plan or General Plan EIR and was accurately analyzed as an employment generating land use. Furthermore, the build-out estimate in the General Plan (Exhibit LU-4) does not assume build-out at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the EDC and instead is adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of
1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5.
Therefore, a s detailed throughout the DEIR , the proposed Project is consistent with the GP l and use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC-NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build -out estimates provided in Exhibit LU -4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Buildout Scenario since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the growth generated by the proposed Project was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, and AQMP. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.9: This comment states that the EIR does not provide any meaningful evidence to support the Projects consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS. The comment also mentions that there are errors in modeling and states that the Project is inconsistent with Goal 5, Goal 6, and Goal 7 of Table 5. 9-1 from the DEIR.
Furthermore, the comment states that the analysis excludes the EIR’s determination that the project will result in significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impacts . The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance due to inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document.
Response O3.9: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As discussed in Responses O3.37 through O3.46 below, appropriate CalEEMod defaults were utilized and there are no errors in modeling. Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the DEIR. The consistency analysis within Table 5. 9-1 of the DEIR provides justification for the Project’s consistency with each goal.
Additionally, as noted throughout the DEIR, the Project is also consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. Thus, the DEIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document. The RTP/SCS Goal Statements are regional goals and are not project -specific. The DEIR accurately analyzes consistency with these goals as the proposed Project would not impede in the regional attainment o f them. Furthermore, as stated in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , the proposed Project would also be consistent with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies and General Plan GHG policies. However, in response to this comment Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR has been revised in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, of the FEIR as follows:
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-159
Final EIR
September 2024
Table 2-2: SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
air quality.
Consistent. While the Project would not improve air
quality and would have a significant and unavoidable
GHG emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions , it would not prevent SCAG
from implementing actions that would improve air quality within the region. Mitigation measures are specified to reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts to the
maximum extent feasible, and the Project would
incorporate various measures related to building design, landscaping, and energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy, pursuant to Title 24 CALGreen Code and
Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, a s
discussed within Section 5.2, Air Quality, the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds for
criteria air pollutants.
Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. Consistent. The Project would be constructed consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use
designation/zoning classification and associated
development standards. The Project would be
constructed to current building codes, and state and
federal requirements including Green Building
Standards. The development of the Project would also
increase employment for the City and its residents.
Furthermore, a Health Risk Assessment (Appendix G)
was prepared for the proposed Project and determined
all health risk levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from operation-related emissions of TACs
would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds
and impacts would be less than significant.
Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern and
transportation network.
Consistent. This policy would be implemented by cities
and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the
overall planning and maintenance of the regional
transportation system. Although the proposed Project
would have a significant and unavoidable GHG
emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions , implementation of t he
proposed Project would not conflict with this goal.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would implement
all feasible mitigation measures, including MM GHG-
1 through MM GHG-8, as described within Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Comment O 3.10: The comment states that the D EIR includes consistency analysis that is erroneous and misleading to the public and decision makers regarding some of the General Plan goals and policies, and lists policies which the Project has potential to conflict with. The comment states that the Project has significant potential to conflict with many policies due to its significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.
Response O3.10: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The DEIR is a public disclosure document that serves to provide information to the City’s decisionmakers and elected officials when deciding whether or not to approve a project. The goal of the consistency analysis is Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-160
Final EIR
September 2024
to provide the reader with a general overview of whether a project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA case law recognizes that “it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable [general] plan.” (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563).
Furthermore, as described in Response O3.5, the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Menifee zoning and land use designations for the Project site. A compiled table of applicable Menifee General Plan goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.9 , Land Use and Planning .
Goals and Policies that are not applicable to the proposed Project, including those identified in the comment, are not included under table 5.9-2 of the DEIR as they are City initiatives or do not include project specific criteria. In addition, it should be noted that while the proposed Project results in a significant and unavoidable impact to GHG em issions, it does not equate to the proposed Project imped ing the implementation or achievement of these Goal and Policies at a regional or local level . For the purposes of this response, a consistency analysis between the proposed Project and the goals and policies listed by the comment is provided below in Table 2-2 of the FEIR.
Table 2-3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal S-7: A community that has protected its sensitive
structures, functions, and populations from the risks
associated with climate change.
Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented at a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal and is therefore not applicable.
Policy EJ-3.6: Continue to collaborate with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
California Air Resources Board (CARB), utility providers, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
and nonprofit organizations, neighborhoods groups, and
other community organizations to improve air quality,
food availability, renewable
energy systems,
sustainable land use and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs).
Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that
is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.
Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented at a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.1: Align the city's local GHG reduction
targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG
reduction target of AB 32.
Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC -10.2: Align the city's long -term GHG
reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG
reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives.
Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Goal 10: An environmentally aware community that is
responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions
Not Applicable. This goal is intended to be implemented on a citywide level. This is not a project-specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Policy OSC-10.4 Consider impacts to climate change as
a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects.
Consistent. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. As discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
Analysis was prepared for the Project and found that
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would exceed the
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-161
Final EIR
September 2024
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
recommended thresholds, thus the Project would
implement mitigation measures GHG -1 through GHG-8
to minimize impacts.
Policy C-5.13: Support efforts to reduce/eliminate the
negative environmental impacts of goods movement.
Not Applicable. This goal is intended for City staff and City decisionmakers. This is not a project -specific goal, but a City initiative, and is therefore not applicable.
Comment O3.11: This comment states that any improvements or in-lieu fees/fair share fees paid for City of Perris or Caltrans facilities are beyond the control/scope of the lead agency. The comment states that evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Perris or Caltrans has not been provided, thus a revised EIR must be prepared to include the level of service (LOS) analysis as cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold TRA-1 as well as Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold LU-2 because it is not consistent with the following General Plan Policy C-1.2.
Response O3.11: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As stated within Table 5.9-2 of the DEIR under Policy C-1.2, LOS is no longer a component of CEQA traffic analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The analysis included in the DEIR concerning these proposed improvements was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5 .12, Transportation, where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only .” The implementation of these improvements would be based on direct discussion between City staff and the Applicant and would be imposed via the Conditions of Approval process, not through CEQA . Further, the Project’s land use impacts are based in part upon determining compliance with the City’s General Plan. The Project Applicant is proposing to improve roadways along the Project’s frontage per the City of Menifee General Plan. All roadway improvements associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Any improvements to portions of intersections or roadways shared with the City of Perris would be coordinated between the City of Menifee and City of Perris prior to final offsite engineering for the Project. Please refer to Responses to letter A3 above for a full description regarding City of Perris roadway improvements. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.12:
The comment states that the DEIR has not utilized the best available data to calculate the project’s trip generation and must be revised to implement Fehr and Peers’ updated study of the data in WSP’s study.
Response 03.12: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Although the Fehr and Peer’s updated WSP Study has been received by the WRCOG, updates to the TUMF Fulfillment Center Rates ha ve yet to be formally adopted. According to the WRCOG Planning Directors Committee meeting on December 14, 2023, “WRCOG will initiate work on including any necessary changes to how TUMF is calculated for high cube warehouses in the TUMF Handbook based on the reduced trips observed in this analysis. These changes will be brought forth to this Committee for review when a complete update is conducted at the conclusion of the TUMF Nexus Study update process.” Therefore, the TUMF High- Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019 , is still the most up to date source for vehicle trip rate calculations and the DEIR utilized the best available data to calculate the proposed Project’s trip generation.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-162
Final EIR
September 2024
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(1) states that the environmental baseline for a project is set at the time the NOP is published. The NOP for the proposed Project was published May 24, 2024, and set the environmental baseline for the DEIR analysis. Therefore, the Fehr and Peers updated WSP study was not received by WRCOG at the time the NOP was published. Furthermore, the Scoping Agreement form, which included the use of the TUMF High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019, was approved by the City of Menifee prior to the Fehr and Peer’s updated WSP Study. The DEIR utilized the most up to date WSP at the time the NOP set the environmental baseline and at the time the Scoping Agreement was approved. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.13: The comment states that any improvements recommended or fees paid to mitigate impacts for City of Perris or Caltrans facilities are beyond the control of the lead agency and evidence that these improvements will be completed or approved by Perris or Caltrans has not been provided.
Response O3.13: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O 3.11 above. Policy C-1.2 is not applicable as Level of Service is no longer a component of CEQA traffic analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay no longer is considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. However, Response to Comment Letter A3, specifically Response A3.6, offers a detailed response to this comment. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.14: The comment states that Appendix L, VMT Analysis, excludes the City of Menifee VMT Scoping Form and modeling input parameters and output screens generated by the RIVCOM model to support the EIR’s claims that the project will have less than significant impacts.
Response O3.14: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact and relies on speculation and opinion. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR.
While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [ “the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed P roject provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
A scoping form is not required for preparation of a VMT Screening Analysis; however, a VMT Scoping Form was approved by the City of Menifee and is available upon request. Furthermore, the Scoping Agreement for the Traffic Study is included as Appendix A of the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix K of the DEIR. The VMT Analysis, Appendix L of the DEIR, provides an adequate description of the City’s guidelines and use of the RIVCOM model for preparation of the VMT analysis. The analysis is based on the requirem ents of The City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (January 2022) and was prepared by professional traffic engineers. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.15: The comment states that the Projects VMT analysis was underestimated as it did not include truck/trailer/delivery van activity. The comment concludes in saying a revised EIR must be prepared to with a revised VMT analysis to include truck/trailer/and delivery van activity.
Response O3.15: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Based on local and State guidance as well as the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT is an Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-163
Final EIR
September 2024
evaluation of passenger cars, not truck trips. The VMT analysis conducted therefore, only analyzed VMT/Employee for home-based-work trips as per the County Guidelines. This is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) which states “For the p urpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project .” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Hence the VMT analysis only includes and represents the impacts of automobile travel as a result of the proposed Project using RIVCOM and is not required to include truck trips as a part of the VMT analysis. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.16: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately analyze the Projects potential impacts regarding hazards due to a geometric design feature. The comment explains that there are areas of overlap between truck movements and an inadequate depiction of th e onsite turning radius for truck moving through the site.
Response O3.16: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As stated in Section 3.0 Project Description of the DEIR, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet.
The Project would include a 26-foot-wide fire access road throughout the site. In addition, the Project would include a 32-foot-wide private driveway along the southern boundary of the Project site.
There are no unique bends or obstacles along Murrieta Road and Geary Street. The onsite circulation design provides truck accessibility and turning ability throughout the site. Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent trucks or result in impacts from trucks accessing the site. As described in Response O3.4 above, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are conceptual plans and including specific truck/trailer turning exhibits in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination. Furthermore, the conceptual site plan accurately shows that there is 214 feet between the proposed rolling gate and property line, allowing for adequate truck queuing.
Onsite traffic signing and striping would also be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans with implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, sight distance at the Project’s access points would be reviewed with respect to City standards at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plan reviews. Project frontage improvements and site access points would b e constructed to be consistent with the identified roadway classifications and respective cross -sections in ac cordance with the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Thus, no impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature would occur from implementati on of the proposed Project and Murrieta Road and the northernmost driveway on Geary Street would not require additional maneuvering space. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.17:
The comment states that several areas for potential conflicts between trucks/trailers and passenger cars exist throughout the Project site. The comment states that the DEIR has not provided any exhibits demonstrating that there is sufficient backup space and queuing space for trucks/trailers to utilize Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-164
Final EIR
September 2024
these spaces. The comment states a revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance due to these significant and unavoidable impacts.
Response O3.17: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O 3.4 and O3.16 above, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are conceptual plans and including specific exhibits demonstrating that there is sufficient backup space and queuing space for trucks/trailers to utilize these spaces in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination. Should the proposed Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable turning and access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would be ensured through the City’s construction permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant traffic safety impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.18: The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include specific information and analysis
of any and all right-of-way vacations and/or City owned property that is involved in the proposed project.
Response O3.18: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment has previously been responded to in Responses O3.2 and O3.3. The DEIR adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE. Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis . The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.19: This comment states that the DEIR relied upon erroneous Energy modeling to determine the Project would meet sustainability requirements. Specifically, the comment states that the DEIR did not model its energy consumption in compliance with Title 24.
Response 03.19: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O3.7, the Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs are intended for the energy budget method of compliance for Energy Standards and are not intended to be utilized for CEQA analysis. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental pr ofessionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Additionally, the Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24, which would be ve rified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.20: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the project site as exclusively residential development due to the entitlement history . Therefore, the comment states that the proposed Project was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City, SCAG, or SCAQMD. Furthermore, the comment states that Exhibit LU -4 analyzed the site as a 0 .4 FAR whereas the Project’s FAR is higher.
Response O3.20: Please refer above to Response O3.5 and Response O3.8 for a detailed response. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-165
Final EIR
September 2024
the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC- NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build -out estimates provided in Exhibit LU-4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Buildout Scenario since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the Project itself would not resul t in employment growth above what was anticipated by the General Plan, RTP/SCS, and the AQMP as it is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O 3.21: This comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis discussion to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Project in a cumulative setting, including the associated cumulative impacts of the project’s significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable GHG impacts.
Response O3.21: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment has been addressed previously, p lease refer to Response O 3.5 and O3.8. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, land use designation, and zoning designation for the site and was accurately analyzed as consistent with the RTP/SCS and AQMP.
The analysis of GHG emission impacts under CEQA contained in the Draft EIR effectively constitutes an analysis of the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) states that compliance with GHG -related plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. However, a s described in Section 5.6 of the DEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated GHG emissions from development and operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-8, impacts would remain significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in cumulatively considerable GHG impacts and cumulative GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the DEIR fully analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project to GHG; including the significant and unavoidable impacts due to emissions of GHGs.
Comment O3.22:
The comment states that the DEIR did not adequately analyze removing obstacles to growth, specifically the right-of-way vacations for the TPM. The comment states that the DEIR must be revised to include specific information and analysis of any and all right -of-way vacations and/or City owned property that is involved in the proposed project.
Response O3.22: Please refer to Responses O3.2 and O3.3 above. The DEIR adequately discloses that the existing parcels have been approved for consolidation through a TPM by the City of Menifee as a NOE.
Furthermore, ownership information and entitlement history are irrelevant for the description of a project according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124. Therefore, the DEIR adequately describes the Project site and the environmental setting for analysis of growth inducing impacts.
Further, as described in Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the proposed infrastructure improvements have been designed to serve only the demands of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not expand stormwater drainage services, as well as other offsite improvements, into unplanned areas and would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.23: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-166
Final EIR
September 2024
Response O3.23: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As previously discussed under Response O3.5 and O3.8, development assumptions and scenarios presented in the General Plan and its program-level EIR should not be considered a “cap” on permissible acreage or square footage buildout, but simply serve as a framework upon which future project -level environmental analyses may be based. Cumulative projects are properly included in Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, of the DEIR and accounted for throughout the analysis of the DEIR. All previously constructed projects (i.e., completed prior to issuance of the 2023 Notice of Preparation for the DEIR) are considered part of the environmental baseline and have therefore been accounted for as part of the existing conditions.
Growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies, such as SCAG. Although the Project would induce 652 employees within the City, the proposed industrial use is accounted for within the City of Menifee G eneral Plan, as the Project would be consistent with the planned Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway land use. According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS population and household growth forecast for Menifee, between 2016 and 2045, SCAG anticipates an employment increase of 15,400 additional jobs (from 13,800 to 29,200), yielding a 111 percent growth rate. SCAG also anticipates a population increase of 40,200 between 2016 and 2045 (from 89 ,600 to 129,800). The proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 652 employees conservatively, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 4.2 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the City. Additionally, as detailed within the DEIR, the proposed Project would result in a FAR of 0. 5 which is below the maximum FAR of 1.0 allowed by the EDC land use and related employment projections. Thus, although the Project would generate additional long-term employment in the Project area, the new employment opportunities would be within the forecasted and planned growth of the City. Thus, while the Project would contribute to employment growth through the proposed development within the Project site, the projected increases in employment from the Project are within SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS increases.
Furthermore, employment growth from the Project would not induce population growth by 652 persons. As described in the Initial Study (included as Appendix A of the DEIR) and DEIR Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Menifee and the City of Perris are high (4.9 percent and 5.8 percent respectfully). Due to these levels of unemployment, employees would live in housing either already built or are planned for development in Menifee, Perris, and the surrounding Riverside County areas and the surrounding areas. Because it is anticipated that most of the future employees from implementation of the Project would already be living in the Inland Empire area, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities would not induce substantial growth in the area and cause the need for additional housing.
In addition, projects referenced by the commentor were either required to conduct their own analysis of population growth and employment or would be required to do so by CEQA prior to approval . The commenter provides no substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. The Project would not result in cumulative citywide or countywide population and housing impacts. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.24: The comment states that since the Project is analyzed as a speculative high-cube industrial warehouse and that the tenant is unknown for the proposed Project, there is no possible assurance that positions are available within the region to satisfy the anticipated workforce needs.
Response O3.24: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As detailed in the above comment, speculative refers to the tenant, not the type of activities that would be conducted. The proposed Project has been proposed as and would be developed as a new high cube industrial warehouse building. As such, the proposed Project has been consistently analyzed throughout the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-167
Final EIR
September 2024
DEIR as a high cube industrial warehouse . Therefore, operational characteristics, including the required workforce to operate the building, have been accurately analyzed for a high cube warehouse building and the workforce required to operate the building would not change substantially due to the tenant.
Furthermore, as described in Response O 3.23 the employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Menifee and the City of Perris are high (4.9 percent and 5.8 percent respectfully). Due to these levels of unemployment, it is anticipated that new employees at the Project site would already reside within commuting distance and would not generate needs for any housing.
However, the Initial Study provides further analysis, so that should the proposed Project require employees to relocate to the area for work (i.e., specialized workforce is not available in the region), there is sufficient vacant housing available within the region. Within the City of Menifee, 36,308 of 38,734 total housing units are occupied, resulting in a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent. In addition, as described above in Response O3.23, the proposed Project would generate the need for approximately 652 empl oyees conservatively, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of the forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and approximately 4.2 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 for the city .
Therefore, the proposed Project would be within both the anticipated employment and population growth projections for the City of Menifee. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.25: This comment states that t he DEIR does not provide an exhibit depicting which areas of the site are within the applicable Compatibility Zone for each respective Airport. The comment also states that the DEIR does not provide any analysis or information regarding regulations and requirements within influence area Zone E of the Perris Valley Airport or Zone E of the March . Therefore, the comment claims that the DEIR does not provide adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure to support its claims of consistency.
Response O3.25: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O 3.4, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts does not require extensively detailed figures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). Thus, exhibits or graphics depicting the applicable ALUC Compatibility Zones are not required for a meaningful analysis. Furthermore, as described in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the DEIR) and Section 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR, the proposed Project is located over 10 miles southeast of the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base. Additionally, the entire Project site is located within Zone E and is not located in any existing noise contours for the Perris Valley Airpor t and March Air Reserve Base. Review by the Riverside County ALUC is not required for the proposed Project as the City of Menifee is consistent with the Perris Valley Airport ALUCP and March Air Reserve Base ALUCP .
Since the proposed Project is consistent with the City of Menifee land use designation for the site, the proposed Project would also be consistent with the ALUCP for both the Perris Valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base.
Since the proposed Project is fully consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use designation, as analyzed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is also fully consistent with the requirements and regulations within influence Zone E for both the Perris valley Airport and March Air Reserve Base . Overall, the proposed Project would not result in hazards related to excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference, and the proposed Project would not introduce a safety hazard associated with airport operations for people residing, working, and visiting the Project site. As described above, meaningful disclosure to support the DEIR’s impact and consistency determination was provided. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the EIR. No further response is warranted.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-168
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment O3.26: The comment states that the proposed Project fails to comply with the Housing Crisis Act/ Senate Bill (SB) 330/SB 8 as the Project does not provide replacement capacity for the reduced residential development as a result of the proposed Project. The comment supports this by stating the EDC land use designation has a maximum density of 24 units per acres, and therefore the Project site c an accommodate the development of up to 678 dwelling units . The comment concludes that the Project must provide 678 replacement units elsewhere in the city in accordance with SB 330 and the loss of residential capacity should be included as a finding of significance.
Response O3.26: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3 .2, O 3.3, O3.5 and O 3.7 above as this comment has been previously addressed. The commenter erroneously applies the requirements of SB 330 to the proposed Project. As discussed on page 3-13 of the DEIR, the Project site has a land use designation of EDC and zoning of EDC- NG. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning designation for the site , which allow for both industrial and residential development . Thus, there is no residential density specifically assigned to the Project site, nor would the Project remove the ability for a future residential development to occur onsite as the Project would not include a zone change.
As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65860 and is not required to upzone a different site or identify a replacement housing site pursuant to SB 330. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.27: The comment states that the Project site is located in a developed area of the City adjacent to existing roads and in close proximity to infrastructure and utilities. The comment states that Geary Street and Murrieta Road are undeveloped. Furthermore, the comment states that more than 50 percent of the land within the vicinity of the Project site is vacant, meaning that the project site is not located in a developed area of the City and is not located adjacent to existing roads.
Response O3.27: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The comment erroneously states that Murrieta Road and Geary Street are undeveloped and that the proposed Project is not located adjacent to existing roads and utilities. Murrieta Road is an existing paved roadway east of the Project site that currently provides access to Ethanac Road. Murrieta Road would be improved along the Project frontage . Geary Street is an existing dirt road way west of the Project site.
Geary Street would be improved along the Project Frontage and extended from Floyd Avenue to Ethanac Road. Therefore, both Geary Street and Murrieta Road are existing roadways that currently provide circulation, and the DEIR accurately describes the existing roads adjacent to the Project site. Furthermore, the Project site is surrounded by existing infrastructure and utilities as described in Section 3.0, Project Description.
There is an existing 27-inch diameter water line in Murrieta Road, an existing 8-inch sewer line in Murrieta Road, existing overhead utility lines are located along Murrieta Road, and existing natural gas mainlines lie within Murrieta Road.
According to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 Section 15387 "Urbanized area" means a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. A lead agency shall determine whether a particular area meets the criteria in this section either by examining the area or by referring to a map prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census which designates the area as urbanized. According to the SCAG RTP/SCS 2020 the City of Menifee had a population of 89,600 in 2016. Therefore, the Project site meets the criteria for an urbanized area and is designated as such.
This comment does not provide evidence of a significant impact and no changes to the analysis are necessary.
However, in order to provide clarity on the existing setting, Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, of the DEIR on page 7-12, has been revised in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, as part of the Final EIR to state that the Project site is located within an urbanizing area rather than a developed area:
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-169
Final EIR
September 2024
The proposed Project would develop a new industrial warehouse on a vacant, previously developed site that would be consistent with the General Plan approved in 2013. The site is located in an urbanizing area a developed area of the City adjacent to existing roads and in close proximity to infrastructure and utilities.
Comment O3.28: The comment states that the DEIR does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that the employees are expected to come from within the City or region . Additionally, the comment states that the DEIR does not provide evidence that the specific workforce listed is qualified for or interested in industrial work to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, the comment claims that r elying on the unemployed workforce population of the surrounding region will increase project related VMT and emissions and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. The comment states that the DEIR excludes from analysis the zoning capacity of 678 units.
Response O3.28: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As elaborated above and throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area beyond what is forecasted, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
As described throughout this response to comments, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of 678 units. As elaborated in Response O3.24, the proposed Project has been proposed as and would be developed as a new high cube industrial warehouse building which does not require a specialized workforce.
As such, the proposed Project has been consistently analyzed throughout the DEIR as a high cube industrial warehouse. Therefore, operational characteristics, including the required workforce to operate the building, have been accurately analyzed for a high cube warehouse building and the workforce required to operate the building would not change substantially due to the tenant.
Furthermore, the DEIR does not rely on the unemployed workforce population of the surrounding region to support the impact determination as vacant housing is available in the region. The DEIR accurately states that there is sufficient vacant housing available within the region as the City of Menifee has a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent (DEIR page 7-2). Therefore, there would be no increase to project related VMT or emissions to account for longer worker trip distances. Although employees are expected to come from within the City and the region, further evidence is provided to support the less than significant impact determination. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.29: The comment states that the City’s General Plan analyzed the Project site with exclusively residential development, meaning that it was not included for analysis as an employment generating use by either the City or SCAG.
Response O3.29: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to refer to Response O3.8 above. The Project site was not analyzed as exclusively residential development by the City of Menifee General Plan or General Plan EIR and was accurately analyzed as an employment generating land use by the City and SCAG. The build-out estimate in the General Plan (Exhibit LU-4) does not assume build -out at the maximum density or intensity allowed by the EDC and instead is adjusted downward to account for variations in build-out intensity. The EDC and EDC-NG designations allow for a maximum FAR of 1.0 whereas the proposed Project would have a FAR of 0.48 and was analyzed in the DEIR as a FAR of 0.5. Therefore, as detailed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation of EDC and zoning designation of EDC -NG. Although the proposed Project would have a FAR above what was assumed in the build -out estimates provided in Exhibit LU -4, it is still consistent with the General Plan and SCAG employment estimates since the buildout scenario is adjusted downward and is simply a theoretical scenario for development across the entirety of the EDC and not the Project site. Therefore, the employment growth generated by the proposed Project was anticipated by the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-170
Final EIR
September 2024
General Plan and SCAG. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.30: The comment states that the proposed Project must provide a quantified analysis of the Project’s growth compared to the General Plan’s buildout. The comment states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts.
Response O3.30: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment is a duplicate of Comment O3.23, please refer to Response O3.23 above. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.31: The comment states that the EIR must be revised to note the Project site’s status as an approved residential development and the City’s ownership of Lot 78 with reservation and dedication for parkland. The comment also states that the EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and include a finding of significance as Project implementation will result in a direct impact to City recreation facilities.
Response O3.31: Please refer to Response O3.2 and O3.3 above. CEQA Guidelines 15125 (a)(3) states that “An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline”. Thus, although Lot 78 may have been previously identified within Resolution No. 16 -500: Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan, the DEIR is not required to include the hypothetical condition as part of the existing baseline. The Project site has never been developed as a city recreational facility and as shown in the City of Menifee Parks Master Plan, adopted July 2023, in Figure 5 -2, Future and Existing Parks, Lot 78 is not identified as future parkland. Therefore, the DEIR accurately described the Project site’s environmental baseline and no impacts to recreational facilities would occur. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.32: The comment states that the DEIR is deferring analysis by stating that development plans would be reviewed by the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to approval. The comment states that the DEIR does not provide any information regarding the proposed onsite fire pump house that is depicted on the Site Plan. The comment also states that a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project with emergency access exhibits, information regarding the proposed onsite fire pump house, and associated analysis/requirements in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.
Response O3.32: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
This comment was previously addressed under Response O3.16. As detailed under Response O3.16, Figure 3-7, Conceptual Site Plan, depicts the proposed emergency vehicle access to the site. The proposed Project would provide emergency access to the site via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks.
The northern and southern driveways on Murrietta Road would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveway s on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The Project would include a 26-foot-wide fire access road throughout the site. The onsite circulation design provides accessibility and turning ability throughout the site.
Therefore, there is no geometric design feature that would prevent emergency vehicle maneuverability or result in impacts from trucks or emergency vehicles accessing or circulating the Project site. Furthermore, as described in Response O3.4, the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the Project by the public and decision makers and for the review of the Project’s environmental impacts is adequate within the Project Description, and extensively detailed figures are not needed. Therefore, the plans provided in the DEIR are Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-171
Final EIR
September 2024
conceptual plans and including exhibits depicting emergency vehicle access and maneuvering in the DEIR is not required or needed to support the impact determination.
The proposed onsite conceptual circulation design provides emergency vehicle accessibility and turning ability throughout the site and does not identify potential significant environmental impacts. Should the Project be approved, design level civil engineering plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City’s engineering staff and the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of construction related permitting to ensure that all applicable emergency access standards are met, which include both California Fire Code and California Building Code requirements, as included in the City’s Municipal Code . This is not a deferral of analysis, but the City’s standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met, including emergency access.
Furthermore, the proposed onsite fire pump that is depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan has been analyzed and described throughout the DEIR , notably in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The fire pump is also identified in Section 3.0 , Project Description, and states that the proposed Project would require p ermits to install and operate a diesel fire pump from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This is not a deferral of analysis, but standard development review and permitting process to ensure that all applicable design requirements are met. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.33: The comment states that a revised DEIR must be completed that includes analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and to foster informed decision making. The comment states that the DEIR does not identify an alternative that meets the Projects objectives and eliminates all the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.
Response O3.33: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasiz es that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Additionally, an alternative is not required to meet all project objectives and eliminate all of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts as incorrectly stated by the Commenter.
DEIR page 8-1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), discussion of each alternative presented in this D EIR section is intended “to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” As permitted by CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative are discussed in less detail than those of the proposed Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the proposed Project. As detailed in DEIR Section
8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project is consistent with the current zoning of the site and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and noise. One alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to its infeasibility and lack of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/Build Out of the Existing Zoning, a 30 percent Reduced Project Alternative, a 51 percent Reduced Project alternative, and a No Project/ Buildout of Existing Zone Alternative were selected for further analysis. As such, the alternatives utilized by the D EIR provide a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
Table 8-4 of the DEIR provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative and the proposed Project. In addition, DEIR Table 8-5 provides a comparison of the ability of Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-172
Final EIR
September 2024
each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The environmentally superior alternative identified in the DEIR is the 51 percent Reduced Project Alternative and is expected to greatly reduce GHG emissions compared to the proposed Project , to a less than significant determination. Noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.34: This comment states that SWAPE has reviewed the DEIR and states that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts and suggests that a revised EIR be prepared.
Response O3.34: This comment is introductory in nature and introduces the inadequacies of the DEIR that will be further discussed within the comment. Because the comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue no further response is required.
Comment O3.35: This comment states that the CalEEMod default data was changed for modeling of the proposed Project and that CEQA requires such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that when default values in the program are changed, output files are produced which disclose to the reader which values within the program have been changed.
Response O3.35: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. It is typical that default CalEEMod data is revised, so that the modeling accurately depicts construction and/or operation of each proposed Project. No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided.
Comment O 3.36: The comment that that CalEEMod version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate project emissions, which poses a problem as it is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files. The comment states that the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values. The comment states that the DEIR should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters.
Response O3.36: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
Please refer to Response O3.7 above. The commenter is incorrect that CalEEMod 2022.1 is a “soft release.” As indicated in the CalEEMod release notes, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was approved for full launch on 12/21/2022 and the “soft release” message was removed. As such, CalEEMod version 2022.1 is appropriate for use and the analysis is adequate as presented.
In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1, CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project -specific information when available. Thus, modifications to Ca lEEMod defaults are used when more detailed information is known about the project such as the construction timeline, the mix of equipment use, architectural coatings, and more. Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were don e in order to provide an accurate snapshot of the Project’s construction and operational details. Modifications to defaults and the explanations are noted in the output report. Pages 35 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix
3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis) identifies the user changes that were made CalEEMod. The “.JSON” files are input files, not output files. As such, all output files were included in Appendix 3.1 of the Air Quality Analysis.
No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.37: The comment states that the comment or discovered inconsistencies between the model inputs and the information within the DEIR, thus a revised DEIR must be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-173
Final EIR
September 2024
Response O3.37: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The comment does specify any specific inconsistencies with information disclosed in the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. As discussed throughout these responses and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled and analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. No fur ther response is warranted.
Comment O3.38: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files for the proposed Project demonstrates that the model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths . The comment claims that the changes to the individual construction phase lengths are unsubstantiated for two reasons.
Response O3.38: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR.
Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.39: This comment states that the DEIR does not provide a source for the individual construction phase lengths and therefore underestimates the length of construction. The comment states that the model should have proportionately altered the individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 11 months.
Response O3.39: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement a mong experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
The Project’s construction duration in CalEEMod was based on the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, as provided by the A pplicant, as specified on page 3 -33 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR, which assumes that construction is expected to begin the first quarter of 2025 and last for 11 months. The CalEEMod output files accurately define the construction schedule as starting on 10/15/24 and ending on 9/30/25. As such, the Project's construction schedule in CalEEMod is consistent with the Project Description.
This is consistent with the instructions in the CalEEMod User’s Guide that directs the user to use site -specific phasing. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, pages 33 through 35, the construction tab contains default information obtained from a survey of construction sites with a range of project types and sizes and provides default construction equipment lists and phase length data based on the total lot acreage of a project. The User’s Guide states that if the user has more detailed site -specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values.
The analysis properly relied on Project -specific construction phases that accurately reflect the required construction activities necessary for Project buildout. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-174
Final EIR
September 2024
Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.40: The comment states that the total construction duration modeled in the CalEEMod is 12 months. As a result, the construction schedule included in the model is overestimated and not consistent with the 11-month duration proposed by the DEIR. The comment states that by altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases.
Response O3.40: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. Please refer to Response O 3.39 above. It should be noted that the comment erroneously states “construction schedule begins 10/1/2024 and ends 9/30/2024, resulting in a total construction duration of 12 months”. Table 3-3 of the comment letter provides a snapshot of Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis, of the DEIR, where it specifically shows construction would begin on 10/15/24, not 10/1/24. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.41: The comment states that review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates model changes to the default off -road construction equipment parameters , specifically the model assumes that all of the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Interim emissions standards. The comment states that the use of tier 4 interim emissions standards is not formally included as mitigation measures, and cannot guarantee that these standards would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.
Response O3.41: In response to this comment, Section 5.6 of the DEIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, has been revised to include Tier 4 Interim construction equipment as a Project Design Feature (PDF). In compliance with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. This revision has been included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, as part of the FEIR as follows:
5.6.9 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
PDF GHG-1: Tier 4 Interim Construction Equipment. In order to comply with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. Prior to grading permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project utilizes at minimum, Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment (or electric) as well as Tier 4 Interim compliant final engines. Offroad construction equipment shall be consistent with, and meet, at minimum, Tier 4 Interim standards as specified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 1039. The Project shall also be required to keep construction equipment maintenance records and data sheets, which includes equipment design specifications and equipment emission control tier classifications, as well as any other records necessary to verify compliance with items listed above.
Maintenance records shall be kept on-site and furnished to the City upon request.
The following exemption shall apply, where the Project Applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City if the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the Project Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not/would not be available. In order to meet this requirement to demonstrate that such equipment is not available, the Applicant must seek bids/proposals from contractors of large Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-175
Final EIR
September 2024
fleets, defined by the CARB as, “A fleet with a total max hp (as defined below) greater than 5,000 hp.” In the event that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available, Tier 3 equipment shall be used.
Comment O 3.42: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files include changes to the default construction architectural coating emission factor. The comment states that the model’s reductions to the architectural coating emission factors are unsubstantiated for two reasons.
Response O3.42: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.43: The comment states that the accuracy of the revised architectural coating emission factors cannot be verified based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 1113 alone.
The comment states that a s the DEIR fails to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating which would adhere to a specific VOC limit, they cannot verify the model’s revised coating emission factors.
Response O3.43: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
All Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of VOCs. SCAQMD (the CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input and outputs, as detailed in Response A6.1. SCAQMD has not found the VOC modeling in CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner.
The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate.
Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air quality expert. The intent of the Project air quality modeling is to establish a likely maximum impact scenario available to decision -makers for their consideration when evaluating the Project and its potential environmental impacts. Further, the excerpt provided in the comment identifies the square footage of the existing baseline use from the operational run and is not representative of the proposed Project. This analysis is adequate as presented.
While the limits outlined in Rule 1113 do vary, the architectural coatings that would commonly be used as part of construction for this type of project would fall into the building envelope coatings, flat/nonflat coatings, floor coatings, concrete surface retarder, roof coatings, and "default" coating categories, all of which have a limit of 50 g/L. As such, the analysis assumed a VOC content of 50 g/L for interior and exterior architectural coatings for Project construction. This is further specified in the 5.2 of the DEIR, Air Quality, as PPP-AQ-2 states the following:
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
The analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.44: The comment states that since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate.
Response O3.44: Please refer to Response O3.43 above. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.45: The comment states that the Project’s models should accurately reflect operational daily vehicle trip rates. The comment states that review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-176
Final EIR
September 2024
only includes a total of approximately 91 Saturday14 and 30 Sunday15 vehicle trips. The comment further states that the Saturday and Sunday trips are underestimated by a total of approximately 1,044 trips and 1,105 trips. As such, the comment states the trip rates input into the model are inconsistent with the information provided by the DEIR. The comment states by underestimated Saturday and Sunday operational vehicle trips, the model underestimates the Project’s mobile -source operational emissions and sho uld not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Response O3.45: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As described in Response O3.43 above, all Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols, including modeling of daily vehicle trip rates. SCAQMD (the CEQA Responsible Agency for air quality considerations) has been provided all air quality modeling input and outputs, as detailed in Response A6.1. SCAQMD has not found the daily vehicle trip rates modeling in CalEEMod to be deficient in any manner. The commentor states that supporting air quality modeling has not been provided. This is inaccurate. Complete and accurate modeling of the Project air pollutant emissions is provided as Appendix 3.1 of the DEIR Appendix B, Air Quality Analysis. Modeling of Project air quality impacts reflects characteristics and attributes of this specific Project and its context. Any and all modeling inputs are consistent with applicable CalEEMod parameters and SCAQMD guidance and reflect extensive practical experience of the Project air quality expert.
For the Saturday/Sunday trip rates, trips were calculated based on the ratio of weekday to weekend truck trips in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11
th Edition. As such, this is based on actual data for similar facilities, and consistent with the data published in the DEIR Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis. This is to account for reduced operation at the facility that would occur on weekends vs. weekdays. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.46: The comment states that the CalEEMod output files show unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix, and they must be revised to show the percentages used to calculate the Project’s operational emissions.
Response O3.46: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the DEIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the DEIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement a mong experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
As discussed on page 49 of Appendix 3.2 of the Air Quality Analysis (Appendix B of the DEIR), trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the Project were based on the Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix K of the DEIR), which identifies that the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,135 average daily trips, including 933 passenger vehicle trips, 15 two-axle truck trips, 28 three-axle truck trips, 43 four-axle truck trips, and 116 five+-axle truck trips.
Therefore, the modeling is conservative as it increases the percentage of medium duty truck trips from the default 1.73 percent to 2.5 percent and increases the percentage of heavy heavy duty (HHD) truck trips Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-177
Final EIR
September 2024
from the default of 1.76 percent to assume 10.20 percent consistent with the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed Project. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the modeling included unsubstantiated changes that may underestimate the Project’s mobile source emissions. This analysis is adequate as presented .
Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.47: This comment states that the commenter prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR, omitting the changes to operational fleet mixes and states that NOx emissions would increase by approximately 370 percent and VOC emissions would increase by 449 percent, exceeding the applicable significance threshold resulting in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR.
Response O3.47: This comment does not provide a ny substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled , analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. The modeling provided by the commenter included default operational fleet mix values that are not specific to the proposed Project as determined by the Lead Agency. In addition, the modeling provided by the commenter included additional import which does not reflect the Project grading plan. As these values do not represent the proposed Project, the increased emissions that result from them are also not applicable. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.48: This comment states that the less than significant health risk impact based on the Mobile Health Risk Assessment in Appendix D to the DEIR is incorrect based off two reasons.
Response O3.48: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify the specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O3.49: This comment states that the first reason the Health Risk Assessment is flawed is that it relies upon a flawed air model based on the comments mentioned above (in Comments O 3.37 through O3.46) and thus should not be relied upon.
Response O3.49: Refer to Response O3.37 through O3.46. As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the Project was properly modeled and analyzed, and the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant air quality or health risk impacts. No further response is warranted.
Comment O3.50: This comment states that the DEIR underestimates the exposure assumptions for fraction of time at home.
Response O3.50: As detailed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, the HRA that was completed for the proposed Project provides the appropriate conservative analysis pursuant to SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA recommended methodology. Per OEHHA methodology, the HRA included refinements to identify potential effects to smaller human body weights and breathing rates to asses s risk to children, which was done as detailed in the methodology provided on page 19 and 20 of the HRA (Appendix G of the DEIR). In addition, the HRA provides a conservative analysis by evaluating the closest receptors with the maximum potential emissions and continuous exposure (24 -hours per day). Thus, stringent significance thresholds and methodology that is consistent with resource agency direction was utilized in the DEIR to determine potential impacts to residents and school children, which determined that impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. The thresholds utilized were based on the City’s discretion (as Lead Agency) and are supported by substantial evidence from SCAQMD, CARB, and OEHHA.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-178
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment O3.51: This comment states that an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. The comment states that while the DEIR implements MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-8, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures.
Response O 3.51: The comment is introductory in nature and does not identify any feasible mitigation measures. Please refer to Response O3.52 below, t he DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis , of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.
While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required. Because the comment does not express the specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Comment O 3.52: This comment states that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures related to the Projects significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions and provides a list of mitigation measures from the CA Department of Justice (DOJ) and CARB. Additionally , the comment also states that the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation measures related to VOC emissions and NOx emissions and provides a list of mitigation measures found in the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS Program EIR and the Department of Justice that incorporate feasible ways to include lower -emitting design features into the Project.
Response O3.52: This comment does not provide substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact.
As discussed throughout these responses, and the Air Quality Report and Health Risk Analysis (Appendix B and G of the DEIR), the proposed Project was properly modeled and analyzed as part of the DEIR and the proposed Project would not result in significant air quality or health risk impacts. Significant and unavoidable impacts related to VOC, NOx, or any other criteria pollutant would not occur and there is no nexus related to the inclusion of mitigation for VOC or NOx. No mitigation is required.
GHG impacts would remain significant despite implementation of all feasible mitigation. The commenter provides a list of various suggested mitigation measures, many of which are already included in the DEIR and would be implemented by the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure.
CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one court: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.).
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-179
Final EIR
September 2024
The DEIR adequately provides reasonable rationale supporting the proposed mitigation measures and the finding of infeasibility of further mitigation. As described in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, of the DEIR more than 86 percent of all GHG emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (vehicle trips). Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency (City of Menifee) can substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond regulatory requirements imposed by the federal or State governments or the SCAQMD. Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled by technology and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery- electric heavy-heavy duty trucks have not yet been integrated into large -scale truck operations due to difficulties in meeting the duty cycles required of current diesel -powered vehicles and long charging times.
Therefore, mitigation measures tailored towards mobile source emission reductions are not feasible or commercially available.
While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, electric vehicle supply equipment would be installed allowing charging stations to be supplied. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline- burning automobiles and thus, less GHG emissions. Nonetheless, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as disclosed in the D EIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR includes all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s GHG emissions and no revisions to the DEIR or additional mitigation measures are required.
Comment O3.53: This comment states that the commenter has received limited discovery regarding the Project, additional information may become available in the future; and the commentor retains the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available.
Response O3.53: This comment is advisory in nature and discloses that the commenter has the right to revise the report as additional information becomes available. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is warranted.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-180
Final EIR
September 2024
2.19 LETTER O4: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE (1 PAGE)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-181
Final EIR
September 2024
2.20 RESPONSE TO LETTER O 4: GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE, DATED JULY 5, 2024
Comment O4.1: This comment states that Golden State Justice Alliance would like to be added to the notification list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for the Project. The comment included eight email addresses and one mailing address.
Response O4.1: Golden State Justice Alliance will be added to the notification list and provided future notices for the proposed Project and Hearings. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-182
Final EIR
September 2024
2.21 LETTER I1: ADRIENNE VENDOR (1 PAGE)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-183
Final EIR
September 2024
2.22 RESPONSE TO LETTER I 1: ADRIENNE VENDOR , DATED MAY 27, 2024
Comment I1.1: This comment states that the residents on Floyd Avenue and Mclaughlin held a meeting and delivered a follow up letter to the City. The comment further states that the neighbors have not received any information on the Project in seven months and nearby residences have viewed trucks on the property preparing to put in sewer lines. The comment concludes in asking about the Menifee Good Neighbor Policy.
Response I1.1: The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. On May 24, 2024, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site. The NOA contained information regarding the DEIR document related to the Project as well as information on where to obtain the document and how to comment on the Project. Prior to the NOA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was mailed to property owners within the 500 - foot radius of the Project site on November 7, 2023, giving notice that a DEIR was being prepared for the proposed Project. The NOP similarly provided details for how the public could comment on the proposed Project as well as notified residents of the Scoping Meeting on November 28, 2023, which provided another opportunity for residents to hear about the Project as well as comment on the proposed Project. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit early comments from public agencies with expertise in subjects that are discussed in the DEIR and to solicit comments from the public regarding potential Project environmental impacts. In addition, construction activities would not begin on the Pro ject site until after approval of the Project and Certification of the FEIR document. Any construction activity near the site that is currently ongoing is not associated with the proposed Project. The Project’s consistency with the City of Menifee’s Good Neighbor Policies are shown in Table 5.9-3 of the DEIR. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-184
Final EIR
September 2024
2.23 LETTER I2: BOB POWELL (1 PAGE)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-185
Final EIR
September 2024
2.24 RESPONSE TO LETTER I2: BOB POWELL, DATED MAY 28, 2024 Comment I2.1: This Comment states that the commenter has concerns regarding noise, traffic, flooding, and air pollution in the Project area. The comment also states that they live on a dirt road which is maintained by residents on Floyd Avenue and suggests that a dead end at Floyd Avenue and the east side of Geary Road to help with traffic congestion.
Response I2.1: This comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Impacts related to noise, traffic, flooding, an d air pollution are discussed in Section 5.10, 5,12, 5.8, and 5.2 of the DEIR, respectively. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.2, Air Quality, impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with PPP AQ-1 through PPP AQ-4, including compliance with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District . As described in the DEIR within Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality , impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain a construction permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and would be required to prepare a WQMP that shall identify all Post -Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the development project in order to minimize the adverse effects on receiving waters. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.10, Noise, the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts due to offsite traffic noise increases, and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. As described in the DEIR within Section 5.12, Transportation, impacts would be less than significant.
No improvements are proposed on Floyd Avenue and no extension of Floyd Avenue beyond what is existing in proposed. Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road , including through the intersection with Floyd Avenue . Trucks accessing the site via the driveways on Geary Street and Murrieta Road Ethanac Road north of the Project site, no vehicles related to the proposed Project would utilize Floyd Avenue.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-186
Final EIR
September 2024
2.25 LETTER I3: KIMBERLY AND MOO TANG (2 PAGES)
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-187
Final EIR
September 2024
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-188
Final EIR
September 2024
2.26 RESPONSE TO LETTER I3: KIMBERLY AND MOO TANG, DATED JUNE 26, 2024
Comment I3.1: This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter and states that the Project will be located along the commenters back side of their property.
Response I3.1: The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided.
Comment I3.2: This comment states that the commenter reached out to the city previously regarding the Project and was not made aware of the improvement related to Geary Street . The comment expresses concern for safety at the intersection of Floyd Avenue and Geary Street due to the increase in trucks accessing the site via Geary Street.
Response I3.2: As discussed in Section 5.12, Transportation , of the DEIR, the Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road. This portion of the roadway improvement not abutting the Project site boundary would include paving at a width of 36 -feet and would not include the construction of sidewalks or curbs. All road improvements would be subject to a street improvement plan review by the City, which would ensure that road improvements are design and constructed according to City standards. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound. Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound. All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access to the northern driveway, while access t o the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northboun d for the other driveways . Truck circulation would not access the site via Ethanac Road southbound on Geary Street. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed Project would comply with the City’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies which require that warehouse, logistics, and distribution to minimize impacts to sensitive uses, protect of public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, location and operation of facilities; and protect neighborhood character of adjacent communities. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.
Comment I3.3: This comment states that they would like noise and air quality issues addressed due to the proximity of the warehouse and the truck routes to the nearby residences. The comment further states that the additional noise and unhealthy air quality impacts imposed from the Project should mitigated thoroughly.
Response I3.3: Impacts related to air quality and noise are discussed in Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.10, Noise, of the DEIR. Impacts related to regional air quality as well as for localized significance thresholds were found to be less than significant with the implementation of SCAQMD rules and guidelines. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment was also conducted and included as Appendix G to the DEIR found that cancer and non-cancer health risks would be below thresholds through both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR and found that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI-1 and PPP NOI-2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation of the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant, however noise generated from offsite traffic would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Geary Road. Section 5.10 of the DEIR explores potential mitigation measures such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt and came to the conclusion that these measures are not feasible to reduce impacts, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. T he commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-189
Final EIR
September 2024
actually or substantially reduce the Project’s noise and air quality impacts. CEQA does not require adoption of every imaginable mitigation measure. CEQA’s requirement applies only to feasible mitigation that will “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21002). As explained by one cour t: A lead agency's “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would [avoid or] ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect.” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519.) “Thus, the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR.” (Ibid.) Rather, an EIR should focus on mitigat ion measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365.). As disclosed in the DEIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the proposed Project’s EIR discusses all feasible mitigation measures that are capable of substantially reducing the Project’s noise impacts and no revisions to the EIR or additional mitigation measures are required.
Comment I3.5: This comment further states that while there is a proposed retaining wall along the northern property line, residences along Floyd Avenue are still greatly exposed to potential air and noise impacts from trucks utilizing Geary Street.
Response I3.5: Please see Response L3.4 above. Impacts related to regional air quality as well as for localized significance thresholds were found to be less than significant with the implementation of SCAQMD rules and guidelines. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment was also conducted and included as Appendix G to the DEIR found that cancer and non-cancer health risks would be below thresholds through both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Noise impacts were analyzed in Section 5.10 of the DEIR and found that noise impacts to sensitive receptors during construction activities would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP NOI -1 and 2 and Project Design Features 1 through 6. Impacts related to the operation o f the proposed warehouse would also be less than significant, however noise generated from offsite traffic would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on Geary Road. Section
5.10 of the DEIR explores potential mitigation measures such as noise barriers and rubberized asphalt and came to the conclusion that these measures are not feasible to reduce impacts, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. The commenter does not provide any evidence that the suggested mitigation measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s noise and air quality impacts.
Comment I3.6: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately analyze the impacts from the proposed Project on the residences on Floyd Avenue and the improvement along Geary Street.
Response I3.6: As discussed in Section 5.12, Transportation , of the DEIR, the Project would improve the existing dirt road portion of Geary Street from the northwestern end of the Project site north to Ethanac Road. This portion of the roadway improvement not abutting the Project site boundary would include paving at a width of 36 -feet and would not include the construction of sidewalks or curbs. All road improvements would be subject to a street improvement plan review by the City, which would ensure that road improvements are design and constructed according to City standards. Trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound. Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound. All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2 -axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other dri veways. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 2.0 Response to Comments City of Menifee 2-190
Final EIR
September 2024
Comment I3.7: This comment expresses concern for the longer wait times at the entrance of Floyd Avenue on Murrieta Road due to the increase in traffic from trucks and workers accessing the site.
Response I3.7: Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, automobile delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, and therefore this comment does not raise concerns within the scope of CEQA. The discussion included in the DEIR concerning Level of Service (LOS) was provided for informational purposes only for the City’s use in evaluating the proposed Project and considering conditions of approval outside of CEQA’s framework. This is clearly identified in Section 5.12, Transportation , where it states that the LOS analysis is intended for “Non-CEQA Level of Service Analysis – For Informational Purposes Only.” Furthermore, it should be noted that a global Traffic Study for the MEDC area, including the addition of a truck corridor south of Ethanac Road, is currently being prepared in coordination with the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Appendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the DEIR analyzes trucks utilizing Ethanac Road as a worst -case scenario for recommended improvements along Ethanac Road. Furthermore, the Traffic Impact Analysis provides an analysis and recommended improvements for both Project spec ific traffic - related impacts and cumulative traffic -related impacts. This comment does not raise a deficiency with the DEIR’s analysis and therefore no further response is warranted.
Comment I3.8: This comment states that the greatest concern for the commenter is the Project size and the use of Geary Street to operate “off -site.” The commenter further states that the Project is poorly cited for its proposed warehouses use and should be downsized to only operate within the Project site or to buy the nearby residences out of their property.
Response I3.8: The commenter incorrectly states that the Project proposes “off-site” operational activity on Geary Street. Geary Street would be improved and paved which would result in construction activities and would be utilized for outbound truck circulation exiting the Project site northbound. Once operational, trucks traveling to the Project site would primarily utilize Ethanac Road westbound, to Murrieta Road southbound.
Truck traffic would then either access the site via the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road or would utilize the private truck only driveway along the south portion of the site to Geary Street northbound.
All trucks traveling northbound on Geary Street would have access the northern driveway, while access to the southern driveway would be limited to 2-axle trucks only. Truck traffic would then exit the site northbound on Murrieta Road via the northern most driveway with the provision of a traffic signal and would also exit the site via Geary Street northbound for the other driveways. The proposed Project’s impacts on the nearby residences are adequately disclosed throughout the DEIR document, and this comment does not warrant any further changes to the DEIR.
Comment I3.9: This comment concludes the letter by stating that the negative impact on the commenters’ daily lives should be taken into consideration.
Response I3.9: This comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR. Because the comment does not express any specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required or provided.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 1
Final EIR
September 2024
Revisions to the Draft EIR
This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The revisions do not alter any of the significance conclusions that were previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold double underlined text (i.e., bold double underlined) to signify additions. These changes are meant to provide clarification, corrections, or minor revisions made to the Draft EIR initiated by the Lead Agency, the City of Menifee, and reviewing agencies, the public, and/or consultants based on their review. Text changes are presented in the section and page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR. None of the corrections or additions constitute significant new information or substantial project changes that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR.
3.1 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS AND CITY
CHANGES TO TEXT
The following text, organized by Draft EIR Sections, has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and corrections identified by the City.
Section 1.0, Executive Summary
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Murrieta Road Warehouse Project has been designed to meet a series of Project-specific objectives that have been carefully crafted in order to aid decision makers in their review of the Project and its associated environmental impacts. The primary purpose of the proposed Project is to develop a vacant or underutilized property with a speculative warehouse building to provide an employment-generating use to help grow the economy in the City of Menifee. The Project would achieve this goal through the following objectives.
1. To make efficient use of underutilized property in the City of Menifee by adding to its potential for employment-generating uses.
2. To attract new business and employment to Menifee and thereby promote economic growth.
3. To create new jobs to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the Project vicinity to work.
4. To develop an underutilized property to host industrial uses as permissible under current land use and zoning code, to help meet demand for businesses in the City and in the Inland Empire.
5. To provide a development consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning To develop a new industrial project that is located along, and would utilize, a designated truck route to limit truck traffic through residential neighborhoods.
6. To develop an underutilized property consistent with the current General Plan and zoning that is conveniently located in the vicinity of I- 215 and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within the region.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 2
Final EIR
September 2024
Section 3.0, Project Description
3.3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Murrieta Road Warehouse Project has been designed to meet a series of Project-specific objectives that have been carefully crafted in order to aid decision makers in their review of the Project and its associated environmental impacts. The primary purpose of the proposed Project is to develop a vacant or underutilized property with a speculative warehouse building to provide an employment-generating use to help grow the economy in the City of Menifee. The Project would achieve this goal through the following objectives. 1 . To make efficient use of underutilized property in the City of Menifee by adding to its potential for employment-generating uses.
2. To attract new business and employment to Menifee and thereby promote economic growth.
3. To create new jobs to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the Project vicinity to work.
4. To develop an underutilized property to host industrial uses as permissible under current land use and zoning code, to help meet demand for businesses in the City and in the Inland Empire.
5. To provide a development consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning To develop a new industrial project that is located along, and would utilize, a designated truck route to limit truck traffic through residential neighborhoods.
6. To develop an underutilized property consistent with the current General Plan and zoning that is conveniently located in the vicinity of I- 215 and has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities to accommodate the growing need for goods movement within the region.
S
ection 5.2, Air Quality
P
age 5.2-41 and 5.2-42, in Section 5.2.8, Existing Plans, Programs, and Policies, is revised as follows:
Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP AQ-1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 3
Final EIR
September 2024
PPP AQ -3: Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel -Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. The Project is required to obtain a permit from SCAQMD for the proposed diesel fire pump and would be required to comply with Rule 1470, regulating the use of diesel -fueled internal combustion engines.
PPP AQ -4: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
PPP AQ-5: Rule 2305 - Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 2305 and Rule 316.
Section 5.3, Biological Resources
5.3.11 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Surveys. A 30-day preconstruction survey is required prior to the commencement of project activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding project activities. A qualified biologist shall conduct the survey and submit the results of the survey to the City of Menifee Planning Division prior to obtaining a grading permit.
If burrowing owl are not detected during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, the on-site biologist will review and establish a conservative avoidance buffer surrounding the nest based on their best professional judgment and experience and verify compliance with this buffer and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed within the established buffer area. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City in consultation with CDFW, or the Project Dev eloper shall stop construction activities within the buffer zone established around the active nest and shall not resume construction activities until the nest is no longer active. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall be prepared in accor dance with guidelines in the MSHCP. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.
If ground-disturbing activities occur but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a preconstruction survey will again be required to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.
If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above shall be required.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 4
Final EIR
September 2024
Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.6.9 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
None.
PDF GHG-1: Tier 4 Interim Construction Equipment. In order to comply with the City of Menifee Good Neighbor Policies , the Project Applicant has agreed to utilize Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment. Prior to grading permits, the City of Menifee Building and Safety Division shall confirm that the Project utilizes, at minimum, Tier 4 Interim compliant construction equipment (or electric) as well as Tier 4 Interim compliant final engines. Offroad construction equipment shall be consistent with, and meet, at minimum, Tier 4 Interim standards as specified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 1039. The Project shall also be required to keep construction equipment maintenance records and data sheets, which includes equipment design specifications and equipment emission control tier classifications, as well as any other records necessary to verify compliance with items listed above.
Maintenance records shall be kept on-site and furnished to the City upon request.
The following exemption shall apply, where the Project Applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Menifee that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City if the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Before an exemption may be considered by t he City, the Project Applicant shall be required to demonstrate that at least two construction fleet owners/operators were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not/would not be available. In order to meet this requirement to demonstrate that such equipment is not available, the Applicant must seek bids/proposals from contractors of large fleets, defined by the CARB as, “a fleet with a total max hp (as defined below) greater than 5,000 hp.” In the event that Tier 4 interim Final equipment is not available, Tier 3 equipment shall be used.
Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning
Table 5.9-1: SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
air quality.
Consistent. While the Project would not improve air
quality and would have a significant and unavoidable
GHG emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, it would not prevent SCAG from implementing actions that would improve air quality within the region. Mitigation measures are specified to reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts to the maximum
extent feasible, and the Project would incorporate various measures related to building design, landscaping, and
energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy,
pursuant to Title 24 CALGreen Code and Building Energy
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 5
Final EIR
September 2024
RTP/SCS Goal Statements Project Consistency
Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, as discussed within
Section 5.2, Air Quality , the proposed Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants.
Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. Consistent. The Project would be constructed consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan land use
designation/zoning classification and associated
development standards. The Project would be constructed to current building codes, and state and federal
requirements including Green Building Standards. The
development of the Project would also increase
employment for the City and its residents. Furthermore, a Health Risk Assessment (Appendix G) was prepared for
the proposed Project and determined all health risk
levels to nearby residents, workers, and schools from
operation-related emissions of TACs would be well
below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts
would be less than significant.
Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern and
transportation network.
Consistent. This policy would be implemented by cities
and the counties within the SCAG region as part of the
overall planning and maintenance of the regional
transportation system. Although the proposed Project
would have a significant and unavoidable GHG
emissions impact as described in Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions , implementation of the
proposed Project would not conflict with this goal.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would implement all
feasible mitigation measures, including MM GHG -1
through MM GHG-8 9, as described within Section 5.6,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Section 5.10, Noise
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The proposed Project would generate traffic -related noise from operation. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Both driveways on Geary Street would be accessible by both passenger vehicles and trucks. The middle driveway on Murrieta Road would be limited to passenger vehicles only and would have a width of 30 feet. The driveways along Geary Street and the northern and southern driveways on Murrieta Road would have a width of 40 feet. To identify the potential of traffic from the proposed Project to generate noise impacts, noise contours were developed based on the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix K. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.
The proposed Project includes two Project Scenarios in order to analyze the proposed provision of a traffic signal at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road. For the first scenario (Project Scenario 1 – No Signal), only right -in, right -out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern driveway on Murrieta Road. For the second scenario (Project Scenario 2 – With Signal), right-in, right- out, and left-out turn movements for trucks would be allowed at the northern most driveway on Murrieta Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 6
Final EIR
September 2024
Road and right -out turn movements for trucks would not be allowed. Under Project Scenario 2, the northern most driveway on Murrieta Road would be a signalized intersection upon activation.
Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and related projects within the study area. A significant impact would result only if both the difference between existing and opening year with project (combined effects) and difference between opening year without project and opening year with project (incremental effects) thresholds have been exceeded, and the resultant noise level exceeds the Normally Acceptable land use compatibility noise standard. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Therefore, cumulative traffic- generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project in the opening year cumulative traffic volumes on the roadways in the Project vicinity. The noise levels associated with these traffic volumes with the proposed Project were identified previously in Table 5.10-20 and 5.10-
21. As shown, cumulative development along with the proposed Project would increase local noise levels above the threshold for those roadway segments, therefore cumulative impacts associated with traffic noise would also be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, consistent wit h the cumulative traffic noise impact identified by the 2013 General Plan EIR.
Additionally, Table 5.10-24 presents a summary of the cumulative and project incremental noise level increases for each of the study area roadway segments. The cumulative traffic noise analysis describes the future changes in noise levels in comparison to the existing baseline noise levels. As shown in Table 5.10-24, the overall increase in off- site traffic noise levels from the existing (baseline) to the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 conditions ranges from 0.5 to 17.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10-3, nine of the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant off- site traffic noise level increases due to cumulative traffic conditions. The Project increment s hown in Table 5.10-24 represents the difference between the Opening Year without Project and the Opening Year with Project Scenario 1 is shown to range from 0.0 to 17.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off- site traffic noise presented in Table 5.10-3, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments are shown to experience potentially significant noise level impacts due to the Project -related traffic. Therefore, the Project contributions to the off-site cumulative traffic noise levels are cumulatively considerable for two of the impacted roadway segments, as identified above.
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Menifee 7
Final EIR
September 2024
Figure 5.10-24: Cumulative Offsite Traffic Noise Increases
ID
Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA CNEL) Cumulative Conditions Cumulatively
Considerable Project
Contribution
Existing
No
Project
(a)
OY
Without
Project
(b)
OYP2
With
Project
(c)
Cumulative
Increase
(c-a)
Cumulative
Limit
Cumulative
Impact?
Project
Increment
(c-b)
Project
Limit
Project
Impact?
1 Geary St. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 48.3 48.7 65.9 17.6 1.5 Yes 17.2 1.5 Yes 2 Murrieta Rd. n/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 64.9 71.4 71.4 6.5 1.5 Yes 0.0 1.5 No 3 Murrieta Rd. s/o Ethanac Rd. Sensitive 68.1 68.6 70.3 2.2 1.5 Yes 1.7 1.5 Yes 4 Murrieta Rd. n/o Circulation
Dwy.
Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.8 69.7 1.5 1.5 Yes 0.9 1.5 No
5 Murrieta Rd. n/o Mclaughlin
Rd.
Non-Sensitive 68.2 68.7 68.7 0.5 1.5 No 0.0 1.5 No
6 Ethanac Rd. w/o Geary St. Sensitive 73.6 75.9 75.9 2.3 1.5 Yes 0.0 1.5 No 7 Ethanac Rd. w/o Murrieta
Rd.
Sensitive 73.8 75.9 76.5 2.7 1.5 Yes 0.6 1.5 No
8 Ethanac Rd. e/o Murrieta Rd. Sensitive 74.4 78.3 79.0 4.6 1.5 Yes 0.7 1.5 No 9 Ethanac Rd. w/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 74.3 78.2 79.0 4.7 1.5 Yes 0.8 1.5 No 10 Ethanac Rd. e/o Barnett Rd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 79.8 80.4 4.4 1.5 Yes 0.6 1.5 No Source: Urban Crossroads, 2024 (Appendix A).
Murrieta Road Warehouse Project 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Menifee 8
Final EIR
September 2024
PPP NOI-2: Off-site Construction Noise on Ethanac Road. Construction associated with the off-site storm drain line improvements, specifically the portion of construction of the offsite storm drain line improvement on Ethanac Road within the City of Perris Jurisdiction, on Ethanac Road are is required to adhere to the construction noise hours permitted by Section 7.34.060 of the Perris Municipal Code which states: construction is permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. of any day and 7:00 p.m. of the following day, and is not permitted on Sundays or on any legal holiday, with the exception of Columbus Day and Washington’s birthday.
A
ppendix H, Noise Report
A
ppendix H of the DEIR has been revised and is included as Appendix A of the FEIR:
the above revisions to the DEIR Section 5.10 , Noise. Page 43 of Appendix A now includes the addition of Table 7-11, Cumulative Offsite Traffic Noise Increases, consistent with the above revisions to the DEIR Section
5.10, Noise.
A
ppendix K, Traffic Impact Analysis
A
ppendix K of the DEIR has been revised and is included as Appendix B of the FEIR:
Table 5.5 within Appendix C, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 1 – No Signal), has been revised to show the correct Opening Year AM Peak Hour Delay for Intersection #8 consistent with Table 5.6 of Appendix C, Opening Year Cumulative With Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service (Scenario 2 – With Signal).