Menifee City Council
June 17, 2026

Law Office of Abigail Smith
A Professional Corporation
2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92106

Abigail A. Smith, Esq.

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (951) 808-8595

VIA E-MAIL ONLY

April 17, 2026

City of Menifee, Community Development Dept.

Attn: Brett Hamilton, Senior Planner
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
[email protected]

City of Menifee City Council
Attn: Stephanie Roseen, City Clerk
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
[email protected]

Re: Murrieta Road Warehouse Project including Final EIR (SCH No. 2023110162), PP No. PLN22-2019; Applicant Appeal No. PLN24-0214 Dear City of Menifee City Council:

On behalf of the People of Floyd, an unincorporated association of Menifee residents, I provide the following comments on the proposed Murrieta Road Warehouse Project (“the Project”) including the Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR” or “EIR”) . The Project proposes the construction an d operation of a 517,770 square foot speculative industrial warehouse building on a 28.27-acre vacant site south of Floyd Avenue and east of Geary Street, west of Murrieta Road, and north of McLaughlin Road.

On October 23, 2024, the City’s Planning Commission considered, and ultimately voted to deny, the Project at a public hearing . Among other issues, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the Project’s land use combability with the immediately adjacent residences as well as the amount of warehousing and distribution facilities recently proposed and/or approved within the City’s Economic Development Corridor (see December 4, 2024 City Council Staff Report, p. 2). On October 31, 2024, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the City Council (Appeal No. PLN24-0214). On December 4, 2024, the Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and voted to continue the item to a date uncertain. We submit this letter in connection with any future consideration of the Project.

The Project proposes to build and operate a massive warehouse facility within 25 feet of existing single-family homes along Floyd Street to the north of the Project site. An eight-

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

foot wall will separate residences from the Project’s truck court on the northern side .1 The Project proposes at least 90 dock doors and 130 truck trailer parking spaces on the Project’s northern side meaning that trucks will be unloaded and heavy-duty truck movements will occur within 25 feet of homes on a round-the-clock basis. The long-term, adverse effects – noise, air quality, and nighttime lighting – of a large-scale industrial operation on the adjacent residential community cannot be understated (see, EIR Figures 5.2-2 (indicating construction emissions)

5.2-3 (indicating locations of onsite emissions), 5.2-4 (indicating truck movement emissions).

That is, the Project will locate a source of noise and harmful air emissions in the middle of an existing residential area. As the EIR notes, “[o]peration of the proposed Project would include emissions from vehicles traveling to the Project site and from vehicles in the parking lots and loading areas.” (EIR p. 5.2-26). The Draft EIR Figure 5.10-5 illustrates the locations of vehicle activity and noise generating sources at the Project site relative to the “site boundary” which is shared with residences to the north:

For the reasons outlined in this letter, we urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission denial of the Project. The Project is fundamentally incompatible with the

1 (City Council Staff Report p. 8, “North Perimeter Screening”). The EIR describes a 14 -foot wall for a portion of the northern boundary; however, the record indicates the wall will be 8-feet from grade where it runs behind the truck court.

In other places along the northern boundary, the wall will be six feet.

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

surrounding environment. At a minimum, b efore the Project’s EIR can be legally certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the EIR must be revised, and additional mitigation measures must be proposed consistent with the public comments in the record.

I. THE PROJECT’S INTENSITY AND SITE DESIGN IS INCONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED

LAND USE POLICIES

The Project will locate truck dock doors on both sides of the building, meaning that residences to the north and south will be exposed to the intense building and truck operations and truck movements by design. “Optimizing” the building’s “operational capabilities” at the expense of residents’ health and quality of life is unacceptable. At a minimum, the Project must be redesigned with respect to the building’s design and truck route to include:

• Eliminating the dock doors on the north side of the building; • Eliminating the “64 trailer parking spaces” on the north side of the building;
• eliminating truck drive aisles on the north side of the building except for emergencies;
• eliminating all truck driveways on the north side of the building; and • eliminating the truck route on Geary Street.

Site design alternatives exist to minimize impacts to residents. These alternatives must be fully explored. This should include incorporating the provisions of Assembly Bill 98 into the Project’s design. This law requires that industrial projects provide certain buffers and implement operational measures to minimize the impacts of warehouse operations on sensitive receptors. Arguably AB 98 does not apply to the current Project, however, the provisions of AB 98 should be considered feasible alternatives and mitigation measures within the meaning of CEQA.

The Project, however, must confirm to the City of Menifee ’s adopted policies and design standards that apply to industrial development. The City of Menifee’s General Plan, Policy OCS-9.2, states that the City shall, through land use decisions, “Buffer sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, care facilities, and recreation areas from major air pollutant emission sources, including freeways, manufacturing, hazardous materials storage, wastewater treatment, and similar uses.” The Project does not “buffer” sensitive land uses as a mere 25 feet separates the Project’s truck court from adjacent residences where school age children live and play in their backyards . The City is urged to uphold its General Plan. The City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies (adopted through the General Plan on or about March 2, 2022) 2 state that “in siting new warehouse, logistics and distribution uses,” the following policies apply:

2 https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16937/Industrial-Good-Neighbor-Policies?bidId= This hyperlink and all hyperlinks cited in this letter, and their contents, is fully incorporated herein, and the relevant information at the link is summarized in the body of this letter.

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

• Truck traffic shall generally be routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors;
• To the maximum extent feasible, buildings shall be designed so that truck driveways and loading docks are oriented away from sensitive receptors to minimize impacts;
• Sufficient landscape buffers and walls shall be provided on-site to screen sensitive receptors from truck access, parking, and storage; • Building massing shall be consistent with the City’s Industrial Design Guidelines so as to reduce visual dominance on adjacent sensitive receptors. (emphasis added)
The Project directly conflicts with these standards which were adopted to protect sensitive land uses from exactly the type of intense industrial development that is being considered.

For instance, truck traffic is not being routed to impact the “least amount ” of sensitive receptors: by design, the Project will funnel trucks to roadways shared by residents and past homes. The EIR forecasts that 100% of the Project’s heavy-duty trucks will use Murrieta Road inbound to the Project site, rumbling by homes located along and near the roadway (see, Final EIR, Appendix B, Traffic Impact Analysis, Figures 4.2 and 4.4). Furthermore, Geary Street is a residential street, which should not be utilized for heavy truck traffic.

The Project’s design must also comply with the City’s adopted Industrial Development Design Standards , adopted through the City’s General Plan 3, including that “[w]here industrial uses are adjacent to sensitive non-industrial uses, appropriate buffering techniques such as setbacks, screening, and landscaping, should be provided to mitigate any negative effects of industrial operations.” (Site Design (b).) A mere 2 5-foot separation between the Project’s truck court and residences is not an “appropriate” buffer by any reasonable interpretation.

Regarding vehicle circulation, access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways from Geary Street and three driveways from Murrieta Road. Residents in this area will be forced to “mix” with heavy duty truck traffic daily. The Project is expected to generate 1,135 daily vehicle trips (1489 passenger car equivalent trips), all of which will pass homes and circulate in and around the residential area. The transportation analysis assumes that most the Project’s vehicle trips will occur on Murrieta Road and that 100% of inbound truck trips will occur on Murrieta Road from Ethanac Road (see, Traffic Impact Analysis, Figures 4.2 and

4.4). The Project will operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week thus exposing the surrounding community to relentless traffic noise. The nearest Riverside Transit Authority public transit location is a bus stop located 1.5 miles southeast of the Project site, and the Project does not propose to provide or extend public transit opportunities which would alleviate some of the vehicle activity. The lack of available public transit underscores the incompatibility of the Project at its proposed location.

The proposed P roject not only represents poor land use planning but also it leads to significant environmental impacts according to the Project’s EIR. The EIR concludes the Project will have unmitigated environmental impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (project-

3 https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14902/Design-Guidelines_Amended-March-2-2022?bidId=

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

level and cumulative) and noise (project-level and cumulative) (Draft EIR p. 8-2). Still the EIR does not fully and appropriately evaluate these and other areas of potential impact as discussed in this letter. Moreover, the City as the lead agency is obligated under CEQA to fully mitigate, the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of the Project. Unfortunately, the proposed mitigation program falls short of this mandate. This letter identifies numerous feasible measures which should be adopted before the Project can be approved.

II. THE EIR MUST BE REVISED AND FURTHER MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED

A. THE EIR’S PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INCOMPLETE AND MISLEADING

The Draft EIR’s Project Description section states that the Project includes a building setback of approximately 205 feet from the northern property line, and that loading dock doors would be located 265 feet from the Project’s northern property line which is shared with residential home sites. (Draft EIR p. 3-17.) This is misleading. While the building is set back either 205 or 265 feet from home sites to the north , the Project is separated from adjacent home sites by only 25 feet – in fact, the Project proposes 130 truck trailer parking spaces (“the truck court”) within 25 feet of homes, and the truck drive aisle is located only approximately 80 feet from residential home sites.

An EIR must describe the project being proposed for approval. (Guidelines, § 15124.) The EIR’s “project description” must include: (a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project; (b) statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a general description of the project’s technical, economic and environmental characteristics, and (d) a statement briefly describing the intended use of the EIR. (Id.) CEQA requires that the description of the project be complete and accurate. ( Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v.

City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1.) “The description of the project is an indispensable element of both a valid draft EIR and final EIR.” (Id. at 16.) Courts have repeatedly held that the “project description must be accurate, stable and finite.” ( Id.) In accordance with these standards, the EIR’s Project Description section must be updated to reflect the reality that homes are much closer than 265 feet from the Project:

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Truck and related operations (parking, maneuvering, backing up [including back up beepers], headlights at nighttime, people talking) will cause noise and lighting effects much closer than “265 feet” as the EIR’s Project Description leads the reader to believe. Furthermore, the Project Description does not identify the residences located south of McLaughlin Road. The description of uses to the south of the Project site is limited to a “Southern California Edison Easement” when, in fact, th ere is a single -family neighborhood to the immediate south of McLaughlin Road. In sum, the EIR’s Project Description must be updated to accurately and fully describe the Project’s surrounding uses.

B. LAND USE IMPACTS

Contrary to the EIR’s conclusions, the Project presents conflicts with adopted land use plans including, but not limited to, the following policies of the City’s General Plan:

• Goal C -1 in that the Project does not “meet the circulation needs of all residents…”. The Project directs substantial vehicle traffic – more than 1,000 daily vehicle trips - to local roadways used by residents in rural residential areas. • Goal CD -3 in that , as discussed in this letter, the development is not “appropriately buffered from dissimilar land uses so that differences in type and intensity do not conflict”. The Project building is 55 feet and separated only by 25 feet from residences to the north.
• Policy CD-3.6 in that site entries and storage bays are not located to “minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods.” The Project’s truck entryways are located on rural residential roadways, and the “storage bays” are located on both sides of the Project’s building.
• Policy CD-3.20 in that the Project does not “avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls.” The Project is a 55-foot building of solid walls that will entirely block views across the site from the vantage points of single-story surrounding homes to the north.
• Goal N-1 in that adjacent noise -sensitive residences are not “protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure.” The Project will generate significant levels of traffic noise, which will negatively impact residents on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week.
• Policy N-1.2 in that the Project is not being required to “comply with the noise standards” of local code. The Project will cause noise levels in excess of the City’s noise ordinance as discussed herein.
• Policy N-1.7 in that the Project is not being required to “mitigate exterior … noise levels to the levels listed in the table below to the extent feasible for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors.” There are no operational noise mitigation measures proposed with respect to the Project’s contribution to significant traffic noise levels. Also there are no “design features” discussed in the record that would mitigate noise at or around loading docks, such as the use of sound dampening materials.
• Policy N-1.9 in that the City is not limiting “the development of new noise - producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors.” The Project is a new noise- producing use that will operate directly adjacent to residences.

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

In addition to conflicts with General Plan policies, the Project is manifestly inconsistent with the City of Menifee Industrial Good Neighbor Guidelines as discussed above. This represents a potentially significant “land use” impact within the meaning of CEQA. For example, the Project is not designed so that “to the maximum extent feasible, buildings shall be designed so that truck driveways and loading docks are oriented away from sensitive receptors.” (General Performance Standard Policy 2). Rather, the Project is designed with dock doors on both sides to make the building more attractive to potential tenants. This design decision is in clear disregard of so-called “Good Neighbor” Guidelines. As the Project is speculative (i.e., no tenant is identified) per the EIR, there is no demonstrated need for this design choice. Also, for example, the Project conflicts with General Performance Standard Policy 1 in that truck traffic is not “routed to impact the least amount of sensitive receptors (e.g., access locations).” The Project is intentionally designed so that trucks will use Murrieta Road for site access at multiple “access locations” which will cause trucks to travel past homes in route to the Project site. Also for instance, the Project is inconsistent with Air Quality Policy 2 (a) in that the facility is designed so that trucks will queue in the immediate vicinity of sensitive receptors in the truck court on the Project’s northern side . The concentration of truck activity on the Project’s northern side is the antithesis of “Good Neighbor” land use planning.

The Project is not consistent with the California Air Resources Board’s guidance that warehouses shall not be located within 1,000 feet from nearest sensitive receptors 4. The closest receptors to the Project site here are within 25 feet.

The EIR must also fully evaluate the Project’s consistency with all regional planning documents such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”) including SCAG’s Transportation Management Demand Strategies. 5 6 Consistency with the RTP/SCS has not been demonstrated.

Once again, the Project should be conditioned to provide setbacks and other design elements consistent with Assembly Bill 987. The requirements of AB 98 should be considered a feasible design alternative where sensitive receptors are located within 25 to 500 feet on both the northern and southern sides of the proposed building. AB 98 ( Government Code, § 65098.1) provides:

(a) Commencing January 1, 2026, any proposed new or expanded logistics use development 250,000 square feet or more where the loading bay is within 900 feet of a sensitive receptor that is utilizing a site zoned for industrial use or any site where an application was submitted to the jurisdiction by September 30, 2024, to rezone as industrial and the rezone to industrial was ultimately approved shall

4 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use- handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf
5 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/tdm-strategic-plan_scag.pdf?1607732260 6 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-tdm-toolbox-strategies.pdf?1715621181 7 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB98/id/3023370

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

comply with all of the following:
(1) Include all Tier 1 21st century warehouse design elements described in subdivision (g) of Section 65098.
(2) Orient truck loading bays on the opposite side of the logistics use development away from sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible.
(3) Locate truck loading bays a minimum of 300 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor to the nearest truck loading bay opening using a direct straight-line method. (4) Have a separate entrance for heavy -duty trucks accessible via a truck route, arterial road, major thoroughfare, or a local road that predominantly serves commercial oriented uses. (5) Locate truck entry, exit, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors. Heavy-duty diesel truck drive aisles shall be prohibited from being used on sides of the building

that are directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line. (6) Include buffering and screening to mitigate for light and noise, as described in Section 65098.2. (emphasis added)

Finally, the EIR does not evaluate the Project’s potential impacts with respect to EIR Land Use Threshold LU-1. This threshold asks whether the Project would “physically divide an established community.” The Project will locate a massive warehouse building in between two areas of rural or semi -rural residential development: the single-family homes on Floyd Avenue to the north of the site and the single-family homes to the south of McLauglin Road.

The Project will bisect this residential area with a 55-foot box building, physically cutting across the area and isolating the residences to the north from those to the south. Consequently, the EIR’s conclusion of “no potential impact” with respect to this threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

In short, the EIR’s land use section must be revised, and further site design mitigation must be adopted.

C. VISUAL RESOURCES

The EIR does not evaluate the Project’s potential for aesthetic or visual resources impacts. (Draft EIR section 7.1 .) Aesthetic impacts were found to be “not significant” through the Initial Study/NOP and therefore were not evaluated by the EIR (id.).

The Project site is currently vacant, undisturbed natural land set within an existing environment of vacant lands and rural residential homes. The EIR’s two existing site photographs show that the site consists of open space and natural vegetation, and the photographs indicate that views across the site are of open landscape. (Draft EIR Figure 3 - 4a.) The Project will convert this natural site to an urban use, namely a 55 -foot “box” concrete building with lighting pole s, paved roadways, and other infrastruc ture along with off-site transportation improvements to widen roadways. The permanent conversion of rural, unimproved lands to a large box-style structure with associated nighttime lighting has the potential for major changes to the existing visual environment. Under CEQA, this must be April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

considered a “potentially significant impact” which should be evaluated.

There are no renderings or simulations of the Project buildi ng from relevant vantage points to illustrate the impact of the Project (size and scale) compared to the existing environment. Th e lack of information in the record renders the analysis incomplete.

Furthermore, the fact that the site is zoned for industrial development does not eliminate the potential for environmental impacts as claimed by the EIR. (Draft EIR p. 7-1.) In other words, “compliance with a general plan in and of itself ‘does not insulate a project fr om the EIR requirement where it may be fairly argued that the project with generate significant environmental effects.” ( Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881). Courts have held that, “[t]he general plan alone doe s not constitute substantial evidence that there is no significant effect.” (East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5. Cal.App.4th 281, 303.) “’A significant effect on environment’ is defined as a ‘substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (Guidelines, § 15382) Single-story homes to the north of the Project site have views across the site of the mountains to the south and west ( see, site photographs attached). These views will be entirely obstru cted by the 55-foot Project building. The EIR improperly ignores this area of potential impact to the existing environment.

Finally, r egarding lighting impacts, the Project proposes a field of industrial development in an undeveloped rural location. The potential for adverse changes to the nighttime visual environment must be fully assessed. (See, e.g.,8 [City of Malibu requires a photometric study].) Adherence to a lighting ordinance does not eliminate the need to evaluate the potentially significant adverse change to the environment as a result of the Project.

D. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The EIR concludes that the Project will have less than significant air quality impacts and therefore no mitigation is re quired. ( Draft EIR p. 5.2 -42.) This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence , and the EIR lacks critical analysis and information to form its conclusion.

The Project’s operational air quality impacts were calculated using a trip length assumption of 34.51 miles for all truck trips. ( Draft EIR p. 5.2 -24.) This method underestimates air emissions particularly NOx (diesel) emissions due to heavy duty truck trips. The South Coast A ir Quality Management District (“South Coast AQMD”) commented regarding the Project’s Draft EIR that more realistic trip length assumptions should be used “such as designating 40 miles for local trips and 90 miles for Port -related trips.” (Final EIR p. 2-28.) The City declined to update the air quality analysis to account for the South Coast AQMD’s recommendations (see, Final EIR Appendix D, Response 1). The air quality analysis should be updated consistent with AQMD’s recommendations

8 https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/30381/Commercial-Lighting-and-Photometrics-Submittal April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

particularly to evaluate the Project’s NOx impacts due to diesel trucks. Because the building is built on “speculation”, that is, without a specific tenant, the “worst case” scenario must be evaluated consistent with CEQA.

The Final EIR’s Response to Comment A.6.3 states that “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.” However, in the absence of tenant information that would indicate that trips will be shorter due to the nature of tenant-specific operations, the “conservative approach” is to assume that Project-related trucks will travel to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, consistent with the recommendations of the air resource agency with jurisdiction (AQMD). This approach is also consistent with evidence that Menifee is promoting the city as “proximate to major shipping ports at Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego” with distances from Menifee to these three ports being “less than 100 miles” which , according to the City, “represents a reasonable commute for warehous e/distribution users to locate in Menifee.” (Meyers Research Industrial Demand and Opportunity A nalysis – Update prepared for City of Menifee, pg. 17 9). In summary, the air quality analysis for a warehouse logistics/distribution project in Menifee should reflect the city’s goal to attract businesses that receive goods from the Ports.

In addition to underestimating diesel emissions due to heavy duty truck trips, t he air quality analysis improperly assumes “zero” air emissions for “energy sources” a s well as “zero” air emissions for the operation of “on-site equipment”. (Draft EIR, Appendix B, Table

5.2-7.) These assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Project’s Air Quality Study section 3.5.5 assumes that all on -site equipment will be “electrically powered ”, but this is not a condition of the Project’s ap proval or a CEQA mitigation measure. The Air Quality Study section 3.5.2 states that energy emissions are assumed to be zero because the “site is not expected to utilize natural gas for the building envelope.” However, the Project is not conditioned to require the use of all electric appliances and to prohibit the use of natural gas. In short, the assumption that the Project will generate “zero” GHG emissions due to both the operation of onsite equipment and energy consumption onsite is not supported by the record.

In terms of the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts, the Air Quality Study does not evaluate this area of potential impact. The Air Quality Study asserts, based on an outdated “AQMD white paper”, that the Project cannot have cumulatively significant air quality impacts because the Project will purportedly result in less than significant air quality impacts on an individual basis. (AQ Study Section 3.11.) This conclusion is made in spite of the fact that the EIR also identifies numerous warehouse projects in the planning process in the vicinity of the proposed Project , including the Northern Gateway Logistics Center, the CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project, the McLaughlin and San Jacinto Warehouses Project, the Northern Gateway Commerce Center, and the Compass Northern Gateway Project. (Draft EIR, Table 5-1.) The Project’s Traffic

9 https://www.menifeebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/RC189-20-City-of-Menifee_Industrial-Demand- FINAL-10.26.2020.pdf

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Impact Analysis included “56 cumulative development projects” within the cumulative traffic analysis (TIA p. 20; see, Figure 3.3 “Location of Cumulative Projects”). Yet the City has not evaluated the Project’s con tribution to cumulative air quality effects. Again, t he South Coast AQMD commented in response to the Draft EIR that the City should evaluate the Project’s “direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.” (Final EIR p. 2-29.) The Final EIR’s Response to Comment s claims that the cumulative health risk impacts from combined projects are less than significant. This claim does not address the absence of a cumulative air quality impact analysis with respect to the Project’s potential to contribute to cumulative exceedance of criteria emissions , particularly NOx impacts due to the combined effects of thousands of diesel trucks operating in the Project area . The Final EIR’s Appendix D, Response 2 likewise does not address the absence of a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

Although the City is currently considering millions of square feet of industrial development, t he EIR does not contain either a qualitative or quantitative discussion of cumulative industrial projects or their associated air quality emissions. The failure to evaluate the combined effects of the thousands of diesel trucks in and around the Project area is a failure to confront the reality of the harmful and long -term consequences of the City’s land use decisions. The environmental and public health consequences of the City’s decisions should be evaluated in connection with all projects that will contribute to cumulatively significant air quality conditions. The EIR is incomplete and fails on an informational basis without a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

The South Coast AQMD has convened working groups 10 to revise its recommendations for analysis of cumulative air quality impacts 11, with the last meeting occurring in November 2024. According to the latest AQMD working group presentation, “South Coast AQMD has initiated policy development to evaluate cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of toxics during projec t operation” ( id. p. 4) . The AQMD states that additional guidance is needed because “[a] project’s incremental effect on the environment, though individually limited, may be cumulatively considerable.” (id. p. 5). According to the AQMD, industrial land uses such as warehouse developments near sensitive receptors are “key” factors for a cumulative impact analysis ( see id., p. 7). The AQMD is in process of considering revised standards for cumulative impact analysis including for project-level CEQA review (see id., p. 21, 27-28).

As a threshold of significance for air quality impacts in this case, the Project EIR asks whether the Project will have a potentially significant cumulative air quality impact.

However, the discussion that follows the threshold does not list or identify any cumulative projects that could, in combination with the Project, contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts; nor is there any analysis of cumulative projects in combination with the Project’s air quality impacts. Rather, there is only the blanket conclusion that cumulative air quality impacts need not be analyzed because purportedly there are no individually significant air quality impacts. CEQA defines a “cumulative impact” as one that may be

10 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new) 11 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-6-20241106.pdf?sfvrsn=405a8561_13 April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considered with past, present, and foreseeable future projects. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130 (a), 15355 (b).) The term “’cumulative impacts’ refer[s] to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (Guidelines, § 15355.) The EIR to comply with CEQA’s informational mandates where it has not required a cumulative air quality impact analysis.

Air quality conditions are far worse in areas where warehouse buildings are concentrated due to the diesel truck trips associated with these facilities. (See, https://www.nasa.gov/earth/nasa-funded-study-assesses-pollution-near-los-angeles-area- warehouses/). According to an article in the LA Times, as of 2021, “the warehouses of the Inland Empire accounted for more than a billion square feet. There are more than 3,000 warehouses in San Bernardino County and nearly a thousand more in Riverside County.

They c over almost 37 contiguous square miles.” 12 In 2022, the area occupied by 4,299 warehouses amounted to 1,041,229,079 square feet of industrial development in the Inland Empire (see, id.). Given the concentration of warehouse development in the Project vicinity in particular, the EIR must evaluate the Project’s contribution to these air quality conditions.

The Warehouse CITY13 database shows that the City of Menifee has “approved” 11,500,000 square feet of warehouse development, resulting in 8,000 daily truck trips and 1,246 pounds of N Ox daily (see, Exhibit A hereto [Warehouse CITY database]) . The South Coast AQMD’s individual threshold for NOx (operational) is 55 lbs per day 14. Moreover, the City is actively promoting the “Ethanac Expressway” as a “new east -west interregional route to serve southwestern Riverside County” which will facility the growth of “industrial” uses in the area.15 Considering this evidence, the City must perform a cumulative air quality impact analysis with respect to the Project. Revisions to the Project’s air quality study are necessary to account for the past, present, and future cumulative growth in the City’s industrial sector.

E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IMPACTS
The Project will generate significant GHG impacts. (Final EIR, Appendix F, Table ES- 1). The EIR calculates the Project’s GHG emissions to be 4,796.13 MTCO2e annually which exceeds the adopted threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e (Table 3-8). While the EIR proposes some mitigation for significant GHG impacts, the mitigation program fails to adopt all feasible mitigation contrary to CEQA.

An EIR’s central purpose is to identify a project’s significant environmental effects and then evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing them. (Public Resources Code, §§ 21002.1(a), 21061.) The City must adopt any feasible mitigation measure that can substantially lessen the project’s significant GHG impacts, including due to mobile emissions. ( Public Res. Code, § 21002; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a)(3).) Here, a comparison between Appendix F Table 307 (“GHG Emissions – Without Mitigation”) and Table 3-8 (“GHG Emissions – With

12 https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-01/inland-empire-warehouse-growth-map-environment 13 https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/
14 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25
15 https://www.menifeebusiness.com/industrial/
April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Mitigation”) shows that the proposed mitigation measures nominally reduce overall GHG emissions, and the program does nothing to reduce “Mobile Source” emissions which are the largest contributor to the Project’s GHG emissions. Accordingly, further mitigation is needed and required before the Project can be approved.

Assembly Bill 1279 16 requires the State to achieve net zero GHGs as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. The bill requires California to reduce GHG emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and by 85 percent compared to 1990 levels. The City as lead agency responsible for CEQA compliance must take all steps through its land use plans to ensure that future projects are in conformance with these GHG emission reduction targets. As feasible mitigation, the City must require the Project to operate at, or set reasonable goals to achieve, “net zero” consistent with State’s goal to carbon neutrality by 2045. 17 The implementing measures maybe a mix of on -site reduction measures (such as generating on -site renewable energy through solar power) and off-site community investments to reduce GHG emissions and offsets.

The EIR asserts that “the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan” because “the Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.” ( Appendix F, GHG Report p.

64.) The EIR does not explain or show how the Project will comply with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan ’s strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions , especially rela tive to reductions of Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”)18.

For instance, the Project does not support a “sustainable transportation system”, i.e., it does not provide access to public transit. (CARB Scoping Plan Appendix E, Section 3.1, Strategy Area 1, p. 10). The Scoping Plan notes that to “deliver the State’s carbon neutrality goal, California needs to double the capacity and service frequencies of the existing local public transit network.” ( Appendix E p. 12 .) The Scoping Plan, Appendix D 19, contains “Local Actions ” that are recommended to reduce GHGs including measures including “improving transit service…”; and “facilitat[ing[ deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses” (Appendix D, Table 1 p. 11). Neither of th ese measures are required here. According to the Scoping Plan, “lead agencies should prioritize on-site design features within the project site that minimize GHG emissions, including installation of renewable energy electricity gen eration and all-electric design.” (Appendix D, p. 29), which is not required of the Project. If on-site measures cannot reduce impacts, CARB recommends that local agencies consider local, off -setting GHG reduction strategies, such as a “local mitigation bank” 20 that enables applicants to fund local projects in exchange for being credited with the resulting GHG reductions in their CEQA analyses (Appendix D p. 30). Other off-site measures may include “local urban forestry

16 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1279 17 https://lci.ca.gov/climate/carbon-neutrality.html
18 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents 19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf 20 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2s09c9mk
April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

programs”; “local building retrofit programs”; “off -site EV chargers”; and “public transit subsidies” (Appendix D, pp. 30-31). None of these measures have been considered with the respect to the Project.

The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan ( i.e., California’s plan to achieve GHG emissions consistent with reduction targets) “proposes reducing VMT from 24.6 miles per day in 2019 to 18.4 miles by 2030 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 17.2 miles per day by 2045 (a 30 percent reduction)” (id.). The Project will not satisfy this goal as the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) is calculated to be 25.94 according to the Project’s VMT Analysis (Draft EIR, Appendix L, Table 2.) A reduction in VMT is necessary to help achieve the State’s GHG reduction goals (id.). The Project does not satisfy CARB’s VMT targets, nor does it adopt all feasible mitigation that would help to reduce the Project’s VMT impacts as discussed in this letter.

Insofar as the EIR references and/or relies upon the County of Riverside’s VMT thresholds, the City should consider the measures within the Riverside County Climate Action Plan (“CAP”)21 as feasible mitigation, including:

• CAP Policy R2 -EE11 (p. 4 -10) stating that the County of Riverside shall promote LEED building ratings as a means to reduce GHG emissions. • R2-CE1 requiring solar panel installations on new commercial buildings and “encouraging” energy storage system installation with solar panels.

Installation of a maximally sized solar system with sufficient battery storage must be considered feasible mitigation in this case.
• R2-L1 states that “shaded surfaces may be 20 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit [] cooler than the peak temperatures of unshaded materials.” Increasing tree plantings, particularly in parking areas, must be considered feasible mitigation for the Project.
• Also for instance, R2 -L2 states that cool roofs and cool pavements reduce the need to cool buildings and reduce the “heat island” effects of projects.

Exceeding existing regulatory requirements (Title 24) for the installation of cool roofs and cool pavements must be considered feasible mitigation for this Project.

Another means of reducing VMT include requiring or encouraging local hiring, which is not a requirement of the Project ( see, Riverside County General Plan Land Use Policy 8.12).

The EIR should also consider feasible measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, et al.22 that are feasible and applicable to the Project, such as:

21 https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-CAP-2019-2019-CAP-Update-Full.pdf 22 https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

• T-7 “Provide Ridesharing Program” including providing an app or website for coordinating rides among employees.
• T-8 “Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program” where the employer provides subsidies for employees to use public transit. • T-9 “End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities” that includes bike parking, showers, and personal lockers.
• T-10 “Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool” that provides groups of 5 to 15 employees with a cost -effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting.
• T-13 “Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” that provides EV charging stations beyond what is required by CalGreen/Title 24. • T-24 “Expand Transit Network Coverage” to expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service.

According to the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan,23

[c]ontrary to popular belief, zero -emission vehicles (ZEV) alone are not enough to solve the climate crisis. The 2022 Scoping Plan illustrates that despite cleaner vehicles and low - carbon fuels, the path to carbon neutrality by 2045 also depends on reducing per capita VMT (the total passenger vehicle miles driven by an average person in California on any given day). To meet the carbon neutrality goal, the Scoping Plan proposes reducing VMT from 24.6 miles per day in 2019 to 18.4 miles by 2030 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 17.2 miles per day by 2045 (a 30 percent reduction) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the Project should adopt further “VMT measures” such as incorporating a bus transit stop and promoting accessibility to public transit such as by providing a shuttle service to transit service for employees 24. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, should also explore programmatic VMT mitigation options. Other jurisdictions like the City of Escondido are evaluating “VMT Exchange Programs” for instance25 (see also, 26 27).

Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the State, accounting for roughly 40 percent of California’s GHGs 28. Consequently, the City must propose enforceable transportation measures through the EIR that are designed to reduce fuel use in cars and trucks This should include conditioning the Project to require future implementing projects to increase the availability of charging and refueling stations and other zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, including direct current fast chargers capable of charging light, medium, and

23 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-e-sustainable-and-equitable-communities.pdf 24 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation- measures.pdf
25 https://www.escondido.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2117/VMT-Exchange-Program-PDF 26 https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Implementing-SB-743.pdf 27 https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal
28https://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4821#:~:text=Transportation%20is%20the%20largest%20source,state wide%20emissions%20in%20recent%20years.

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

heavy-duty vehicles. Level 3/DC Fast (or Quick) Chargers (DCFC) should be required29 (see id. [big rig truck with battery size of 550kw and range of 250 miles take approximately 24 hours to charge with a Level 2 charger]) . This comment also applies to “medium duty” vehicles such as delivery vans. See 30 [FedEx vans charge in hours with DC quick charger/Level 3].) Chargers should be required that are able to charge the battery of a Class 8 (heavy duty/big rig) truck . These chargers are feasible and available on the commercial market.31

In addition, the Project should establish fleet efficiency requirements for vehicle fleets.

This should include, at a minimum, requirements that industrial tenants shall use exclusively zero emission light and medium -duty delivery trucks and vans; and shall use near -zero and zero-emission technologies in heavy-duty applications such as “last mile delivery.” 32 As the State moves toward its goal of zero emission goods movement, the City must ensure that the Project is in line with this important objective by also requiring the phase-in of zero emission or clean technology for heavy duty trucks. According to CARB, actions to deploy both zero emission and cleaner combustion technologies will be essential to meet air quality goals in California particularly with respect to goods movement. 33 Additional, feasible mitigation for operational air quality impacts includes the phase -in of electric, hybrid electric, hydrogen electric, or battery operated ( i.e., non-diesel) trucks. The Project should be conditioned to adopt a “Diesel Minimization Plan” whereby zero emission trucks are phased in, e.g., 25% of truck fleets shall use zero emission technology by 2030, and increase that percentage by 10% per year, until 100% of trucks operating on sites are zero emission. A mitigation measure is feasible if it can be achieved in a reasonable period of tim e. (Guidelines, § 15364.) The use of electric trucks in all applications would help to reduce the Project’s significant traffic noise impacts and reduce noise impacts at the Project site.

According to a May 2024 study by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, “[t]here are currently more than 125 -zero emission models across Class 2b to 8 vehicle segments in North America. This number is anticipated to exceed 240 models over the next few years.” 34 Zero-emission vehicles, including Class 7 and & battery-electric semi- trucks, cause significantly less air pollution than diesel semi-trucks. 35 According to the EPA, transportation accounts for 33% of GHG impacts with 21% from medium and heavy -duty trucks and buses.36 Thus, requiring zero emission Class 7 and 8 semi-trucks in lieu of diesel semi-trucks would greatly reduce the Project’s significant GHG impacts. The phase -in of battery electric trucks as part of the Project’s implementation is economically feasible.

Battery electric trucks have been shown to have a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than diesel trucks.37 According to one study by the University of Berkley, electric trucks have 10-

29 https://blog.evbox.com/level-3-charging-speed
30 https://www.carscoops.com/2018/11/fedex-adds-1000-china-built-chanje-f8100-electric-vans-fleet/ 31 https://polb.com/port-info/news-and-press/charging-station-to-power-electric-trucks-in-port-11-30-2023/ 32 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/treated-sacrifices-families-breathe-toxic-fumes-california-s- warehouse- hub-n1265420
33 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf 34 https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/drivegreen/pdf/mhd-roadmap.pdf 35 https://theicct.org/battery-electric-trucks-emit-63-less-ghg-emissions-than-diesel/ 36 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/why-we-need-decarbonize-transportation 37 https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pdf April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

20% lower per mile TCO than the equivalent diesel trucks across all categories. 38 A Department of Energy Study found that zero emission heavy duty electric trucks will be cheaper than diesel trucks by 2035. 39 Electric trucks are “ready to meet the cost and performance demands for substantial share of regional and long-haul trucking today.” (Fn 11 p. 1.) At the same time, there is a need for “public and private investment” in the usage of battery powered heavy duty trucks as well as the installation of the infrastructure required to charge these trucks. 40 Among other things the “siting” of charging stations near industrial zones will “be a key element to their success” (fn 13 p. 20). In short, the phase-in of electric vehicles and supporting infrastructure should be considered feasible mitigation for significant GHG impacts.

The Project should adopt further measures to reduce significant GHG impacts , including:

• Construction equipment 50 horsepower or greater shall be Tier 4 without exception.
• Construction tools (e.g., saws, drills) shall be electric only with adequate electric hook ups provided during all construction periods. • The buildings’ roofs shall be constructed with “light colored roofing materials” on all areas not covered by solar panels or necessary equipment. Cool roofs retain less heat and reflect more sunlight, thus lowering energy demand and reducing the “heat island” effect of a building. The Project must be conditioned to use roofing materials with a solar reflectance index (“SRI”) of 78 for at least 75% of the roof surface (portions not covered in solar), consistent with USGBC standards. To provide measurable environmental benefit, the roofing material must be at the highest possible rating. (See 41 ; see also, e.g., Riverside County Climate Action Plan Measure R2-L2 42.)
• Obtaining LEED Silver certification to the most current USGBC43 rating system for the industrial buildings.
• Installing concrete, preferably white concrete, in all parking areas. Light - colored concrete is more reflective of sunlight and it absorbs less heat, thus using concrete in all parking areas will reduce the “heat island” effect of the Project. 44 45Among other benefits, cooler surfaces and air reduce the need for

38 https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/page/Climate_Consistent_Pathway_Could_save_1trillion_over_EPA_Worki ng_Paper_UCB.pdf
39 https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-duty-electric-trucks-will-be- cheaper-diesel
40 https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/california_clean_trucks_program.pdf 41 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/coolroofguide.pdf 42 https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-CAP-2019-2019-CAP-Update- Full.pdf
43 https://www.usgbc.org/leed
44 https://heatisland.lbl.gov/coolscience/cool-pavements 45 https://www.lehighwhitecement.com/en/about-
us/sustainability#:~:text=White%20cement%20products%20help%20designers,night%2C%20making%20roadway% 20infrastructure%20safer.

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

air conditioning in vehicles. (See, id. Riv. County Climate Action Plan Measure R2-L2.)
• Providing enhanced landscaping in parking areas to provide 50% shade coverage within 10 years of operations. This can also reduce “heat island” effects and reduce the need for air conditioning. ( See, id. Riv. County Climate Action Plan R2-L1)
• Installing and utilizing solar power for 100% of the facility’s total electricity demand including electric vehicle charging stalls in parking areas. Solar power is entirely feasible and is particularly appropriate for a Project of this size, scale, and location. A large portion of the Project’s GHG and Energy impacts could be reduced by utilization of PV solar arrays.
• Limiting truck idling to no more than three continuous minutes. • Requiring all trucks that access the site to have 201 7 or newer engines. This requirement will align with the Port of Long Beach’s requirement that any new registered drayage trucks must be model year 2014 or newer.46 • All heavy-duty trucks shall also meet CARB’s lowest optional low oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022.
• In order to reduce VOCs during construction of the Project, during construction activities, the Construction Contractor shall ensure that “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints be utilized. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 grams per liter (g/L) of VOC.
• Only super -compliant low VOC paints and coatings shall be used during operation that shall have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L. (See, 47 , 48.)
• All on-site cargo handling equipment (yard trucks, hostlers, forklifts, etc.) shall be zero emission (electric) only; no natural gas or propane equipment. • The Project shall be all electric, including HVAC, water heating, refrigeration, ovens, cooktops, and automated equipment shall be powered by electricity for the lifetime of the Project. Natural gas and/or propane shall not be used. • A minimum of 15% of the big rig/heavy duty truck parking spaces shall be equipped with electric vehicle infrastructure for future use by electric trucks including heavy duty electric trucks.
• Installation of Fast 350 kW EV chargers that are capable of recharging two big rig trucks at the Project facility.
• In addition to the standard bicycle requirements, provide at electric plug ins for charging of electric bikes (“e - bikes”) or personal electric scooters within the secured bicycle parking areas.

Furthermore, the California Attorney General has published a list of best practices for warehouse developments:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf These include:

46 https://polb.com/environment/clean-trucks/#program-details 47 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/tos 48 https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on -site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district , and state upon request.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric only with the necessary electrical charging stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero -emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.
▪ For instance, according to the City of Hemet’s General Plan 2030 49, “Riverside County is becoming one of the prime areas for the use of solar technologies due to the area’s abundant sunshine… Energy resource conservation and the use of renewable resources can reduce [] fiscal and economic effects, as well as improve air quality.” (General Plan, p. 7-27) • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non -diesel fuel.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.

49 https://www.hemetca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2162/7_OS_web?bidId= April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

In sum, the City should condition the Project to adopt further GHG measures to address the Project’s significant impacts.

F. ENERGY IMPACTS

State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F provides that “[t]he goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption; (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.” (emphasis added). Appendix F puts “particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.” CEQA requires that an EIR “include a detailed statement setting forth the mitigation measures proposed to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.” ( See, California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209). “The requirement to adopt energy impact mitigation measures is ‘substantive and not procedural in nature and was enacted for the purpose of requiring the lead agencies to focus upon the energy problem in preparation of the final EIR” (id.).

The Project will create a significant demand for energy resources, including:

• 434,971 gallons of fuel annually (Draft EIR Table 4-9), and • 816,024 kWh of electricity annually (Draft EIR Table 4-11)

The EIR asserts that due to compliance with Title 24 and other regulatory requirements the Project would not be “wasteful or inefficient or unnecessarily consume energy resources” (Draft EIR, Appendix E, Energy Analysis, p. 36). Compliance with existing regulations is not sufficient for purposes of CEQA compliance. The Project must explore and adopt energy mitigation measures especially with respect to transportation energy resources ( see, California Clean Energy, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at 210.)

The EIR should propose measures to ensure compliance with and the advancement of the policies and goals of Senate Bill 100 which commits to 100% clean energy in California by 2045. For instance, requiring industrial projects to maximize the use of solar energy with complete roof coverage with photovoltaic solar panels is one means to ensure that the State can meet its energy efficiency goals. A project of this size and type is prime for maximizing solar energy usage. MM GHG-1 states that the applicant shall be required to install a minimum 101.3 kW DC solar photovoltaic (PV) system “or offset an equivalent amount of energy demand through the purchase of renewable energy or implementation of alternative renewable measures.”. It is not known how much of the facility’s energy demand will be met by a 101.3 kW system; the Project must be conditioned so that 100% of its energy demand is met by solar PV. Also, MM GHG-1 allows the operator to offset some unspecified amount of energy demand with “alternative renewable measures.” This is vague and unenforceable.

The use of an on-site renewable energy system would also help to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impacts, where energy production is contributor to GHG emissions.

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Electricity accounts for approximately 15% of the State’s GHG emissions 50 51. Solar panels, on the other hand, produce electricity without emitting GHGs. According to an article by CalMatters, the installation of rooftop solar panels helped cut California’s annual greenhouse gas pollution by about 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018 from 2009 levels, equivalent to taking about 1.3 million cars of the road. 52 Again, California has committed to achieving 60% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% clean, zero -carbon electricity by 2045.53

The Project must also take steps to reduce the Project’s significant consumption of fuel such as, requiring as mandatory conditions of approval:

• The phase-in of electric vehicles
• The use of electric light and medium duty vehicles
• Facilities shall use only electric on-site cargo handling equipment (no diesel or natural gas equipment)
• No diesel generators shall be allowed
• Installation of on -site infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles – such as requiring the installation of 350kW electric vehicle chargers and expanding infrastructure for the future charging of electric vehicles; and • Expansion of public transit or funding to assist City with expansion of public transit to provide access to Project site.

In short, the City must explore and require measures to offset the Project’s consumption of energy resources.

G. NOISE IMPACTS
The EIR’s conclusions with respect to construction and operational noise impacts are not supported by substantial evidence . The EIR’s Noise Analysis should be revised and recirculated for at least the following reasons.

First, the EIR indicates th at the Project will result in significant construction noise impacts. The EIR adopts as a threshold of significance (NOI -1) whether the Project would result in “generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ” The Noise Analysis (Final EIR, Appendix A) shows that the Project’s construction phases will cause noise levels in excess of the City’s noise ordinance54. At 50 feet, construction noise levels are expected to range from

50 https://calepa.ca.gov/climate-dashboard/#:~:text=On%20Track,track%20to%20meet%20these%20targets. 51 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf 52 https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/01/california-renewable-energy-solar-policy-cuts-greenhouse- gases/#:~:text=The%20impact%20of%20California's%20solar,million%20cars%20off%20the%20road. 53 https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100
54 City of Menifee Noise Ordinance - Table 5.10-1: Development Code Stationary Source Noise Standards Stationary Source Noise Standards. Land Use Interior Standards Exterior Standards:
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 Leq (10-minute) 45 Leq (10-minute) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 Leq (10-minute) 65 Leq (10-minute) April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

68 dBA Leq to 81 dBA Leq (Table 5.10-4, Table 5.10-5). Rather than making a finding of significance, the EIR applies an arbitrary 80 dBA Leq construction noise standard (which it claims to a “ reasonable daytime standard”, p. 5.10 -21), but even judged by that standard, Table 5.10-4 shows that noise levels will meet or exceed 80 dBA at 50 feet, especially when considering the “Composite Reference Noise Level” which accounts for combined activities.

For instance, with respect to the “Grading Phase,” composite construction noise level s will be 83.3 dBA Leq. (Table 5.10 -4.) This is a significant impact. Moreover, the Project’s construction noise levels far exceed the existing noise levels (see, Table 5.10-2). The fact that construction activities are allowed between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. does not mitigate the environmental impact. Furthermore, there are no conditions of approval or mitigation measures to support the EIR’s statement that concrete nighttime concrete pouring activities will not exceed 70 dBA Leq , which is apparently the threshold of significance for nighttime concrete pouring activities.

Second, the Noise Analysis omits information to the extent that existing noise measurements were not taken at homes adjacent to proposed truck court areas to the north.

The measurement locations are located on the northwest corners of the Project site, and not at the locations which will be most impacted by the truck court and loading docks (see, Figure

5.10-1). For instance, an existing noise measurement should have been taken at or near the location of “R2” which is one of the sensitive noise receiver locations nearest to the Project’s truck court on the northern side (see, Figure 5.10-3). The failure to assess Project-related noise to existing noise levels at adjacent receiver locations renders the analysis incomplete.

Last, the EIR indicates that the Project’s nighttime operational noise will exceed the noise ordinance standard (45 Leq exterior)55 with respect to all receiver locations R1 through R5 ( see, Table 5.10 -9). Similarly, the increase in noise during nighttime hours exceeds thresholds despite the conclusion of the EIR ( see, Tables 5.10-11 and 5.10-3). The Project’s increase in noise is greater than 3.0 dbA and therefore the “Increase Criteria” is seemingly exceeded. Also, it is unclear why the “Reference Ambient Noise Levels” with respect to this portion of the analysis are the “daytime ambient noise levels” ( see footnote 4) when it is the nighttime noise levels being evaluated ; the “ambient noise levels” applied to this portion of the analysis should be the “nighttime” noise levels of Table 5.10-2.

In sum, the EIR indicates that Project noise levels will exceed the limits of the City’s Noise Ordinance and result in permanent increases in noise on a significant basis. F urther analysis and mitigation is required. Among other potential mitigation measures, the Project should restrict the hours of truck deliveries to daytime/evening hours. This must be considered feasible mitigation for significant roadway noise impacts. Other measures include site design changes that would eliminate truck activity nearest to homes on the Project’s northern side.

City of Menifee Development Code Tabe 9.210.060-1
(Draft EIR, p. 5.10-17)
55 https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/menifee-ca/doc-viewer.aspx?secid=1550#secid-1550

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

H. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

The Project will generate at least 1.135 daily vehicle trips at full buildout. The Traffic Impact Analysis ( Final EIR, Appendix B “TIA”) concludes that the “Opening Year Cumulative with Project traffic volumes” scenario results in significant impacts to the intersection of Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road (i.e., Level of Service F at AM/PM peak hour) (TIA p. 51, p. 58, Tables 5.5, 5.6). Rather than mitigating this impact by constructing the necessary improvement to bring the Level of Service at this intersection to a satisfactory level, the EIR reasons that “fair share” mitigation is appropriate . Even if “fair share” fee- based mitigation is appropriate for this Project, it is not shown based on substantial evidence that there is a fee-based transportation program in place to ensure that the improvement will be constructed in time of need or at any time in the future. This renders the “mitigation program” inadequate under CEQA.

The EIR concludes that “development of the proposed project would cause an increase in delay at the intersection of Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road” and the EIR identifies an improvement would reduce that impact to a less than significant level (i.e., “widen and restripe the NB shared left-thru-right lane to provide exclusive left-turn, thru, and right-turn lanes”) (TIA p. 58 item 4). Rather than require this improvement be implemented as a condition of Project development, the Project is purportedly responsible for a “fair share” of the total cost – roughly three to four percent (see, Tables 6.3 and 6.4).

The EIR notes that the improvements as to Murrieta Road/Ethanac Road are not part of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Program (TUMF), therefore, “a project fair share percentage was calculated” (p. 61). However, there is no evidence or information in the record that this improvement is part of any planned program of improvements (a city capital improvement schedule or program, for example). Without such evidence, the mitigation program is inadequate. Even if the improv ement should appropriately be cons idered for “fair share” mitigation, there is no evidence that the mitigation measure is likely to occur in the future; therefore, it is unenforceable within the meaning of CEQA.

The “fair share” fee -based mitigation payments are not listed in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see, Final EIR, MMRP p. 4 -18), which makes the measures entirely unenforceable under CEQA. This is procedurally improper.

The traffic improvements are identified as “mitigation” for significant CEQA impacts. In terms of the Project’s Conditions of Approval, the improvement is indicated in COA No. 82, but the COA does not identify the “program” to which the “fair share” fees will be paid to ensure that the improvements are actually constructed and not disregarded. (City Council Staff Report, Exh. A no. 82). In fact, the record implies that a program has not been established with respect to the improvement in question where it implies that a “Road Bridge and Benefit District (RBBD)” that would include improvements at Murrieta and Ethanac Road has not been created and/or this improvement is not part of the program (see, COA no. 81). The improvement is not liste d in relevant transportation programs to our knowledge. See, County of Riverside Amendment No. 9 to the Menifee Valley Road and

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

Bridge Benefit District (May 2017) 56. See also, list of Menifee Valley Road & Bridge Benefit District Facilities from County of Riverside Transportation Department website 57.

This improvement also does not appear to be included on the list of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (see, City of Menifee Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2021-2016, p. 23) .58 As a result, the transportation mitigation program is uncertain and ineffective within the meaning of CEQA. “To be adequate, these [fair share] mitigation fees … must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing.” ( Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1188-1189; see, Guidelines, § 15130 (a)(3); Public Res. Code, § 21081.6 (a)(1), (b) [mitigation measures must be “fully enforceable”].)

Furthermore, the EIR is inadequate because it omits a critical intersection from the scope of analysis. While the EIR identifies that the Project is located “south of Floyd Avenue,” (TIA p. 16), the EIR does not include the intersection of Murrieta Road and Floyd Avenue as a “study area intersection.” This omission is prejudicial. (See, TIA, Table 3.1.) The EIR’s truck trip distribution model identifies that 100% of trucks will pass through this intersection in route to the Project site. Floyd Avenue is a residential street. It is essential that the EIR evaluate the Project’s impacts to this intersection.

III. THE CITY MUST ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE, AND

THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE
The Draft EIR evaluates two Reduced Project alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) that would reduce the Project’s development intensity by 30 percent and 51 percent, respectively.

While both alternatives would reduce significant Project impacts, Alternative 3 would reduce significant GHG impacts to a less than significant level according to the Draft EIR (Table 8- 4). Alternative 3 would develop a 251,133 square foot speculative warehouse that would generate 629 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the proposed Project. (City Council Staff Report, Exhibit C – Findings of Fact p. 98). Due to the size reduction, Alternative 3 would allow for “increased setbacks” and “the northern portion [of the site] would be left undeveloped” (id.). According to the City’s proposed Findings of Fact (City Council Staff Report Exhibit C), Alternative 3 is rejected as “infeasible” for two reasons: “it would require a similar level of mitigation as the proposed project” and “although the Reduced Project Alternative would meet the Project objectives, they would not be met to the extent as would be achieved by the P roject” (Exhibit C, p. 94) . These reasons do not amount to substantial evidence of infeasibility as required by CEQA.

To ensure that alternatives are properly assessed and considered, CEQA “contains a `substantive mandate’ requiring public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if ‘there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures' that

56 https://trans.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop401/files/migrated/Portals-7-documents-rbbd-menifee-final-report- amend.pdf
57 https://trans.rctlma.org/menifee-valley-road-bridge-benefit-district-facilities 58 https://www.menifeebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FY2021-26-CIP-Budget-Details-FINAL- 20210709.pdf

April 17, 2026 – Public Comments Menifee Warehouse Project

can substantially lessen or avoid those effects’.” ( County of San Diego v. Grossmont - Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4 th 86, 98; Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) A lead agency may not reject an alternative unless the agency makes findings supported by substantial evidence showing that the alternative is infeasible. (Public Resources Code §§ 21081 (a), 21081.5; State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15091 (a)(3), 15092.) Rejected alternatives must be “truly infeasible.” ( County of Marina v. Bd of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.) Here, the Findings of Fact do not demonstrate, based on substantial evidence, that Alternative 3 is economically infeasible or otherwise. There is no data or evidence to show that development of Alternative 3 would render the Project economically infeasible in comparison to the proposed Project . Without such evidence, the City cannot legally approve the Project, and the City must adopt one of the environmentally superior alternatives.

IV. CONCLUSION
The size, scale, and intended use of the proposed Project are fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding residential community. The Project will degrade the character of the rural area and residents will be forever forced to endure the harmful effects of the Project’s intense industrial operations. Such a result should not be allowed in a city that values its residents and strives to make responsible land use decisions. For the reasons outlined in this letter, we strongly urge the City Council to uphold the denial of this Project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Abigail Smith, Esq.

Enclosure (photographs)

Participating Residents of Floyd Avenue
Menifee, CA 92585
May 8, 2026
RE: Murrieta Warehouse — Additional Improvements
Dear Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Schafer:

We are writing in response to your May 4, 2026 letter regarding proposed modifications to the Murrieta Warehouse Project.

Many Floyd Avenue residents have reviewed the proposed changes outlined in your correspondence, including the proposed restriction preventing project-related traffic from utilizing the Floyd/Geary residential area, paving considerations for Floyd Avenue, additional landscaping, and the proposed property “allowance” concept.

Residents also want to emphasize that this project has created prolonged uncertainty for adjacent homeowners over multiple years. Many homeowners have remained in limbo regarding the future of their homes, neighborhood, and quality of life, affecting decisions involving property improvements, long-term planning, and investment into their homes while the project has remained unresolved. Residents also continue to deal with lingering impacts associated with prior construction activity along Geary Street related to the storm drain installation, including utility disruptions, improper restoration of residential improvements, and ongoing flooding concerns that residents believe were never adequately resolved.

While the proposed traffic modifications address one of the neighborhood’s major concerns, many participating residents remain apprehensive that the project continues to present substantial residential, environmental, and property value impacts that have not been comprehensively resolved. Residents also believe the current proposal places a disproportionate burden on homeowners located immediately adjacent to the project site, many of whose homes and families were established within the area long before the surrounding land was rezoned or warehouse operations of this intensity and proximity were ever contemplated adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood.

Furthermore, while certain mitigation measures — including increased landscaping — may reduce limited operational effects or partially screen portions of the project, such measures do not transform an inherently incompatible large-scale industrial land use into one that is compatible with immediately adjacent residential homes. Given the severity and permanence of these impacts — including residences located approximately 25 feet from the project boundary — many residents do not believe the current proposal adequately addresses the

broader long-term residential, property value, and neighborhood impacts associated with the project.

From the residents’ perspective, unresolved impacts associated with the project include:
 Residents remain deeply concerned that adjacency to a large-scale 24/7 warehouse and truck-intensive industrial operation will create measurable and permanent diminution in residential property values, marketability, refinancing potential, buyer demand, and long-term residential desirability for homes within the surrounding residential neighborhood.
 Significant environmental, operational, and residential compatibility concerns identified throughout the review process, including CEQA-related concerns raised within the comment letter submitted by The Law Office of Abigail Smith on behalf of residents.
 Concerns regarding future operational intensification, tenant changes, expanded logistics activity, increased truck frequency, and modifications to operational characteristics that could further increase impacts over time.  Concerns regarding long-term monitoring, enforcement, and accountability associated with any proposed operational restrictions, including truck-routing limitations and neighborhood protection measures.  Long-term impacts related to operational noise, lighting, truck activity, air quality concerns, diesel emissions, particulate exposure, vibration, privacy loss, pedestrian safety, emergency access concerns, and overall residential use, enjoyment, health, and quality of life within the surrounding neighborhood.  Construction-related disruption during buildout, including noise, dust, vibration, roadway wear, traffic disruption, and interference with normal residential living.

At this time, many participating residents remain generally aligned on the following principles:
 No project-related truck or vehicle traffic through the Floyd/Geary residential area, along with clear enforceability, monitoring, funding, and long-term accountability mechanisms associated with any such restrictions.
 The proposed “allowance”-based approach and limited property-level mitigation measures do not materially resolve the broader permanent residential, property value, and neighborhood impacts associated with the project.

Many participating residents do not believe limited mitigation measures or property-specific allowances constitute a meaningful resolution to the permanent impacts anticipated to affect residents along Floyd Avenue.

Residents instead believe any serious resolution framework must include monetary compensation proportionate

to those impacts.
 Proposed roadway or infrastructure improvements do not resolve the broader land-use compatibility and residential impact concerns associated with the project. Any such proposed improvements would also require further clarification regarding project scope, implementation timing, maintenance obligations, and long-term responsibility.

Many participating residents remain opposed to the project and continue to believe the warehouse should not be approved or constructed adjacent to the existing Floyd Avenue residential neighborhood. Residents do not believe the current proposal resolves the significant concerns identified throughout the EIR process, public comment record, and ongoing resident discussions.

Accordingly, participating residents respectfully request that the project not be advanced for City Council consideration on May 20th unless and until the unresolved residential, environmental, operational, and property value impacts have been independently evaluated and meaningfully addressed. Many participating residents also do not believe the project should move forward absent a serious resolution framework that includes monetary compensation proportionate to the permanent impacts anticipated to affect adjacent homeowners.

If the project is nevertheless forced to continue moving forward, residents believe more time will be required for meaningful review, negotiation, and evaluation of any proposed operational changes, mitigation measures, infrastructure proposals, or compensation concepts prior to any approval consideration.

Sincerely,
Participating Residents of Floyd Avenue
Kimberly Tang & Moo Tang
Jessica DeChristopher & Kelly DeChristopher
Karin DeChristopher
Kim DeChristopher & Chris DeChristopher
Jackie Ferguson
Linda Fitzgerald
Robert Newton
Robert Powell & Sandi Powell
Lorene Rosa & Bobby Rosa
Kathy Smythe-Wiles & Glenn Wiles
Adrienne Vender

Virginia Vender & Chris Vender