Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
Plot Plan PLN22-0190
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Menifee
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Russell Brown, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
October 2025
r
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com
EXHIBIT "A"
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Menifee
Planning Division, Department of Community Development
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Contact: Russell Brown, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
October 2025
r
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 3
2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................... 3
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 3
4. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................. 3
6. General Plan Designation and Zoning ................................................................................. 3
7. Regional Setting .................................................................................................................. 6
8. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 6
9. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 6
10. Required Approvals ............................................................................................................. 7
11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required .......................................................... 7
12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1? .......................................................................................................................... 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................... 9 Determination ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................11 1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................11 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................15 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................19 4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................31 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................38 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................42 7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................47 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................55 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................63 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................69 11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................75 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................77 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................79 14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................101 15 Public Services .................................................................................................................103 16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................106 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................108 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................114 City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
ii
19 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................116 20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................120 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................123 References ..........................................................................................................................................131 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................131 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................................137
Appendices
Appendix A CalEEMod Output Model
Appendix B Biology and MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Appendix C Cultural Report
Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix F Preliminary Hydrology Study
Appendix G Noise Modeling Results and Measurement Data
Appendix H Traffic Study
Appendix I VMT Screening Memo
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Initial Study
1. Project Title
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Russell Brown, Senior Planner
City of Menifee
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
[email protected]
4. Project Location
The planned development is located at 25675 Trumble Road in the City of Menifee (City), California (“Project Site”). The Project Site encompasses approximately 17.19 acres that are identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 329-240-046/-048/-049/ and -051. Figure 1, below, depicts the Project Site in relation to the general region and Figure 2, below, shows the Project Site in its neighborhood context.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Lovett Industrial
Trumble Road
Menifee, CA
6. General Plan Designation and Zoning
According to the Menifee municipal code, the Project Site is within the Economic Development Corridor (EDC) zoning and general plan designation, which is intended to promote economic vitality and flexibility along the City’s major development corridors. The Project Site is located in the Northern Gateway subarea, which is envisioned as an employment center at Menifee’s northern gateway that focuses on providing opportunity for business park development and traditional industrial uses.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
4 Figure 1 Regional Location
0 Riverside
Woodcrest
WI D,
74 Cl vel nd
National
fore t
2.5 5 M iles
* Pro j@ et loca ition
N
.A
E
Murneta
a.~tow
Dl1t.omo
Los Angeles H1v.r,.d~
* Oc~i,n,ide
n llleco
79 Be umont
San Jacinto
lWPnt'f"lne
PJlm~
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Figure 2 Project Location
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
6 7. Regional Setting
The City of Menifee is an inland city in Riverside County. Menifee is surrounded by Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore to the west, the City of Perris to the north, the City of Hemet to the east, the City of Wildomar to the southwest, and the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula to the south. Regional access to the Project Site is available from Interstate 215 (I-215) and California State Route 74 (SR-74).
Local vehicular access to the Project Site is available by Trumble Road. The Project Site is also accessible via Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus route 28, with the nearest bus stop located less than 500 feet east of the Project Site on Jackson Avenue.
8. Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
The Project Site consists of four parcels located near the southeast corner of the intersection of Watson Road and Trumble Road. The Project Site is an inactive fill site and the Proposed Project involves the construction of a warehouse building and Watson Road improvements. The Project Site is currently heavily disturbed and contains limited ruderal vegetation. The elevation is approximately 1,428 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The surrounding area contains commercial and vacant land uses with Soil Retention Products located immediately across Trumble Road, west of the Project Site. The Project Site is surrounded by commercial and light industrial uses to the west, industrial uses and Watson Road to the north, commercial and light industrial uses to the east, and residential uses and Illinois Avenue to the south. Table 1, below, lists the existing land uses that are located immediately adjacent to the Project Site.
Table 1 Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use Project Site Economic Development
Corridor- EDC
Economic Development
Corridor – Northern
Gateway (EDC-NG)
Vacant
North Economic Development
Corridor- EDC EDC-NG Light Industrial
South Economic Development
Corridor- EDC EDC-NG Single Family
Residential
East Economic Development
Corridor- EDC EDC-NG Light Industrial
West
City of Perris - Light
Industrial and Community
Commercial
City of Perris - Light
Industrial and Community
Commercial
Commercial
9. Description of Project
Project Background
An Initial Study (IS) was prepared for a prior iteration of this project in 2023 under a separate Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the previous project (“2023 Project” or “2023 MND”) included the submittal of Grading Permit No. 22-019. The 2023 Project involved the rough grading and restoration of 7.6 acres of the existing Trumble Open Pit located at 25675 Trumble Road.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 328,205-square-foot warehouse building (“Project” or “Proposed Project’), including 15,000 square-feet of office space and associated parking lot and drive aisles (422 parking spaces, including 296 standard stalls and 126 trailer stalls). Watson Road would be improved while providing safe and adequate access across the railroad tracks to Highway 74). Historically, operation of the Project Site has included mining activities and soil hauling for import and export purposes. Vehicular access to the Project Site would be provided via two proposed driveways – one located at the northwest corner of the Project Site and the other on the southwest corner of the Project Site, both of which connect to Trumble Road.
The Project Site, formerly known as the Trumble Pit Site (or Trumble Road Open Pit), was originally operated as an open pit mine and soil hauling (import and export) facility and has, most recently, been used as a soil and concrete recycling area. The former open pit was subject to rough grading and restoration between 2019 and 2023. The pit restoration involved 5,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 207,000 cy of fill import to fill the pit and level the site.
The current Project proposes to construct a 328,205-square-foot warehouse building, including 15,000 square-feet of office space and associated parking lot and drive aisles (422 parking spaces, including 296 standard stalls and 126 trailer stalls). Watson Road would be improved while providing safe and adequate access across the railroad tracks to Highway 74.
Overall, the Project would result in approximately 29,623 cubic yards (cy) of cut strictly related to building stability and pads.
10. Required Approvals
A formal Grading permit is required through the City of Menifee Engineering Department.
The approval of a Plot Plan application is required to permit/allow a warehouse use in the Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG).
11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
Eastern Municipal Water District (water/sewer connections); Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [Santa Ana RWQCB] (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit); California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); and Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan review.
12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1?
Request for AB52 tribal consultation sent out 8/01/2022 to local tribes in the area (Pechanga Band of Indians, Agua Caliente, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, and Soboba). Pechanga officially requested tribal consultation for the project. The cultural report was sent to Pechanga and Soboba on 1/09/2025 along with the standard city cultural conditions of approval. The City met with Soboba City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
8 on 1/28/2025 as part of ongoing quarterly meetings and Soboba agreed with implementing the agreed upon conditions of approval and had no further comments on the project. The City met with Pechanga on 5/15/2025 as a part of the ongoing quarterly meetings; the tribe agreed to implementing two conditions; 1) inadvertent finds and 2) discovery of human remains. Pechanga was previously on-site monitoring the filling of the pit and agreed to close out consultation on 5/16/2025 with the implementation of the aforementioned two conditions.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This Project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
10 □ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ ■ □
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
For purposes of determining significance under CEQA, scenic resources are the visible natural and cultural features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s enjoyment of the environment. A scenic vista is defined as a public viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point, such as a roadway or public park. Scenic vistas can be officially designated by public agencies. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the California State Scenic Highway Program, which designates state scenic highways. Scenic highways are highways located in areas of natural beauty. A scenic highway becomes officially designated when the local governing body applies to and is approved by Caltrans for scenic highway designation and adopts a Corridor Protection Program that preserves the scenic quality of the land that is visible from the highway right of way.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
12 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered by development.
The natural mountainous setting of the Menifee area is critical to its overall visual character and provides scenic vistas. Scenic views from Menifee include the San Jacinto Mountains to the northeast and east; the San Bernardino Mountains to the north; the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest; and the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southwest. The Project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Watson Road and Trumble, where views of hillsides and mountains are visible from all directions from the Project Site, though existing structures and trees obstruct clear viewsheds. However, as discussed in the General Plan Draft EIR, implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that areas that are designated for development would minimize impacts on scenic vistas by preserving the undisturbed hillsides and other natural landforms (Menifee 2013a).
The Project would not substantially block views of any hillsides and mountains (e.g., Menifee Mountain) surrounding the Project Site, including the mountainous portion of the Project Site, due to the relatively low height of the warehouse proposed and existing industrial and commercial development surrounding the Project Site. Existing views of the San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernadino Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Ana Mountains are limited by site topography and existing structures near the Project Site. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Project Site is not adjacent to any officially designated state scenic highway as identified by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019). However, the City of Menifee General Plan Community Design Element designates I-215 as an Enhanced Landscape Corridor (Menifee 2013b). Enhanced Landscape Corridors are intended to help foster a strong identity along the City’s major corridors and receive special design consideration to ensure they complement the existing community and help visually frame the community’s most distinctive features. The City's Scenic Corridors are the same as roadways designated Eligible County Scenic Highways in the Circulation Element. The Proposed Project is located 0.3 mile east of I-215. The Proposed Project cannot be seen from I-215 due to the flat topography of the area and surrounding development. All proposed changes would be contained within the Project Site.
The Project Site contains no scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, significant trees, or historical buildings. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not damage scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway. Moreover, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with City Design Guidelines would ensure that the Proposed Project would not cause significant impacts on these resources. In addition, I-215 is not an officially designated as a scenic highway, impacts to these views would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Development of the Project could result in a significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual character or quality is defined by substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that they are poorly designed or conflict with the Project Site’s existing surroundings. However, the Project Site is not considered to be located in a non- urbanized area, as discussed below, since its surrounded by industrial and commercially zoned land.
In particular, the Proposed Project would develop a warehouse on the Project Site. While development of the Project would modify the appearance of the Project Site relative to existing conditions, it is not anticipated to degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site since the Proposed Project would construct a warehouse similar in scale and style to the commercial buildings located to the east, west, and south of the Project Site.
Upon approval of the Project, the addition of the warehouse would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its immediate surroundings and would be consistent with the City’s envisioned visual character and quality of the Project Site and surrounding neighborhoods.
Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely impact nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). There are lighting sources adjacent to the Project Site on Trumble Road, including free-standing streetlights, light fixtures on buildings, vehicle headlights, and traffic lights. There are no existing light sources on the Project Site.
Chapter 6.01 of the Menifee Municipal Code (Dark Sky; Light Pollution) indicates that low-pressure sodium lamps are the preferred illuminating source and that all non-exempt outdoor light fixtures shall be shielded. A maximum of 8,100 total lumens per acre or per parcel if less than one acre shall be allowed. When lighting is allowed, it must be fully shielded if feasible and partially shielded in all other cases and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night sky and onto adjacent properties (Section 6.01.040). The Project Site will be conditioned that, prior to the issuance of building permits, all construction activities that would introduce light sources be required to have shielding or other light pollution limiting characteristics such as hood or lumen restrictions.
The City of Menifee General Plan Community Design Element includes goals that encourage attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community (CD-6) and that limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory (Goal CD-6.5). Lighting associated with the Proposed Project would comply with Menifee Municipal Code Section 6.01 and General Plan goals. Accordingly, the Proposed Project City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
14 would have a less than significant impact on interfering with the nighttime use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory.
In addition, the Project design does not propose any new highly reflective materials that could potentially cause significant glare during the day, such as stainless-steel panels. The design of the Project, including its finish, colors, and materials, would be reviewed for approval through the City’s review process. This regulatory procedure provides the City with an additional layer of review for aesthetics including light and glare, and an opportunity to incorporate additional conditions to improve the Project’s building materials and lighting plans. The City of Menifee General Plan Community Design Element includes goals that encourage attractive landscaping, lighting, and signage that conveys a positive image of the community (CD-6) and that limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory (Goal CD-6.5) (Menifee 2013c). Therefore, upon compliance with Menifee Municipal Code Section 6.01 and General Plan lighting goals, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The Proposed Project is located on a developed site, and the surrounding parcels are comprised of commercial and light industrial uses. The map of Important Farmland in California (2014) prepared by the Department of Conservation (DOC) does not identify the Project Site as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2025). The Project Site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance, Other Land, and Urban and Built-Up Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which means the site had been designated for City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
16 agricultural use in previous local plans (DOC 2025). However, the Project Site is not designated as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
The Project Site is designated EDC in the City’s General Plan and is zoned EDC - Northern Gateway (EDC-NG). The Project Site is already heavily disturbed. And according to the General Plan and Zoning Map, the Proposed Project is intended for non-farmland uses, and would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance into non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
No Williamson Act Contracts are active for the Project Site. The Project Site is zoned EDC - Northern Gateway (EDC-NG), which is intended as a business park area providing light industrial uses.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. Thus, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish, and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. The Project Site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Historically, operation of the Project Site has included mining activities and soil hauling for import and export purposes. Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Project Site has historically been used for mining activities and soil hauling; thus, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of the Proposed Project. As a result, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The Project Site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance and Urban Built-Up Land; however, the Project Site is designated EDC and zoned EDC – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG). The Project Site is not currently being used for agriculture, nor has it been historically used for agriculture. Menifee’s Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
future development emphasizes mixed-use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable (Menifee 2013). Development of the Proposed Project would not involve changes in the existing environment in a manner that would result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land or forest land to non-forest land. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
18 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
Most of the information below is based on Appendix A, CalEEMod Worksheets, to this MIND.
Overview of Air Pollution
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),1 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead.
Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).
Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOC is used in this IS-MND.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
20 ▪ Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.
Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. ▪ Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
▪ On-road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways. ▪ Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, SCAQMD must monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.
Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as nonattainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants. The human health associated with these criteria pollutants, presented in Table 2, is already occurring in those areas as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The SCAB is in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 federal standards. Also, the SCAB is in nonattainment for the state standard for PM10 and designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and state standards (CARB 2023). The nonattainment statuses result from several factors. These factors include the combination of emissions from a large urban area, the regional meteorological conditions adverse to the dispersion of air pollution emissions, and the mountainous terrain surrounding the SCAB that traps pollutants. (SCAQMD 2022).
Table 2 Health Effects Associated with Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.
Carbon
monoxide (CO)
Reduces oxygen delivery leading to: (1) aggravation of chest pain (angina pectoris) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (2) decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (3) impairment of central nervous system functions; and (4) possible increased risk to fetuses.
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)
(1) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (2) risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (3) contribution to atmospheric discoloration.
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
(1) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms that may include wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
Pollutant Adverse Effects
Suspended
particulate
matter (PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).1 Suspended
particulate
matter (PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma.
Lead (1) Short-term overexposures: lead poisoning can cause (a) anemia, (b) weakness, (c) kidney damage, and (d) brain damage; (2) long-term exposures: long-term exposure to lead increases risk for (a) high blood pressure, (b) heart disease, (c) kidney failure, and (d) reduced fertility.
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2024 Air Quality Management
Since the SCAB currently exceeds ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS standard, the SCAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) is a regional blueprint designed to meet the NAAQS and demonstrate how attainment will be reached. The 2022 AQMP represents a thorough analysis of existing and potential regulatory control options, includes available, proven, and cost- effective strategies, and seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The prior AQMP, published in 2016, determined that, with implementation of the proposed control strategy, the SCAB could expect to reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by July 15, 2024, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 by 2025. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 did not meet the attainment date of December 31, 2019, which required SCAQMD to revise the plan to meet standard as early as possible. SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP, an update to the 2016 AQMP, was developed to identify and implement strategies and control measures to meet the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment deadline of August 3, 2038 for the SCAB (SCAQMD 2022).
Air Emission Thresholds
The SCAQMD approved the CEQA Air Quality Handbook in 1993. Since then, the SCAQMD has provided supplemental guidance on their website to address changes to the methodology and nature of CEQA since the publication of the Handbook. Some of these changes include recommended thresholds for emissions associated with both construction and operation of the Project are used to evaluate a project’s potential regional and localized air quality impacts (SCAQMD 2023).
Regional Thresholds
Table 3 presents the significance thresholds for regional construction and operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions being used for the purposes of this analysis.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
22 Table 3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction (pounds per day) Operation (pounds per day) NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
NOx = Nitrogen Oxides; VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; PM10 = Particulate Matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = Sulfur Oxide; CO = Carbon Monoxide Source: SCAQMD 2023
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the above regional thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4). LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities and have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor by taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance to the sensitive receptor, and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions generated in construction areas up to five acres in size. However, LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed stationary location and are not applicable to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2009).
The Project Site is located within SRA 24 (Perris Valley). SCAQMD provides LST lookup tables for Project Sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The construction area of the Project Site is approximately 17.2 acres. Therefore, the LST analysis conservatively uses five-acre LSTs. LSTs are provided for receptors at a distance of 82 feet (25 meters), 164 feet (50 meters), 328 feet (100 meters), 656 (200 meters), 1,640 feet (500 meters) from the Project disturbance boundary to the sensitive receptors. The border of construction activity would occur approximately 10 feet to single- family residences located south of the Project Site. According to the SCAQMD’s publication, Final LST Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 82 feet (SCAQMD 2009). Therefore, the analysis below uses the LST values for 82 feet. LSTs for construction and operation in SRA 24 on a five-acre site with a receptor 82 feet away are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction/Operation (SRA-24) Pollutant
Allowable Emissions from a Five-acre
Site in SRA-24 for a Receptor 82 Feet Away (lbs/day)
Gradual conversion of NOX to
NO2
270/270
CO 1,577/1,577
PM10 13/4
PM2.5 8/2
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = nitrogen oxides; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Allowable Emissions for a 5-acre Site in SRA-24 for a Receptor 82 Feet Away Source: SCAQMD 2009
Toxic Air Contaminants
SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds for the emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) based on health risks associated with elevated exposure to such compounds. For carcinogenic compounds, cancer risk is assessed in terms of incremental excess cancer risk. A project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would generate an incremental excess cancer risk of 10 in 1 million (1 x 10-6) or a cancer burden of 0.5 excess cancer cases in areas exceeding a one-in-one- million risk. In addition, non-carcinogenic health risks are assessed in terms of a hazard index. A project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in a chronic and acute hazard index greater than 1.0 (SCAQMD 2023).
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions generated by Project construction and operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1. CalEEMod uses Project-specific information, including the Project’s land uses, square footage for different uses (e.g., warehouse, office and parking), and location, to model a Project’s construction and operational emissions. The analysis reflects the construction and operation of the Project as described under Section 9, Project Description.
Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on- site and vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions by multiplying the time equipment is in operation by emission factors. CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate quantities and hours of operation for each construction phase. Construction of the Proposed Project was analyzed based on the applicant- provided construction schedule and site plans. Construction would begin in October 2025 and occur over approximately 20 months. During the grading phase, all excavated soil would be used as fill onsite. Therefore, hauling trips would not be required for soil export. The Project applicant has indicated that construction equipment would utilize U.S. EPA Tier 4-rated diesel engines at a minimum. The Project assumes that construction equipment used would be diesel-powered and would comply with applicable regulatory standards. In particular, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust control measures and Rule 1113 for architectural coating VOC limits.
The proposed uses were assigned the following land uses based on the CalEEMod User Guide:
Warehouse facilities were assumed as “Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail” and the office spaces were assumed as “General Office Building.” Parking and on-site non-asphalt surfaces such as landscaping were modeled as such.
Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the Project Site. The trip generation rates in CalEEMod were adjusted to be consistent with the 861 daily vehicle trips estimate in the Trip Generation Estimate Memorandum2 prepared by
2 This analysis uses Non Passenger Car Equivalent (Non PCE) trip generation estimates in order to accurately reflect emissions from light, medium, and heavy duty trucks.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
24 Translutions (2025). Total trip generation includes approximately 33 2-axle trucks, 45 3-axle trucks, and 119 4-axle trucks. In addition, because weekend trip rates and VMT were not provided by the transportation impact analysis, this analysis uses the same trip rates for weekdays and weekends.
Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas consumption by appliances as well as for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2022 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local city general plans and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s 2020 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population, housing, and employment growth (SCAQMD 2022, SCAG 2020).
The Proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of an industrial building. The Proposed Project would not directly increase the city’s population since it does not involve the construction of housing. However, the Proposed Project could potentially increase the number of new employees in Menifee. According to the SCAG Employment Density Report, warehouses typically have an average of one employee for every 1,195 square feet of floor space, while low-rise offices average one employee for every 1,014 square feet of floor space (SCAG 2001). Based on these figures, the Project's warehousing floor space would accommodate approximately 262 employees, and the office floor space would accommodate approximately 15 employees. Therefore, the Project as a whole would create approximately 277 employees. Although Project employees would likely be drawn from the existing labor pool in the region and may not relocate to the City, this analysis conservatively assumes that 277 employees would relocate to the City and become new residents.
According to the SCAG’s RTP/SCS Demographic and Growth Forecast Appendix, the City of Menifee had an estimated population of 40,200 in 2016 (SCAG 2020). SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS forecast the city’s population is to increase to approximately 129,800 by 2045, which is an increase of 89,600 or 222 percent from the 2016 population (SCAG 2020). The addition of approximately 277 new residents (employees moving to the city for employment) would constitute approximately 0.3 percent of the city’s total projected population growth through year 2045. Therefore, potential indirect population growth generated by the Project would be within the respective SCAG growth forecast.
The employment growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS for the City of Menifee estimate that the total number of jobs would increase from 13,800 in 2016 to 29,200 in 2045, for an increase of 15,400 jobs (SCAG 2020). The Project would include approximately 277 employment opportunities from the warehouse and office uses. The Proposed Project would be within the SCAG’s projected 2045 employment increase of 15,400 jobs from 2016, and the Project would not cause the City of Menifee to exceed official regional employment projections. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
The SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and state standards.
Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and construction vehicles in addition to VOC emissions that would be released during the drying of architectural coating and paving phases. Table 5 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during project construction. As shown therein, construction-related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 5 Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Year TOG1 NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
2025 1 3 30 8 4
2026 1 5 36 4 2
2027 59 5 22 2 1
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No
1 Total Organic Gases (TOG) were conservatively compared to SCAQMD thresholds for VOC because CalEEMod version 2022.1 does not display VOC emissions.
Note: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding. See Appendix C for complete modeling results.
For a conservative estimate of project emissions, construction and operational emissions were modeled during winter and summer, then reported for the maximum day during the winter or summer, whichever was highest. Maximum daily emission estimates were then compared to the SCAQMD thresholds measured in pounds-per-day.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the Project Site). Table 6 summarizes the Project’s maximum daily operational emissions by emission source. As shown therein, operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, Project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
26 Table 6 Project Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source TOG1 NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1 8 17 <1 7 2
Area 10 <1 14 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Project Emissions 12 11 33 <1 7 2
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
1 Total Organic Gases (TOG) were conservatively compared to SCAQMD thresholds for VOC because CalEEMod version 2022.1 does not display VOC emissions.
lbs/day = pounds per day; TOG = total organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations. See Appendix C for complete modeling results.
In addition, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s 2305 Indirect Source Rule for warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet of indoor floor space which is anticipated to further reduce operational emissions. Rule 2305 establishes the WAIRE Program, which is aimed at reducing emissions either directly from the site or elsewhere in the region. The WAIRE Program implements a points system for warehouse operators based on weighted annual truck trips and warehouse size in order to determine the extent of compliance obligations. Such obligations are met by completing actions off the WAIRE Menu, by implementing an approved Custom WAIRE Plan, or by paying a mitigation fee every year. While there is anticipated to be a reduction in emission from what is presented in the analysis, it is possible that reductions are achieved entirely through mitigation fees or other indirect means. Therefore, the reductions cannot be quantified because the exact measures to be implemented are unknown at this time.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The Trip Generation Memorandum prepared by Translutions (2025) estimated the Project would add 561 vehicle trips per day. Of these trips, there would be 197 truck trips (equivalent to 497 passenger cars) and 364 passenger car trips. A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard. The SCAB has been attaining federal CO standards since 2007, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels (SCAQMD 2017). The nearest monitoring station from the Project Site measured a maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 0.7 ppm, respectively, in 2023 (SCAQMD 2024). These concentrations are well below the respective 1-hour and 8-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9 ppm.
Typical development projects, such as the Project, do not emit the levels of CO necessary to result in a localized hot spot.
As an example, a detailed carbon monoxide analysis was conducted during the preparation of the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the 2003 AQMP included Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
high average daily traffic (ADT) intersections in the SCAB that are expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. In the City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element Traffic Study’s Table 4-1, the highest existing (2012) ADT along Ethanac Road is 11,300 ADT (City of Menifee 2013).
The Proposed Project is expected to generate 561 daily trips but would not increase traffic volumes on Menifee Road to more than 100,000 ADT. This is significantly below the 100,000 ADT at the intersection studied by SCAQMD in the 2003 AQMP, which found that CO emissions at that intersection were below the federal standards. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.
Localized Significance Thresholds
Sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity include single-family residences located south of the Project Site, ranging from 10 to 300 feet from the Project Site boundary. The Project would not include the siting of new sensitive receptors. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from localized criteria air pollutants and TACs. SCAQMD has developed LSTs to estimate exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. Table 7 and Table 8 show the estimates of the on-site construction and operational emissions considering the size of the Project, the location, and the receptor distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The Project- specific LST threshold in Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 24, with allowable emissions for a five-acre Project Site with a receptor distance of 82 feet. As shown therein, localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, Project construction and operation would not result in a local air quality impact, and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Table 7 Project LST Construction Emissions
Year
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum On-site Emissions 59 4 35 <1 8 4
SCAQMD LST N/A 270 1,577 N/A 13 8
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide Notes: Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions that would occur on the Project Site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips. Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
28 Table 8 Project LST Operational Emissions
Emission Source Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum On-site Emissions
11 2 16 <1 <1 <1
SCAQMD LST N/A 270 1,577 N/A 4 2
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide Notes: Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions that would occur on the Project Site from on-site sources, such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings, and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips. Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary Project-generated diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. Generation of diesel particulate matter, which was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998, from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. The Proposed Project's construction would occur in phases over approximately 20 months with sensitive receptors approximately 10 feet from the Project Site. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, and a more extended exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a more extended period. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period (assumed to be the approximate time that a person spends in a household).
OEHHA recommends this risk be bracketed with 9-year and 70-year exposure periods. Health risk assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Project.
The maximum PM2.5 emissions, which is used to represent DPM emissions for this analysis, would occur during site preparation activities. While site preparation emissions represent the worst-case condition, such activities would only occur for approximately three months, which is less than three percent, 0.9 and 0.6 percent of the typical health risk calculation period of 9 years, 30 years, and 70 years, respectively. PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and paving would require less construction equipment. In addition, the Project would implement would utilize U.S. EPA Tier 4-rated diesel engines at a minimum, which would reduce DPM emissions compared to an average construction fleet mix.
The Proposed Project would also be consistent with the applicable AQMP requirements and control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The Proposed Project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off- Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.
Given the aforementioned, DPM generated by Project construction is not expected to create conditions where the probability that the Maximally Exposed Individual would contract cancer is greater than 10 in one million or to generate ground-level concentrations of noncarcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one in one million for the Maximally Exposed Individual.
Construction impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective notes that warehouse facilities with over 100 trucks per day can be a source of TACs due to DPM emissions (CARB 2005).
According to the Trip Generation Assessment, the Proposed Project would generate 197 one-way truck trips or approximately 99 round-trip truck trips. Therefore, the proposed warehouse facility would have less than 100 trucks per day and would not be considered a significant source of TACs from DPM emissions. In addition, the trucking fleet used at the Project Site would be required to meet California’s policies for incorporating ZEV vehicles into their fleet. While the initial operation of the fleet may be exclusively diesel (as assumed in the analysis), as trucks age out and California policies for ZEV fleets increase, the trucking fleet will employ more and more ZEV vehicles and further reduce emissions beyond what is incorporated in the analysis, which will reduce TAC emissions and subsequent impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Additionally, the expected hazardous TACs generated on site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the proposed land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial operational TAC pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. In addition, Project construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which specifies that a person 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. Overall, Project construction would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
With respect to operation, the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies land uses associated with odor complaints as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, chemical and food processing plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate other emissions such as those leading to odors affecting a substantial number of people, and no operational impact would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
30 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ ■ □
A Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis was prepared in February of 2025, by Rincon Consultants (Appendix B). The following section is partially based on Appendix B.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
32 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
According to the Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Project, no special-status plant species are expected to occur within the Project Site. As such, there are no issues regarding direct or indirect impacts to special-status plants. The Project will be limited to disturbed and developed habitat, and no habitat for special-status plants is present. As no such species are anticipated, no additional measures are required to address potential impacts.
No special-status wildlife species are considered to have a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project Site. However, migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have potential to nest and forage in the Study Area. Suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesters occurs on the ground surface within the Project Site, and in ornamental trees outside of the Project Site within the Study Area. Project development has the potential to directly (e.g., destroy a nest) or indirectly (e.g., cause an active nest to fail) impact nesting birds protected under the CFGC and MBTA. Project development could also lead to loss of foraging habitat for species such as loggerhead shrike if present. The loss of foraging habitat could be considered significant if it had substantial adverse effects to local populations of species protected under the CFGC or the MBTA. However, Project development would not significantly impact foraging habitat as the Project Site is highly disturbed.
Potential impacts to nesting birds will further be avoided and minimized with implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs). These MMs include general best management practices to be implemented during the Project to avoid impacts to wildlife and other biological resources, the establishment of a training program to ensure all personnel present onsite understand the special- status species and biological resources that can occur onsite, and require a pre-construction nesting bird survey prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities to identify and establish non- disturbance buffers depending on the species, nest location, and construction activities. Thus, Project development will not adversely affect nesting birds or raptors with implementation of mitigation measures, and potential impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
MM BIO-1 Direct and Indirect Impacts During Construction ▪ Consistent with the Best Management Practices from MSHCP Volume 1, Attachment C, the following shall be implemented to avoid direct and indirect impacts during construction:
Limiting grading to the minimum area necessary for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project
Limiting vegetation disturbance/removal to the maximum extent practicable Implementing fiber rolls and sandbags around drainage areas and the site perimeter Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly Installation of a stabilized construction entrance/exit and stabilization of disturbed areas Proper protections for fueling and maintenance of equipment and vehicles Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls Soil stabilization in disturbed areas by revegetation ▪ Minimize Spills of Hazardous Materials. All vehicles and equipment shall be maintained in proper condition to minimize the potential for fugitive emissions of motor oil, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, grease, or other hazardous materials. Hazardous spills and contaminated soil Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
shall be immediately cleaned up and the contaminated soil shall be properly handled or disposed of at a licensed facility. Servicing of construction equipment shall take place only at a designated staging area.
▪ Invasive Plant Species Control. Invasive plant species, for the purpose of this document, shall include all species with a California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) rating of limited, moderate, or high. Construction personnel and equipment shall be free of invasive plant seeds, propagules, and any material which may contain them (e.g., soil) prior to entering the Project Site. All potentially contaminated equipment will be carefully cleaned prior to the initiation of project activities. Staging areas and temporary work areas shall avoid weed infestations and infestations within the work area(s) shall be flagged and avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Only certified weed-free materials (e.g., gravel, straw, and fill) will be used for the project. ▪ Removal of Native Vegetation. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre- existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. ▪ Standard Dust Control Measures. Standard dust control measures as per the South Coast Air Quality Management District shall be implemented to reduce dust impacts on nearby conserved lands, plants, and wildlife. Measures include controlling speed to 15 mph or less on unpaved roads, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, frequently watering active work sites, installation of shaker plates, and suspending excavation and grading operations during periods of high winds.
▪ Wildlife Hazards. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that wildlife do not become trapped, entangled, injured, or poisoned by construction activities:
Structures in which wildlife may become trapped (e.g., open pipes, pits, trenches, etc.) shall be tightly covered at the end of each work day. If covering the structure is not possible, an escape ramp shall be provided to allow any wildlife that falls in to safely escape. Debris piles, construction materials, equipment, and other items that may be used as wildlife refuge shall be inspected for wildlife at the start of each work day and prior to disturbance. If wildlife is discovered, it shall either be moved out of harm’s way by a qualified biologist or allowed to move off of the study area on its own. Nets and mesh shall be made of loose-weave material that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, as nets with welded weaves present an entanglement risk. Toxic materials and garbage shall be removed from the work site and safely stored or disposed of at the end of each workday.
MM BIO-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Plan Training
Prior to the initiation of the Project, an approved biologist shall present Worker Environmental Awareness Plan training (WEAP) to all on-site personnel. The WEAP will educate the personnel on the identification of special-status species and regulated biological resources that are present or have the potential to occur within the Project Site, will cover the applicable regulatory policies and provisions regarding their protection, and will provide an overview of the project’s avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Furthermore, on-site personnel will be briefed on the reporting process if an inadvertent injury or mortality should occur to a special-status species during construction or operations.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
34 MM BIO-3 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys
To avoid disturbance of nesting birds, including special-status bird species and birds protected by the Migratory Bird Species Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC Section 3503), project activities shall occur outside of the breeding season for nesting birds (generally February 1 through August 31), if feasible.
If construction occurs during the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of Project activities. If more than one phase of grading occurs during nesting season, the pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be repeated. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted on foot inside the Project Site and include a 500-foot buffer for raptors and special status bird species and a 100-foot buffer for all other bird species. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with avian species known to inhabit Southern California. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer of up to 500 feet for raptors and special- status species and up to 100 feet for non-raptors (dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land use outside of the workspace) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with construction fencing, flagging, or other means to mark the boundary. The buffer shall be maintained and nest avoided until the young have fledged and/or the nest is no longer active.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? According to the Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for the Proposed Project, no riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural communities occur within the Project Site. As such, there are no issues regarding direct or indirect impacts to these communities because the Project will be limited to disturbed and developed habitat. No impacts to sensitive communities would occur.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into “waters of the United States”. These waters include wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria, including a connection to interstate or foreign commerce. The USACE typically regulates as non-wetland waters of the U.S. any body of water displaying an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). To be considered a jurisdictional wetland under Section 404, an area must possess hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. CDFW, under Sections 1600 et seq of the California Fish and Game Code, regulates alterations to lakes, rivers, and streams. A stream is defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an occasional flow of water. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for the administration of Section 401 of the CWA, through water quality certification of any activity that may result in a discharge to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The RWQCB may also regulate discharges to “waters of the State” including wetlands, under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
The Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis determined that there are no State or federally protected wetlands present within the Project footprint or Study Area. No impacts to protected wetlands would occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? According to the Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, Proposed Project activities are restricted to a 17.19-acre lot and include mostly disturbed habitat. The Project Site is surrounded by Highway 74 to the north and residential and commercial properties to the north, south, and west. The Project Site is not located within any MSHCP linkages or other established movement corridors. Furthermore, the habitat in the Project Site does not support migratory fish species nor does it support wildlife nursery sites. As such, there would be no impact to established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
According to the Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, the only local policies or ordinances applicable to Project Site are the City’s tree protection policies. No protected trees were observed during the field surveys. No additional permits or compliance measures are required, and no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
MSCHP Requirements
According to the Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project is located within the boundaries of the MSHCP, and the City as the CEQA lead agency is also a Permittee to the MSHCP. As such, with their discretionary authority over the Project, the City can also convey MSHCP take coverage to the Project if needed, consistent with the MSHCP.
The Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis contains additional details that demonstrate the Project’s consistency with the MSHCP. In addition, payment of MSHCP mitigation fees is required. Payment of fees, as well as compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP, is intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CESA, and ESA for impacts to special-status species and protected habitats covered by the MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with the USFWS and the CDFW, and set forth in the implementing agreement for the MSHCP.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
36 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
According to the Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project is located within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Area and is subject to the plan’s associated mitigation fees. No Stephens’ kangaroo rat conservation measures are required by the Proposed Project as this species is now considered fully conserved under the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, with payment of fees, the Proposed Project will not conflict with the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
38 5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
A Cultural Resources Report was prepared on January 9, 2025 and can be found in Appendix C. The Cultural Resources Report describes a records search for cultural resources for the Project Site through the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) conducted on December 5, 2024, a Sacred Lands File Search requested on November 1, 2024, and a geoarchaeological review.
The following section is partially based on the Cultural Resources Report. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
This Project Site does not satisfy any of the criteria for a historic resource defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project Site is not listed with the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) or the National Register of Historic Places (OHP 2025; National Park Service 2025). The Project Site has been heavily disturbed and there are no known historically or culturally significant resources, structures, buildings, or objects located on the Project Site. Furthermore, on January 9, 2025, a cultural resources survey was conducted and found that no previously unrecorded cultural or archaeological resources were on the Project Site. As such, the Proposed Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The Project proposes the construction of a warehouse building and associated office and parking space. Ground-disturbing excavations associated with the Project development may reach the depth of 8-feet for utility line trenching. Excavation for stormwater infrastructure may reach maximum depth of 20-feet below the current ground surface.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39
No prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources were identified within the Project Site.
The geoarchaeological review suggests the likelihood for encountering surface or subsurface archaeological resources is low given the age of the geologic unit mapped at surface within the Project Site and the previous disturbances by the mining pit operation and restoration. As such, Project-related ground disturbance is not likely to encounter intact archaeological resources that may qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA, However, unanticipated discoveries during construction remain a possibility and the below mitigation measure is proposed to help reduce potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Human Remains
If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to Public Resource Code § 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within the period specified by law (24 hours).
Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the "most likely descendant." The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC § 5097.98.
CUL-2: Inadvertent Archaeological Find
If during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural resources are discovered that were not assessed by the archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment conducted prior to project approval, the following procedures shall be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this condition only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Native American Tribe(s). a) All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the developer, the archaeologist, the tribal representative(s) and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find.
b) At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the tribal representative(s) and the archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources. c) Grading of further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal monitors if needed.
d) Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re-burial on City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
40 the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Condition.
Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the landowner and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall take into account the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant by ensuring any subsurface archaeological resources are identified and evaluated. Should any identified resources be identified as eligible for the CRHR, those resources would be avoided or appropriate measures, such as data recovery, would be identified on a case by case basis.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No human remains are known to be present within the Project Site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.
With adherence to existing regulations, the Proposed Project, with regard to the potential discovery of human remains or cemeteries during construction, would result in a less than significant impact.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
42 6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
a. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
In 2022, California was one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 49th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information Administration 2024a). Electricity and natural gas are primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, fireplaces, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles. Most of California’s electricity is generated in state with approximately 23 percent imported from the Northwest and Southwest in 2023; however, the state relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2024a and 2024b). In addition, approximately 57.9 percent of California’s electricity supply in 2023 came from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (CEC 2024a). In 2022, Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020) creates clean electricity targets for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of retail sale electricity by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, 100 percent by 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by 2035. Electricity would be provided to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE) and natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas (SCG). Table 9 and Table 10 summarize the electricity and natural gas consumption for Riverside County, in which the Project Site would be located, and for SCE and SCG, as compared to statewide consumption.
Table 9 2022 Electricity Consumption
Energy Type Riverside County SCE California
Proportion SCE
Consumption1,2
Proportion of
County
Consumption1,2
Electricity (GWh) 17,781 85,870 287,826 30% 6%
GWh = gigawatt-hours
1 Proportion to statewide consumption.
2 SCE electricity consumption compared to statewide consumption. 3 For reference, the population of Riverside County (2,442,378 persons) is approximately 6.2 percent of the population of California (39,128,162 persons) (California Department of Finance 2024).
Source: CEC 2024c
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43
Table 10 2022 Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type Riverside County SCG California
Proportion SCG
Consumption1,2
Proportion of
County
Consumption1,2
Natural Gas
(MMTherms)
431 5,027 11,708 9% 4%
MMTherms = Millions of therms.
1 Proportion to statewide consumption.
2 SCG natural gas consumption compared to statewide consumption. 3 For reference, the population of Riverside County (2,442,378 persons) is approximately 6.2 percent of the population of California (39,128,162 persons) (California Department of Finance 2024).
Source: CEC 2024d
Petroleum fuels are primarily consumed by on-road and off-road equipment in addition to some industrial processes, with California being the 7th largest petroleum-producing state in the nation in 2023 (United States Energy Information Administration 2024b). Gasoline, which is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles, is the most used transportation fuel in California with 13,576 million gallons sold in 2023 (CEC 2024e). Diesel, which is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles, is the second most used fuel in California with 2,316 million gallons sold in 2023 (CEC 2024e). Table 11 summarizes the petroleum fuel consumption for Riverside County, in which the Project Site would be located, as compared to statewide consumption.
Table 11 2023 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption
Fuel Type
Riverside County
(million gallons)
California
(million gallons)
Proportion of Statewide
Consumption1
Gasoline 980 13,576 7%
Diesel 180 2,316 8%
1 For reference, the population of Riverside County (2,442,378 persons) is approximately 6.2 percent of the population of California (39,128,162 persons) (California Department of Finance 2024).
Source: CEC 2024e
Energy consumption is directly related to environmental quality in that the consumption of nonrenewable energy resources releases criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. The environmental impacts of air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the Project’s energy consumption are discussed in detail in Section 3, Air Quality and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, respectively.
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction
During Project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction workers travel to and from the Project Site, and vehicles used to deliver materials. In addition, the Project City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
44 would require vendor trips during building construction; and worker trips for all phases of construction, such as site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Excavated soil would be balanced onsite and no soil hauling trips would be required.
The total gasoline and diesel fuel consumption during Project construction was estimated using the assumptions and factors from CalEEMod used to estimate construction air emissions (Appendix A).
Table 12 presents the estimated construction phase energy consumption, indicating construction equipment and hauling and vendor trips would consume 89,326 gallons of diesel fuel, and worker trips would consume about 35,725 gallons of gasoline fuel over the Project construction period. The Project would consume less than one tenth of a percent of the total consumption in the Riverside County region.
Table 12 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction Fuel Type Gallons of Fuel MMBtu
Diesel Fuel (Construction Equipment) 66,408 8,464
Diesel Fuel (Vendor Trips) 22,828 2,910
Other Petroleum Fuel (Worker Trips) 35,725 3,922
Total 15,296
See Appendix A for calculation details
The construction energy estimates represent a conservative estimate as the construction equipment used in each construction phase was assumed to operate every day of construction. Construction equipment would be maintained to applicable standards, and construction activity and associated fuel consumption and energy use would be temporary and typical for construction sites. It is reasonable to assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel consumption during construction to reduce construction costs. Therefore, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the Project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity and gasoline and diesel fuels. Electricity would be used for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes. Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with truck trips and vehicle trips generated by employees. Table 13 summarizes estimated operational energy consumption for the Proposed Project. As shown therein, Project operation would require approximately 101,426 gallons of gasoline and 130,625 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels, 7.1 GWh of electricity, and 8,702 MMBtu of natural gas.
Vehicle trips associated with future workers, customers, and deliveries would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the Proposed Project.
Table 13 Estimated Project Annual Operational Energy Consumption Source Energy Consumption1 Energy Consumption1
Transportation Fuels
Gasoline 101,426 gallons 11,135 MMBtu
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45
Source Energy Consumption1 Energy Consumption1
Diesel 130,625 gallons 16,649 MMBtu
Electricity 1.4 GWh 4,670 MMBtu
Natural Gas 6,387,964 kBtu 6,388 MMBtu
Total 38,842 MMBtu
MMBtu = million metric British thermal units; GWh = gigawatt-hours 1 Energy consumption is converted to MMBtu for each source See Appendix A for CalEEMod output results for electricity and total VMT.
The Proposed Project would exceed standards set in the latest iteration of the CBC (CCR Title 24) by two percent, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (CCR Title 24, Part 11) require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. In addition, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Pursuant to CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used for the Proposed Project would be high- efficiency fixtures, which would minimize the potential for the inefficient or wasteful consumption of energy related to water and wastewater. The Proposed Project would include 150 kW of onsite solar electricity generation and would be served by SCE, which is required to increase its share of renewable energy procurement pursuant to SB 100 requirements. As a result, the Proposed Project would maximize the use of renewable energy.
As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the trucking fleet would be required to meet California’s policies for incorporating ZEV vehicles into their fleet. Therefore, while the initial operation of the fleet may be exclusively diesel (as assumed in the analysis), as trucks age out and California policies for ZEV fleets increase, the trucking fleet will employ more and more ZEV vehicles and further reduce consumption of nonrenewable transportation fuels. Therefore, Project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Menifee General Plan outlines policies to promote energy efficiency and generation within Menifee. The Open Space and Conservation Element include the goal OSC-4, Energy & Mineral, which promotes efficient and management of energy to ensure its availability for future generations.
Policies within the Open Space and Conservation Element such as Policy OCS-4.1, Policy OCS-4.2, and Policy OCS-9.5 are intended to increase energy efficiency. The Project would provide electric vehicle charging spaces standards based on the latest CALGreen standards for new construction of commercial buildings. As discussed in the impact above, the Project would exceed CALGreen’s latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards by two percent and install 150 kW of onsite solar electricity generation. In addition, electricity would be provided by SCE, which continues to increase renewable energy sources to comply with state requirements of SB 100.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
46 With regard to transportation related energy usage, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the goals of SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS, which incorporates VMT targets established by SB 375. SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS focuses on four core categories: mobility, communities, environment and economy. In addition, the SCS implementat ion strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. Future adoption of ZEV vehicles as mandated by State policies would reduce consumption of nonrenewable transportation fuels by the Proposed Project, and the inclusion of conduits for future trucking electric vehicle charging stations would facilitate future electrification. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the energy efficiency policies by being consistent with the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards for appliances and electric vehicle charging provisions. In addition, the Project is near existing warehouses and logistics facil ities in close proximity to freeways and arterial roads, providing connectivity with the existing land use area, which could reduce reliance of motor vehicle use.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■
4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ ■ □ □
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
48 This analysis incorporates the results of a Paleontological Records search performed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. and the Geotechnical Report prepared by LGC Geotechnical, Inc. in May of 2022 (Appendix D).
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Although the Project Site is located in seismically active Southern California, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2025). No faults were identified on the site during site evaluation. In addition, the site is not located within a fault zone as delineated by the City of Menifee. The closest active fault is the Anza segment of the San Jacinto Fault Zone; an active, right-lateral, strike-slip fault, located approximately 9.9 miles northeast of the Project Site.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The Proposed Project would be subject to ground-shaking impacts should a major earthquake in the area occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of life and property damage. The Project Site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking as are virtually all properties in Southern California.
The proposed warehouse would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC). The 2022 CBC (CBC, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. Adherence to these requirements would reduce the potential of the building from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements would minimize damage to property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. The CBC is intended to provide minimum requirements to prevent major structural failure and loss of life. Adherence to existing regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to strong ground shaking would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore-water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table (within 50 feet of the surface). Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation and the California Department of Conservation Seismic Hazard Evaluation system and the Menifee General Plan, the Project Site is not located in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction (DOC 2025). This indicates that the area has not been subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49
do not indicate potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. Due to the depth of groundwater greater than 50-feet (Appendix D), the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced settlement is considered very low. Additionally, the proposed development would primarily consist of construction over dense alluvial deposits. These soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction.
Therefore, no impacts due to the Project Site from seismically induced liquefaction would occur. No mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The geologic character of an area determines its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential for slope failure and landslide events. In order to fail, unstable slopes need to be disturbed; common triggering mechanisms of slope failure include undercutting slopes by erosion or grading, saturation of marginally stable slopes by rainfall or irrigation; and shaking of marginally stable slopes during earthquakes.
Field observations did not indicate the presence of landslides on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The Project Site is not located in a Zone of Required Investigation for landslides (DOC 2025). Review of the regional geologic map of the area does not indicate the presence of known or suspected landslides in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, the Project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC which would ensure that the development would not exacerbate risk of landslides. No impacts to the Project Site from landslides would occur and no mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and microorganisms. The Project has the potential to expose surficial soils to wind and water erosion during construction activities. Fugitive dust caused by strong wind and/or earth-moving operations during construction would be minimized through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits visible particulate matter from crossing property lines. Standard practices to control fugitive dust emissions include watering of active grading sites, covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting, and covering soils in haul trucks with secured tarps. In addition, the potential for Project construction activities to result in increased erosion and sediment transport by stormwater to surface waters would be minimized because the Project would be required to comply with a Construction General Permit, which is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which outlines best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff (also refer to the discussion in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction and minimize substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Upon completion of construction, the Project Site would be stabilized with landscaping and paving, and operational activities would not result in soil erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
50 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed above. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree. Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.
Due to the very low potential for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is also considered very low. Further, the Proposed Project consists of grading and construction activities. Furthermore, the Project is required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC. Therefore, through compliance with CBC requirements, impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Subsurface exploration indicates that the Project Site primarily consists of undocumented fill overlying Qof deposits, which have “very low” expansion potential. Thus, the Proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil and would not create substantial direct or indirect risks related to expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would require conveyance through a municipal sewage system and would not utilize a septic system. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an impact on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51
important paleontological resources and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.
Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the Project Site to assess the Project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of a paleontological locality search and a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the Project Site. The Open Space & Conservation Element of the City of Menifee General Plan contains a paleontological sensitivity map (Exhibit OSC-4), which identifies areas of high, low, and undetermined paleontological sensitivity within the City of Menifee. Implementation Action OSC-38 states that paleontological monitoring is required in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources, which is taken to mean areas mapped as having high paleontological sensitivity.
The Project Site is situated in the Peninsular Ranges, one of the eleven major geomorphic provinces in California (California Geological Survey 2002). In general, the Peninsular Ranges consist of northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges and faults (Norris and Webb 1976). These mountains are generally comprised of Mesozoic to Cenozoic plutonic and extrusive igneous and Cretaceous marine sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges province also contains sedimentary basins such as the Los Angeles Basin which have accumulated thick sequences of Cenozoic marine and terrestrial sedimentary rocks. Specifically, the Project Site is located in the Perris Valley, which is part of the Perris Block, a geophysical block with low topographic relief which is bounded to the west by the Elsinore Fault Zone and to the east by the San Jacinto Fault Zone (Morton and Miller 2006).
The Project is located in the Romoland, California United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle(s). The geology of the region surrounding the Project Site was mapped by Morton and Miller (2006), who identified a single geologic unit, Quaternary old alluvial fan deposits, underlying the Project Site.
Quaternary old alluvial fan deposits consist of reddish-brown, moderately to well-consolidated, silt, sand, and gravel, and are late to middle Pleistocene in age (Morton and Miller 2006). Pleistocene- aged alluvial deposits have produced numerous paleontological resources in western Riverside County, such as mammoths (Mammuthus), mastodon (Mammut), saber-toothed cat (Smilodon), ground sloth (Paramylodon, Megalonyx), horse (Equus), other mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, and invertebrates (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database 2024). Due to this fossil-producing history, these sediments are assigned high paleontological sensitivity by the City of Menifee General Plan.
The entire Project Site has been previously disturbed by previous mining activities, so it is assumed that sediments underlying the Project Site are disturbed (and therefore not paleontologically sensitive) to at least a depth of 5 feet and possibly deeper in some areas.
Rincon requested a records search from the Western Science Center on December 19, 2024. The Western Science Center has no known fossil localities within 1 mile of the Project Site (Stoneburg 2024). However, Stoneburg (2024) noted that similar geologic units are known to contain significant paleontological resources throughout southern California.
Ground-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., sediments greater than 5-feet below the surface) could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources and associated City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
52 stratigraphic and paleontological data. This Project will require overall site grading and excavations for utility and stormwater drainage infrastructure. Overall site grading will be minimal compared to fill, but in some areas, it may exceed 5-feet. Trenching for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure may reach up to 20-feet below the current ground surface; therefore, this activity may significantly impact paleontological resources.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant level under CEQA and would maintain compliance with City of Menifee General Plan Implementation Action OSC-38.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010), who shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.
Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should construction personnel discover fossils.
Paleontological Monitoring and Salvage. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground-disturbing construction activities within previously undisturbed sediments assigned high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., sediments greater than 5 feet below the current ground surface). Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor.
The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations, such as the recognition that sediments deeper than 5 feet consist of disturbed and/or fill sediments. Such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically significant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the following shall be completed:
▪ Fossil Salvage. The paleontological monitor shall salvage (excavate and recover) the fossil to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the fossil(s) is (are) salvaged, construction activity may resume. ▪ Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (most-specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53
Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would mitigate the Project’s impacts to the above resources through the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils, and all potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
54 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of GHGs. GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” which is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature.
Greenhouse gases occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs include the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Natural Resources Agency 2019).
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the Proposed Project would be significant if the Project would:
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
56 ▪ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or
▪ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. As a result, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).
To determine a project-specific threshold, guidance on GHG significance thresholds in the region from SCAQMD, the air district in which the Project Site is located, was used. The SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects. The draft tiered approach is outlined in meeting minutes dated September 29, 2010 (SCAQMD 2010):
▪ Tier 1. If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. ▪ Tier 2. Consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the Proposed Project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate.
▪ Tier 3. Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial projects and 3,000 MT CO2e per year for nonindustrial projects. ▪ Tier 4. Establishes a service population threshold to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 4.8 MT CO2e per year for land use projects.
Tier 1 would not apply to the project as it is not exempt from environmental analysis. For Tier 2, the City of Menifee does not have a qualified GHG reduction plan in its general plan or climate adaptation plan. As described above, when the tiered approach is applied to a Proposed Project, and the project is found not to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2, the project’s emissions are compared against a screening threshold, as described above, for Tier 3. The screening threshold formally adopted by SCAQMD is an “interim” screening threshold for stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The threshold was termed “interim” because, at the time, SCAQMD anticipated that CARB would be adopting a statewide significance threshold that would inform and provide guidance to SCAQMD in its adoption of a final threshold. However, no statewide threshold was ever adopted, and the interim threshold remains in effect. For projects for which SCAQMD is not a lead agency, no screening thresholds have been formally adopted. However, the SCAQMD Working Group has recommended a threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial projects and 3,000 MT CO2e per year for residential and commercial projects. SCAQMD Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57
determined that these thresholds would “capture” 90 percent of GHG emissions from these sectors, “capture” meaning that 90 percent of total emissions from all new projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis. Therefore, for a project-specific threshold, the City of Menifee has selected SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for nonindustrial projects as the applicable project-specific threshold, in accordance with Tier 3. The SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold is frequently used by jurisdictions across Southern California to determine GHG emissions impacts from nonindustrial projects. In addition, the project is evaluated based on consistency with plans and policies adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. The most directly applicable adopted regulatory plans to reduce GHG emissions are the 2022 Scoping Plan, the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, and the City of Menifee General Plan.
Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential Project effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these make up 98 percent of all GHG emissions by volume and are the GHG emissions the Project would emit in the largest quantities (IPCC 2014). Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent GWP in terms of CO2 (i.e., CO2e). Minimal amounts of other GHGs (such as chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) would be emitted; however, these other GHG emissions would not substantially add to the total GHG emissions. GHG emissions associated with Project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1, with the assumptions described in Section 3, Air Quality, in addition to the following:
▪ The Project’s CalEEMod model uses CalEEMod default assumptions for water, solid waste, and area sources for the warehouse and office uses with a two percent exceedance of Title 24 standards.
▪ The CalEEMod model accounts for electricity generated onsite by the proposed 150 kW photovoltaic system.
▪ In accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the Proposed Project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the Project’s total annual GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008). a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction Emissions
Based on the CalEEMod results, construction activity for the Project would generate an estimated 1,167 metric tons (MT) of CO2e (as shown in Table 8) during construction. Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the Project), construction of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 39 MT CO2e per year. Emissions from construction are amortized for the purpose of comparison with annual operational emissions over the estimated 30-year life of the Project.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
58 Table 14 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Year Project Emissions (MT/yr CO2e)
2025 199
2026 847
2027 121
Total 1,167
Total Amortized over 30 Years 39
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets.
Operational Emissions
Long-term emissions relate to area sources, energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation, as shown in Table 15. As shown in the table, annual GHG emissions for the Project would be an estimated 2,740 MT CO2e. Annual Project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 15 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction 39
Operational
Area 7
Energy 556
Waste 96
Water 184
Refrigerants <1
Mobile 1,858
Total 2,740
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2022 Scoping Plan
The principal State GHG reduction plans and policies are AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the subsequent legislation, SB 32 and AB 1279. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2022, the State passed AB 1279, which declares the State would achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2045 and would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The latest iteration of the Scoping Plan is the 2022 Scoping Plan, which focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities. The 2022 Scoping Plan's strategies that apply to the Proposed Project include the following:
▪ Reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand and VMT.
▪ Maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills.
The Proposed Project would be consistent with these goals through Project design, which includes exceeding the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards by two percent and installing a 150 kW photovoltaic solar system. In addition, the Proposed Project would allocate 15 EV charging stations and 51 EV capable parking spaces, and would be served by Southern California Edison, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. The Project is an infill development that would not convert natural lands and would contribute to the job and housing balance.
Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, Executive Order N-79-20, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission.
The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.
Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy which includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks and their Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. This plan applies to all trucks accessing the Project Site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
60 The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to improve system efficiency. The Project would also benefit from implementation of the State programs for ZEVs and goods movement efficiencies that reduce future GHG emissions from trucks. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the State’s long-term climate goals of carbon neutrality by 2045.
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars in the SCAG region by eight percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. The 2020-2040 RTP/SCS includes ten goals with corresponding implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, encouraging regional economic prosperity, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The Proposed Project is an infill development that is located in close proximity to existing truck routes and freeways and would not impact natural and working lands or restoration of habitats. In addition, the Proposed Project’s proximity to residential communities and existing warehouse facilities could potentially reduce commute times to new job opportunities and travel distances for trucks. The Proposed Project would allocate 66 parking spaces to electric (51 EV-Capable spaces and 15 EV-Installed spaces), meaning infrastructure that would support the future installation of EV charging stations would be provided. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction strategies contained in the RTP/SCS.
City of Menifee General Plan
City of Menifee General Plan
Senate Bill 379 requires all cities to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in their General Plan Safety Element. The goals, policies, and objectives of this section are derived from a climate vulnerability assessment, which identifies the exposure risks; sensitive structures, functions, and populations; potential impacts and risks; and the City’s adaptive capabilities. In addition, the City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes air quality goals and policies; as well emissions reduction consideration in the Land Use and Circulation Elements through policies that encourage local jobs and housing balance, improving the transportation network, and uses of neighborhood electric vehicles. Table 16 summarizes the Project’s consistency with the City of Menifee General Plan goals and policies indirectly related to GHG emissions.
Table 16 Project Consistency with the City of Menifee General Plan Policy Consistency
Policy S-7.1: Continue to require environmental
analysis for Proposed Projects which may produce
harmful levels of greenhouse gas.
Consistent. GHG emissions generated by the
Proposed Project would be significant if SCAQMD’s
3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for industrial
projects are exceeded. As shown in Impact GHG-1, the
Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s GHG threshold
and would not produce harmful level of GHG.
Policy S-7.2: Ensure that the City’s water supply is
protected against drought conditions intensified
by climate change.
Consistent. The Project would be consistent with the
2022 CALGreen standards and install water efficient
appliances. The Project would install drought tolerant
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61
Policy Consistency
Policy S-7.9: Promote drought resistant
landscaping to continue reducing water
consumption and potential fuel sources.
Policy OCS-7.2: Encourage water conservation as a
means of preserving water resources
plants with low to medium water use that would be
mediterranean and California climate friendly.
Policy OCS-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and
conservation practices in land use, transportation
demand management, and subdivision and
building design.
Consistent. The Project must comply with the latest
Title 24 standards, which promote energy
conservation in new buildings. The Project would
include 150 kW of onsite solar electricity generation
and 66 EV-capable or EV-installed parking spaces.
Therefore, the Project would align with the solar
provisions for nonresidential structures as outlined in the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen's electric vehicle charging requirements for
new construction of nonresidential structures.
Source: City of Menifee 2012
Given the aforementioned plan consistency, impacts related to generation of GHG emissions and consistency with State and local GHG reduction plans due to the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
62 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
64 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The Proposed Project could result in a significant hazard to the public if the Proposed Project includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous materials. The Proposed Project is located within a manufacturing zoned area that contains light industrial uses. The Proposed Project does not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial uses that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as by-products of production applications.
During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would likely involve the use of common household materials such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides. In addition, chemicals, such as chlorine, for the maintenance of the pools would also potentially be stored on site in minor quantities. These and other materials used in the regular maintenance of the building and landscaping would also be utilized in the secondary activities associated with the warehouse development. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local agencies related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of the Project would be subject to all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22.
Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
There are no open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases on or near the Project Site (SWRCB 2025). Therefore, there would be no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of the Proposed Project. A search of federal, state, and local agencies databases on reported USTs, hazardous waste generation, or hazardous material releases revealed no results of hazardous sites. Site reconnaissance did not reveal any pesticides, sumps, clarifiers, swales, or surface impoundments containing hazardous materials. No lead-based paint or asbestos containing materials were identified.
During construction, hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, and lubricants would be transported to the Project Site and used in construction vehicles and equipment. If not managed appropriately, these hazardous materials could be unintentionally released resulting in adverse effects to workers, the public and/or the environment. However, the potential for accidental releases would be minimized through adherence to existing regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the contractor and Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65
construction crews for the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste.
Adherence to applicable hazardous materials and waste regulations would minimize the risk of the release of hazardous materials to the public and environmental to less than significant levels.
Similarly, compliance with applicable regulations involving hazardous materials and waste during operation, including Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, would ensure that such materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes the potential for upset and accidental conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, the proposed use of the site as a commercial development would not include the storage of any substantial quantities of hazardous materials.
Minor amounts of fuels, oils, or coolant may leak from vehicles but not in substantial quantities that would represent a significant threat to human health or the environment. With compliance with existing regulations, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The closest school is Romoland Elementary School, located approximately 0.6 mile east of the Project Site.
During construction of the Project, hazardous and potentially hazardous materials would be utilized for the transport and operation of vehicles and machinery. As discussed above, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of the Project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Additionally, operation of the proposed residential Project would not involve the use or transport of large quantities of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or materials affecting local schools would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. The analysis for this section included a review of the following resources to provide hazardous material release information:
▪ SWRCB GeoTracker database
▪ DTSC EnviroStor database
According to the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases, there are no leaking underground storage tank (LUST) or other clean-up sites within 0.25 mile of the Project Site (DTSC 2025; SWRCB 2025).
Therefore, the Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
66 compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
The Proposed Project is not located on a site listed on the state Cortese List, a compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or groundwater contamination from past uses (CalEPA 2025). Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the Project Site (the Perris Valley Airport is located just over two miles to the northwest of the Project Site). The entire Project Site is located in a compatibility zone (Zone D) for the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC). Within Compatibility Zone D, general plan amendments (as well as other discretionary actions, such as rezoning, subdivision approvals, use permits, etc.) that would convert land to residential use or increase the density of residential uses should be subject to careful consideration of overflight impacts. Other considerations in Zone D include the height of proposed buildings, antennas, or other structures.
Within Compatibility Zone E, commercial use is not limited or restricted, no special considerations are required for development, and no open space requirements are enforced. The Proposed Project would comply with the requirements of the ALUCP and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Proposed Project consists of the development of a 328,205-sqaure-foot warehouse. All project elements, including landscaping, would be sited with sufficient clearance from the proposed buildings so as not to interfere with emergency access to and evacuation from the Project Site. The Proposed Project is required to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted by the Menifee Municipal Code. Access is provided to the site through the two driveways located on Trumble Road.
Construction activities may include temporary street or lane closures to Trumble Road; however, these impacts would be temporary and access to emergency evacuation roadways would not be blocked by construction. The Proposed Project does not propose permanent street or lane closures.
Operation of the Project would not require the development of additional streets or introduce new features that would interfere with or obstruct an adopted emergency response plan. Additionally, as discussed further in Section 17, Transportation, operation of the Project would not result in a significant increase in daily trips to the site and the Project Site is surrounded by major roadways, including Menifee Road, which has sufficient capacity to provide access to and from the Project Site during an emergency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67
As discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, the Project Site and surrounding area are not classified as being in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHZ) (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CalFire] 2025). Compliance with the California Fire Code and local regulations including the City of Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20 would reduce potential impacts related to wildland fires. Therefore, impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant.
NO IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
68 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ ■ □
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
70 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? A project normally would have an impact on surface water quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, or that cause regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable NPDES stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for a receiving water body. For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the Project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts could also occur if the Project does not comply with all applicable regulations regarding surface water quality as governed by the SWRCB. These regulations include preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts. The Preliminary WQMP is attached to this MND as Appendix E.
Construction
The Proposed Project would disturb approximately 17.19 acres of undeveloped land and would be subject to the NPDES program’s Construction General Permit (General Permit). Construction-related activities would involve excavation, grading, and trenching which would temporarily increase the potential of wind and water erosion on the Project Site. Construction-related erosion would be addressed through compliance with the General Permit. Pursuant to the General Permit and Menifee Municipal Code Section 15.01.015, new development or development projects shall control stormwater runoff to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The Department of Public Works and Engineering would review and approve erosion control and sediment control BMPs contained in the Project applicant’s submitted Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan to be implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants during construction. The Project applicant’s SWPPP shall identify erosion control BMPs that would meet or exceed General Permit-required measures to control construction-related pollution. These identified BMPs would include stabilized construction entrances, sand bagging, designated concrete washout, tire wash racks, silt fencing, and curb cut/inlet protection.
Further, the Project proposes impervious surfaces throughout a large portion of the Project Site, which would stabilize soils and contain them on-site compared to the existing undeveloped condition. Compliance with NPDES and Menifee Municipal Code requirements would ensure that the Proposed Project’s construction-related activities would not violate water quality or waste discharge requirements. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project Site is currently undeveloped and as such, the Proposed Project would introduce impervious surfaces to the Project Site and would reduce the amount of water that percolates into the ground and potentially increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Urban stormwater runoff is covered under the NPDES MS4 Permit for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 within the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CAS618033, Order No. R8-2010-0033).
Nonetheless, according to the Preliminary WQMP, the following is proposed and expected to occur on-site:
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71
• Impervious area on the site has been minimized to City standards. • Due to the nature of the Project Site (large trucks), substitution of pavement for landscaping is not feasible. The Project does not propose overflow parking where substitution of pavement for landscaping would be optimal. Landscaping has been provided wherever applicable and to the maximum extent practicable.
• The entire Design Capture Volume (DCV) is handled by the proposed underground detention systems and proprietary biotreatment units. Permeable pavement is not needed to meet the DCV.
Additionally, runoff to adjacent areas is identified below as disclosed in the Preliminary WQMP, as described:
• Roof runoff is directed to the underground detention systems and proprietary biotreatment units for treatment.
• The site is not on a hillside.
• All stormwater runoff will be piped or sheet flow into the underground detention systems and proprietary biotreatment units; therefore, curb-cuts into landscaped areas are not utilized
Finally, pursuant to the General Permit and Menifee Municipal Code Section 15.01.015, new development or development projects shall control stormwater runoff to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMP’s implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 is required when requested by the Director of Public Works. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long- term operation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The Project Site is located in the Menifee Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) within the Perris South Hydrologic Area of the San Jacinto Valley Hydraulic Unit (Menifee 2013). Water supply in the area is provided by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD has four sources of water supply:
imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), local groundwater, and recycled water (Menifee 2013a). According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), EMWD expects to be able to provide reliable water supplies for an average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years for its existing and planned supplies (EMWD 2021). As discussed further in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, EMWD would have sufficient water supply to provide for the Proposed Project’s water use. Project construction may require water for dust suppression in order to comply with the SCAQMD recommendations regarding dust suppression during construction activities. Construction activities would be temporary in nature, lasting for approximately 13 months. Therefore, no substantial increase in demand on groundwater supplies would occur, and adequate water supplies would be available to meet the needs of the Project for dust suppression purposes.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
72 Although the Proposed Project would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the Project Site, the Proposed Project would also include landscaping and drain catch basins which would promote infiltration and groundwater recharge, reducing the amount of surface runoff. According to the General Plan EIR, there are no percolation basins or other areas in the City used for intentional recharge of groundwater basins (Menifee 2013).
According to Appendix F, Preliminary Hydrology Study, groundwater was not encountered in any of their exploratory borings or trenches excavated to a maximum depth of 26 feet. The California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library indicates that the groundwater depth for a well located approximately 0.75-mile to the southeast is greater than 80 feet below ground surface.
Based on this information, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during site grading.
Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Under existing conditions, Project runoff flows towards the southeast to the RCFCWCD Salt Creek Heritage Lake Storm Drain System and Detention Basin. The Project would develop a warehouse, which would change the site’s existing ground contours and alter the existing drainage patterns within the Project Site.
As described in the Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix F), the Project Site is tabled to an existing 6-foot by 5-foot Caltrans concrete box culvert (RCB) that runs underneath the Interstate 215 Freeway. There is an existing public storm drain, Line “A”, that runs southerly parallel to Trumble Road and continues westerly in Illinois Avenue. This storm drain system, designed by Albert A. Webb Associates (City File No. P8-921), discharges into the existing RCB. It appears the site is not tabled to discharge into the existing Line “A”. The existing pipe is also full, therefore, any additional flow added to the pipe will cause negative downstream hydraulic impacts.
The Project site will instead drain to the existing box culvert via a proposed 30-inch RCP public storm drain system. The onsite storm drain system will “bubble out” into the public storm drain system.
Once sufficient head is lost, a proposed pump will dry the pipe. The storm drain will convey flows southerly in Trumble Road then westerly through Illinois Avenue, running parallel to the existing Line “A”. A proposed headwall will allow for both Line “A” and the proposed RCP to connect to the RCB.
Because stormwater flows generated on the Project Site would continue to be conveyed to the existing and planned storm drains, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the local area that could potentially create erosion or siltation.
Additionally, as listed under Response 10(a), the Proposed Project would comply with the City’s urban runoff requirements as stated in the Menifee Municipal Code and the NPDES permit, which would reduce the quantity and level of pollutants from runoff leaving the Project Site. Therefore, potential impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? As described under Response 10 (c)(i), proposed grading and construction activities on the Project Site would alter the site’s existing drainage patterns but would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the surrounding area. In particular, the drainage system is designed to flood the Truck court in the 100-year storm plan. The specific flood zone designation of any potential truck court location is crucial due to the potential impact of flooding on operations and overall safety. As mentioned above, the Preliminary Hydrology Study concluded that with the proposed infiltration system, the peak stormwater runoff flows discharged from the Project Site would be similar to existing conditions (Thienes Engineering, Inc. 2024). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff discharged from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
As described under Response 10 (c)(i), proposed grading and construction activities on the Project Site would alter the site’s existing drainage patterns but would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the local area. Furthermore, the Project’s storm drain system would be sized and designed in accordance with the RCFCWCD standards to ensure that Project flows would be discharged from the site at a volume and rate that can be accommodated by existing and planned downstream storm drain facilities. Therefore, the Project would not create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of any existing or planned stormwater drainage system and impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed under Response 10 (a), the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s urban runoff requirements as stated in the Menifee Municipal Code and with the requirements of NPDES and the SWPPP, which identify BMPs to be incorporated into the Project to ensure construction and operational activities of the Project would not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Therefore, with mandatory compliance with the Menifee Municipal Code, NPDES and LID Report, the Project would not create or contribute substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project Site is not located in a flood hazard zone (FEMA 2025). The Project Site is not located in an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. The nearest dam is the Perris Dam, located approximately ten miles to the north. According to the City’s General Plan Flood City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
74 Hazards Map and Dam Failure Maps, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazards area or area of dam failure inundation pathway (Menifee 2013c). Therefore, the Project Site is not expected to be inundated by flood flows and the Project would not impede flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to flood maps prepared by FEMA, the Project Site is not located in a flood hazard zone (FEMA 2024). As just mentioned, the Project Site is not located in an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. The nearest dam is the Perris Dam, located approximately ten miles to the north. According to the City’s General Plan Flood Hazards Map, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazards area (Menifee 2013c).
Seismic events can induce oscillations, called seiches, of the surface of an inland body of water that vary in period from a few minutes to several hours. Tsunamis are large sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The Project Site is not subject to tsunami due to its elevation and distance (over 40 miles) from the ocean. There is low possibility of a seiche from these reservoirs affecting the Project Site given the Project’s location to the nearest reservoir (approximately ten miles). Therefore, no impact would occur related to seiches and tsunamis. As the Project Site is located outside of a flood hazard zone, and there is no risk of seiches and tsunami, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to release pollutants due to Project inundation and no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Project Site overlies the West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a high priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) pursuant to Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in 2023. As discussed under Response 10(b), the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and therefore is not expected to conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. Therefore, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
a. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The Proposed Project is within an area of Menifee comprised largely of light industrial uses. Light industrial uses are located to the west, north, and east of the Project Site. Single-family residential units are located immediately south of the Project Site. Additional residential land uses exist east of the Project Site, and across Highway 74 to the north. The Proposed Project is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and would not divide an established community. The Proposed Project is located entirely within the property and does not propose a structure, roadway, or flood control channel which would divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Project Site is designated EDC in the City’s General Plan and zoned Economic Development Corridor – Northern Gateway (EDC-NG). The Proposed Project does not include changes to either designation or is consistent with the City’s General Plan. In addition, as described in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
76 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? According to the General Plan Draft EIR, no known significant mineral resources have been designated in the City of Menifee (Menifee 2013). Historically, operation of the Project Site has included mining activities and soil hauling for import and export purposes. The Project Site was historically used for sand and gravel mining for use in local construction projects. However, such historical mining was never permitted by either the City of Menifee, or by the County of Riverside.
All such mining activities have ceased. Under the Proposed Project, no mining or soil import activities would occur. Since the historical mining at the Project Site was never permitted, and the site was never delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other local land use plan, the site is not considered to be a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, Proposed Project impacts relating to mineral resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
78 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. 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? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Noise Overview
Sound is a vibration that transmits through a medium (such as a gas, liquid, or solid) created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound in the context of environmental analysis consists of sound that transmits through the open air from a source to a receiver. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds.
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 hertz (Hz) and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hz (Kinsler, et al. 1999). Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as the doubling of vehicle traffic volumes, results in a noise level increase of 3 dB, whereas dividing the energy in half results in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy, i.e., the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources, each containing the same sound energy, do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy human ear can detect changes (either increases or decreases) of 3 dBA, which is City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
80 recognized as being barely perceptible to most people. Similarly, a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible and a change of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud (Crocker 2007).
Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.
The noise descriptors used in this analysis are the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) and the maximum noise level (Lmax). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period.
Propagation
Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound level decreases or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance away from the source. Other sources of noise, such as a road or railroad, are not a single, stationary point source of sound but rather, emanate noise from a line (“line” source. The drop-off rate for a line source is 3 dBA for each doubling of distance away from the source.
The propagation of noise is also affected by the absorption characteristics of the ground: a hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, provides no absorption/attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance result simply from the geometric spreading of the source (i.e., 3 or 6 dBA reduction per doubling of distance for a point source or line source, respectively). Conversely, a soft site, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees, may provide additional absorption/attenuation, potentially reducing noise levels an additional 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance away from the source (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of reduction provided by the “shielding” of these features depends on the size of the structure/s, the location of the structure/s relative to the noise source and receivers, and the frequency content of the noise levels.
Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight between a noise source and receiver will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011).
Vibration Overview
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. Vibration levels are usually expressed as a single-number measure of vibration magnitude in terms of velocity or acceleration, which describes the severity of the vibration without the frequency variable. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, usually measured in Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81
inches per second. Since it is related to the stresses experienced by buildings, PPV is often used in monitoring and controlling construction vibration to prevent damage to nearby structures.
Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibrations. In a sense, the human body responds to an average vibration amplitude (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Because vibration waves are oscillatory, the net average of a vibration signal is zero.
Thus, the RMS amplitude is used to describe the “smoothed” vibration amplitude (FTA 2018). The RMS of a signal is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, usually measured in inches per second. The average is typically calculated over a one-second period. The RMS amplitude is always less than the PPV and is always positive. Decibel notation is used to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. The abbreviation “VdB” is used in this analysis for “vibration decibels” to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibels.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. The City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element defines noise-sensitive land uses as “schools, hospitals, rest homes, long term care facilities, mental care facilities, residential uses, libraries, passive recreation uses, places of worship, and other land uses where an excessive amount of noise would interfere with normal activities” (City of Menifee 2012). The closest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include residences located approximately 530 feet to the northeast and 400 feet to the east, the Set Free Ministries church located 1,750 feet to the southeast, and adjacent residences located to the south and southwest of the nearest project boundary.
Project Noise Setting
The primary noise source in the vicinity of the Project Site is vehicular traffic along Trumble Road and SR-74, as well as commuter trains traveling along the nearby portion of the Metrolink rail system that runs along the northeastern project site boundary. To characterize ambient noise levels at and near the Project Site, two short-term, 15-minute sound level measurements were conducted on May 7, 2025, and two long-term, 24-hour measurements were conducted on May 7 through 8, 2025. A SoftdB Piccolo-II, ANSI Type 2 integrating sound level meter was used to conduct the measurements. The sound level meter was field-calibrated before and after the measurements.
Short-term measurement 1 (ST-1) was conducted off-site along Watson Road and approximately 100 feet from the centerline of SR 74; ST-2 was conducted along Trumble Road at the northwestern corner of the Project Site. Long-term measurement 1 (LT-1) was conducted near the single-family residences located at the southwest corner of the project site; LT-2 was conducted along the northeastern portion of the Project Site. Short-term noise measurement results are shown in Table 17. Long-term noise measurement results for LT-1 and LT-2 are shown in Table 18 and Table 19, respectively.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
82 Table 17 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
Measurement
Name
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
L10
(dBA)
L50
(dBA)
L90
(dBA)
ST-1
Along Watson
Road and
approximately 100
feet from the
centerline of SR 74
11:50 a.m. – 12:05 p.m. 63.9 48.0 74.7 66.9 62.5 56.3
ST-2
Along Trumble
Road at the
northwestern
corner of the
project site
11:29 – 11:44 a.m. 59.9 50.8 73.9 62.4 54.5 52.9
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level; Lmin = minimum sound level; Lmax = maximum sound level; L10 = sound level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period; L50 = sound level exceeded for 50% of the measurement period; L90 = sound level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period
Approximate noise measurement locations shown on Figure 3. See Appendix G for noise measurement data.
Table 18 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results (LT-1)
Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
LT-1 – Southwest Corner of Project Site, May 7–8, 2025
1:00 p.m. 49.9 1:00 a.m. 47.1
2:00 p.m. 51.8 2:00 a.m. 45.9
3:00 p.m. 50.3 3:00 a.m. 50.3
4:00 p.m. 52.6 4:00 a.m. 54.2
5:00 p.m. 56.6 5:00 a.m. 56.2
6:00 p.m. 52.5 6:00 a.m. 55.2
7:00 p.m. 52.5 7:00 a.m. 51.2
8:00 p.m. 61.1 8:00 a.m. 49.8
9:00 p.m. 50.1 9:00 a.m. 51.9
10:00 p.m. 50.0 10:00 a.m. 51.3
11:00 p.m. 50.1 11:00 a.m. 51.8
12:00 a.m. 48.5 12:00 p.m. 49.1
24-Hour Noise Level (dBA CNEL) 59.3
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Approximate noise measurement locations shown on Figure 3. See Appendix G for graphical noise measurement data.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83
Table 19 Long-Term Noise Measurement Results (LT-2)
Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
LT-2 – Northeast Corner of Project Site, May 7–8, 2025
12:00 p.m. 57.6 12:00 a.m. 50.5
1:00 p.m. 55.3 1:00 a.m. 49.8
2:00 p.m. 53.7 2:00 a.m. 50.9
3:00 p.m. 53.7 3:00 a.m. 54.3
4:00 p.m. 55.7 4:00 a.m. 56.8
5:00 p.m. 56.1 5:00 a.m. 59.5
6:00 p.m. 56.5 6:00 a.m. 58.4
7:00 p.m. 58.4 7:00 a.m. 55.6
8:00 p.m. 55.6 8:00 a.m. 55.7
9:00 p.m. 54.1 9:00 a.m. 55.9
10:00 p.m. 52.3 10:00 a.m. 55.6
11:00 p.m. 52.2 11:00 a.m. 55.8
24-Hour Noise Level (dBA CNEL) 61.8
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Approximate noise measurement locations shown on Figure 3. See Appendix G for graphical noise measurement data.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
84 Figure 3 Approximate Noise Measurement Locations
-..
[c:::JJ Project Boundary
0 Long-Term Noise Measurement Location
Short-Term Noise Measurement Location
175
Feet
350 N
A
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2025.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85
Regulatory Setting
City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element
The Noise Element of the Menifee General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at the control and abatement of environmental noise and protection of citizens from excessive exposure to noise (City of Menifee 2012). The Noise Element specifies the maximum allowable unmitigated exterior noise levels for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. In addition, the Noise Element identifies several polices to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and establishes noise level requirements for all land uses. To protect City residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element contains the following goals related to the Project:
Goal N-1: Noise-sensitive land uses are protected from excessive noise and vibration exposure.
Policy N-1.2 Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the City's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes.
Policy N-1.3 Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.
Policy N-1.7 Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in Table 20 below to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Table 20 Stationary Noise Source Standards
Land Use Time of Day Interior Standards Exterior Standards Residential
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 dBA Leq (10 minute) 45 dBA Leq (10 minute) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 dBA Leq (10 minute) 65 dBA Leq (10 minute) Source: City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element, Table N-1 (City of Menifee 2012).
Policy N-1.9 Limit the development of new noise-producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors and require that new noise-producing land be designed with adequate noise abatement measures.
Policy N-1.13 Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction.
Goal N-2: Minimal noise spillover from noise-generating uses, such as agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses into adjoining noise-sensitive uses.
Policy N-2.1 Require that new developments abutting residentially designated properties that operate stationary noise sources such as industrial, commercial, entertainment, institutional uses, hospitals, or large hotels, be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise-generating features to the extent feasible.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
86 Policy N-2.2 Require commercial or industrial truck delivery hours to be limited when adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses unless there is no feasible alternative or there are overriding transportation benefits.
City of Menifee Development Code
The City of Menifee Development Code (City of Menifee 2023) establishes standards for construction noise, operational noise, and vibration produced within the City.
Section 9.210.060(C) of the City of Menifee Development Code establishes noise control regulations within the City for construction. Specifically, the following are exempt from the City’s noise standards:
▪ Private construction projects, with or without a Building Permit, located one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling.
▪ Private construction projects, with or without a building permit, located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, provided that construction only occurs Mondays through Saturdays between the hours 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Furthermore, construction is prohibited on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
Section 9.210.060(D) of the Menifee Development Code reiterates the noise standards established in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, stating that no person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior and interior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 20.
Section 9.210.070 of the Menifee Development Code provides exemptions to the Code for certain vibration sources, specifying that “[v]ibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction is exempted from this standard” (City of Menifee 2023).
Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual The City of Menifee does not have established quantitative limits on construction noise and vibration and exempts these noise sources if they occur within allowable days and hours. However, to present a comprehensive environmental review of potential noise and vibration impacts during construction of the proposed project, the criteria recommended by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual were used to evaluate noise and vibration levels during construction of the project. This document provides criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction according to affected land use type and vibration impacts based on preventing minor architectural (i.e., non-structural) damage to nearby structures. Construction noise and vibration limits are shown in Table 21 and Table 22, respectively.
Table 21 FTA Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use
Leq, equip (8-hour), dBA
Day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Residential 80 70
Commercial 85 85
Industrial 90 90
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87
Source: FTA 2018
Table 22 FTA Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second Source: FTA 2018
Methodology
Construction Noise
Temporary noise levels caused by construction activity would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. For a construction noise assessment, construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. As a rule, stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixed-power operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Conversely, mobile equipment moves around the construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Noise impacts from stationary equipment are assessed from the center of the equipment, while noise impacts from mobile construction equipment are assessed from the center of the equipment activity area (e.g., construction site). Due to the complex and mobile nature of construction activity within a project site, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual document recommends evaluating construction noise impacts from all equipment at the center of the construction site, stating that the distance variable in its recommended construction noise calculation “assumes that all equipment operates at the center of the project” (FTA 2018). For purposes of this analysis, the center of the project site was assumed to be located at the approximate center of the proposed warehouse building.
Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FWHA 2006). Typical construction projects have long-term noise averages that are lower than louder short-term noise events due to equipment moving around the site, work breaks, and idle time. Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix depending on the work to be carried out during that phase. Accordingly, each phase also has its own noise characteristics; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others, while others may have more intermittent, high-impact noise levels. The maximum hourly Leq of each phase is determined by combining the Leq contributions from each piece of equipment used in that phase (FTA 2018).
Project construction would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Noise levels generated during each phase of construction were estimated based on the default equipment list generated by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) for a project of this type and size as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis. For a conservative evaluation of noise impacts, it was assumed that all equipment during each phase would be operating simultaneously.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
88 Operational Noise
ONSITE STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
Implementation of the Project would introduce additional onsite stationary sources of noise during operation, which would primarily be rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment (i.e., packaged heat pump units) and loading docks. There would be 13 rooftop packaged heat pumps located on the rooftop of the proposed building. Heat pumps would be Trane WSJ300 units, which have a sound power level of 93 dBA according to manufacturer specifications (included as Appendix G). Heat pumps were assumed to operate continuously 24 hours a day for a conservative estimate of potential noise impacts.
The Project would include 33 loading docks located along the eastern building facade. Reference noise levels for loading docks were based on noise measurements conducted of truck unloading/docking activity, which produces a sound pressure level of 63 dBA Leq at 50 feet away (Michael Baker International 2018). Approximately half (17) of the 33 loading docks were conservatively modeled to be operating simultaneously and were modeled under the scenario that every other loading dock would be operating at a given time. It is assumed that loading dock activity would only occur during daytime hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.).
Operational noise generated by the Project was modeled and calculated using SoundPLAN, Version
9.0, a three-dimensional noise modeling program that incorporates noise propagation algorithms and reference sound levels published by various government agencies and the scientific community.
Noise sources, receivers, structures, and site features are input using three-dimensional coordinates and noise levels are calculated at selected receivers or throughout a user-defined study area.
Rooftop HVAC equipment and loading dock areas were modeled as “point” sources, which have a characteristic noise attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance away from the source.
OFFSITE MOBILE NOISE SOURCES (TRAFFIC)
During operation, the Project would introduce additional vehicle trips on nearby roadways (primarily Trumble Road, Ethanac Road, I-215, and SR 74) due to worker and delivery trips to and from the site. The relative noise increases on these roadways associated with the Project were determined by comparing the existing daily vehicle trips with the expected number of daily vehicle trips during project operation. It was conservatively assumed that all trips would occur on each analyzed roadway. Existing daily vehicle trip information for Trumble Road and Ethanac Road is based on data from Replica, while information for I-215 and SR 74 is based on data from Caltrans.
The Project is expected to generate 561 total vehicle trips on these roadways based on the Traffic Study prepared for the Project (Translutions, Inc. 2025). A comparison of existing and Project- generated daily vehicle trip volumes used in this analysis are presented in Table 23.
Table 23 Comparison of Existing and Project-Generated Daily Vehicle Trips Roadway Segment
Existing Daily
Vehicle Trips1,2
Project Operational
Trips3
Existing + Project
Operational Trips
Trumble Road Between Illinois
Avenue and SR 74 1,425
561
1,986
Ethanac Road Between Trumble Road
and Sherman Road 17,130 17,691
I-215 Between Ethanac Road
and SR 74 198,00 198,561
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89
SR 74 Between I-215 and
Ethanac Road 36,000 36,561
1 Daily trips for Trumble Road and Ethanac Road based on data from Replica. 2 Annual average daily traffic (AADT) data for I-215 and SR 74 based on data from Caltrans. 3 Daily project operational trips from Traffic Study prepared for the project.
Source: Replica 2024; Caltrans 2022; Translutions, Inc. 2025.
To assess the increase in ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors along these roadways, traffic noise increases were determined using the following equation:
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑁𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 = 10 ∗ 𝐿𝑂𝐺 ( 𝐹𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑠)
A project will normally cause a significant traffic noise impact if project-generated traffic volumes were to increase the ambient noise level above a certain threshold for adjoining areas. Because the City does not establish quantitative limits for assessing traffic noise impacts, a threshold 3 dBA was used, which is considered the minimum change in noise level perceptible to the average human ear (Crocker 2007). Therefore, off-site mobile noise impacts (i.e., traffic noise impacts) associated with the Project would be considered significant if Project-generated traffic were to increase noise levels on nearby roadways by 3 dBA or more.
Vibration
The Proposed Project would not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation.
Therefore, construction activities represent the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting nearby structures. The greatest sources of vibration expected during construction would include large earthmoving equipment (such as graders, dozers, and backhoes) and paving equipment (such as a vibratory roller). Typical vibration levels produced by these equipment types are shown in Table 24. Vibration levels generated at nearby structures were calculated based on these reference vibration levels and distances these equipment types would be used relative to nearby structures.
Table 24 Typical Vibration Levels Produced by Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate Vibration Level (in/sec PPV) at 25 feet Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large1 Earthmoving Equipment (e.g., Grader, Dozer,
Excavator, Backhoe, etc.) 0.089
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity 1 “Large” equipment refers to equipment rated at 100 horsepower or greater.
Source: FTA 2018.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
90 Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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? Construction Noise
Following the methodology discussed above, construction noise levels were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors for all phases of construction. Table 25 shows the estimated noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors during each phase of construction.
Table 25 Estimated Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors by Construction Phase dBA Leq (8-hour)
Construction Phase
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Residences
to the
southwest
Residences
to the south
Residences
to the east
Residences
to the
northeast
Set Free
Ministries
Church to the
southeast
Distance (ft) 50 500 645 940 1,000 2,400
Site Preparation1 86 66 64 61 60 53
Grading2 87 67 65 62 61 54
Building Construction3 85 65 63 60 59 52
Paving4 87 67 65 62 61 53
Architectural Coating5 76 56 54 51 50 42
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level; RCNM = Roadway Construction Noise Model 1 Site Preparation phase was evaluated assuming simultaneous operation of two dozers, one tractor, one backhoe, and one front end loader.
2 Grading phase was evaluated assuming simultaneous operation of one excavator, one grader, one dozer, one scraper, and one backhoe.
3 Building Construction phase was evaluated assuming simultaneous operation of one crane, one generator, one forklift, one tractor, and one backhoe.
4 Paving phase was evaluated assuming simultaneous operation of two pavers, one pavement scarifier, and two rollers. 5 Architectural Coating phase was evaluated assuming operation of one air compressor.
See Appendix G for construction noise modeling outputs.
As shown in Table 25, construction noise levels would not exceed 80 dBA Leq (8-hr) at the nearest sensitive receptors. Additionally, per information provided by the Project applicant, construction would occur between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would therefore not conflict with the City’s Development Code regulations. Therefore, temporary noise impacts associated with construction of the Project would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
ONSITE STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
Following the methodology discussed above, noise levels generated by operation of the Proposed Project modeled using SoundPLAN. Operational noise levels associated with each onsite stationary noise source, as well as combined operation of onsite stationary noise sources, are discussed in the following sections.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91
Loading Dock Activity
Operational noise levels associated with the Project’s loading dock activity at nearby sensitive receptors are summarized in Table 26. Noise contours associated with operation of loading docks are shown in Figure 4. As shown in Table 26 and Figure 4, noise levels generated by loading dock activity would not exceed the City’s daytime noise threshold of 65 dBA at the nearest residential receptors and noise impacts associated with the Project’s loading dock activity would be less than significant.
Table 26 Summary of Operational Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors (Loading Dock Activity)
Receiver Name Receiver Description
Modeled Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Applicable Noise
Threshold
(dBA)1
Exceeds Daytime
Noise Threshold?
R1
Single-family residence along
Trumble Road located along
western project site boundary
29 65 No
R2
Single-family residence along
Trumble Road located along
western project site boundary
29 65 No
R3
Single-family residence along
Trumble Road located at
southwestern corner of project
site boundary
29 65 No
R4
Single-family residence along
Illinois Ave located along
southern project site boundary
30 65 No
R5
Single-family residence along
Illinois Ave located along
southern project site boundary
31 65 No
R6
Single-family residence along
Illinois Ave located along
southern project site boundary
35 65 No
R7
Single-family residence located at
intersection of Van Buren Ave
and Sherman Rd, east of project
site
48 65 No
R8
Nearest single-family residence
along Monroe Ave, located
northeast of project site and
across from SR 74
46 65 No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level 1 Pursuant to the City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element noise standards, the applicable daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise threshold is 65 dBA at residential properties.
2 Noise contours associated with loading dock activity are shown in Figure 4.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
92 Figure 4 Operational Noise Contours (Loading Dock Activity)
[c:::::::::J) Project Boundary
- Build ing
• Point source
Q Receiver
Noise Contours (dBA Leq)
- 35
- 40
- 45
- so
- 55
- 60
- 65
- 70
- 75
D 175
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensars © 2025. '
(@ ~
1/)
.. ,
4§
I
<f1lJ
'
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93
HVAC Equipment
Operational noise levels associated with the project’s HVAC equipment at nearby sensitive receptors are summarized in Table 27. Noise contours associated with operation of HVAC equipment are shown in Figure 5. As shown in Table 27 and Figure 5, noise levels generated by HVAC equipment would not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime noise thresholds of 65 and 45 dBA, respectively, at the nearest residential receptors and noise impacts associated with the Project’s HVAC equipment would be less than significant.
Table 27 Summary of Operational Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors (HVAC Equipment)
Receiver
Name Receiver Description
Modeled
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Daytime Noise
Threshold
(dBA)1
Nighttime
Noise
Threshold
(dBA)
Exceeds
Daytime
Noise
Threshold?
Exceeds
Nighttime
Noise
Threshold
R1
Single-family residence
along Trumble Road
located along western
project site boundary
42 65 45 No No
R2
Single-family residence
along Trumble Road
located along western
project site boundary
42 65 45 No No
R3
Single-family residence
along Trumble Road
located at southwestern
corner of project site
boundary
42 65 45 No No
R4
Single-family residence
along Illinois Ave
located along southern
project site boundary
40 65 45 No No
R5
Single-family residence
along Illinois Ave
located along southern
project site boundary
40 65 45 No No
R6
Single-family residence
along Illinois Ave
located along southern
project site boundary
42 65 45 No No
R7
Single-family residence
located at intersection
of Van Buren Ave and
Sherman Rd, east of
project site
42 65 45 No No
R8
Nearest single-family
residence along Monroe
Ave, located northeast
of project site and
across from SR 74
41 65 45 No No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
94 1 Pursuant to the City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element noise standards, the applicable daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise thresholds are 65 and 45 dBA, respectively, at residential properties. 2 Noise contours associated with HVAC equipment are shown in Figure 5.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95
Figure 5 Operational Noise Contours (HVAC Equipment)
[c:::::JJ Project Boundary
- Building
• Point source
Q Receiver
Noise Contours (dBA Leq)
35 40
D 175 350 N
A Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensars © 2025.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
96 Combined Onsite Stationary Noise
The Project’s onsite stationary noise sources may operate simultaneously and combine to generate increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. To account for this, the combined noise levels generated by loading activity and operation of HVAC equipment were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors. Loading dock activity would occur only during daytime hours, while HVAC equipment may operate during both daytime and nighttime hours. Therefore, combined noise levels associated with these sources would only occur during daytime hours. Combined noise levels associated with the Project’s onsite stationary noise sources are summarized in Table 28 and combined noise contours are shown in Figure 6. As shown in Table 28 and Figure 6, combined noise levels associated with the Project’s onsite stationary noise sources (i.e., loading dock activity and HVAC equipment) would not exceed the City’s daytime noise limit of 65 dBA. Therefore, combined operational noise impacts associated with the Project’s onsite stationary equipment would be less than significant.
Table 28 Summary of Combined Daytime Operational Noise Levels (Loading Dock Activity and HVAC Equipment)
Receiver Name Receiver Description
Modeled Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Applicable Noise
Threshold
(dBA)1
Exceeds Noise
Threshold?
R1
Single-family residence along
Trumble Road located along
western project site boundary
42 65 No
R2
Single-family residence along
Trumble Road located along
western project site boundary
42 65 No
R3
Single-family residence along
Trumble Road located at
southwestern corner of project
site boundary
42 65 No
R4
Single-family residence along
Illinois Ave located along
southern project site boundary
40 65 No
R5
Single-family residence along
Illinois Ave located along
southern project site boundary
41 65 No
R6
Single-family residence along
Illinois Ave located along
southern project site boundary
43 65 No
R7
Single-family residence located at
intersection of Van Buren Ave
and Sherman Rd, east of project
site
49 65 No
R8
Nearest single-family residence
along Monroe Ave, located
northeast of project site and
across from SR 74
47 65 No
dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level 1 Pursuant to the City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element noise standards, the applicable daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise threshold is 65 dBA at residential properties.
2 Combined noise contours associated with loading dock activity and HVAC equipment are shown in Figure 6.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97
Figure 6 Combined Daytime Operational Noise Contours (Loading Dock Activity and HVAC Equipment)
ic::::::::JJ Project Boundary
- Building
• Point source
Q Receiver
Noise Contours (dBA Leq)
- 35
- 40
- 45
- 50
- 55
- 60
- 65
- 70
- 75
0 175 350 N
A Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2025.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
98 OFFSITE MOBILE NOISE SOURCES (TRAFFIC)
Following the methodology discussed in the Figure 6 Combined Daytime Operational Noise Contours (Loading Dock Activity and HVAC Equipment)
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99
Offsite Mobile Noise Sources (Traffic) section, noise increases associated with Project-generated vehicle traffic on nearby roadways were estimated. The Project is expected to generate an lc:=JJ Project Boundary
- Building
• Point source
Q Receiver
Noise Contours (dBA Leq)
- 35
- 40
- 45
- so
- 55
- 60
- 65
- 70
- 75
0 175 350 N
A Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2015.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
100
additional 561 total daily vehicle trips on nearby roadways (assumed to occur primarily on Trumble Road, Ethanac Road, I-215, and SR 74). An increase of 861 daily vehicle trips on these roadways would result in noise increases of 2.1 dBA on Trumble Road, 0.2 dBA on Ethanac Road, less than 0.1 dBA on I-215, and 0.1 dBA on SR 74. Therefore, offsite traffic noise increases associated with the Project would not create a perceptible change in noise level of 3 dBA or more above the ambient noise level along these roadways, and offsite traffic noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction
Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration, such as pile driving and blasting, would not be conducted during construction of the project. Therefore, the greatest sources of vibration during project construction activities would be large earthmoving equipment (such as a grader, dozer, excavator, or backhoe) and a static roller. Based on the provided site plan, large earthmoving equipment may be used as close as within 20 feet from the nearest offsite structures (single-family residences located along Illinois Avenue, south of the project site). This type of equipment generates a vibration level of approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). At a distance of 20 feet, this type of equipment would generate vibration levels up to approximately 0.124 in/sec PPV,3 which would not exceed the FTA’s recommended threshold of 0.2 dBA in/sec PPV at residential structures. A static roller may be used as close as approximately 20 feet from the nearest offsite structures (single-family residences located along Illinois Avenue, south of the project site). This type of equipment generates a vibration level of approximately 0.05 in/sec PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet (IR McIver 2012). At a distance of 20 feet, this type of equipment would generate vibration levels up to approximately 0.07 in/sec PPV, which would also not exceed the FTA’s recommended threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV at residential structures. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with construction of the project would be less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the Project would not include any substantial sources of vibration. No vibration impacts during operation of the Project would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
3 PPVEquipment = PPVRef (25/D)n (in/sec), PPVRef = reference PPV at 25 feet, D = distance ,and n = 1.1 Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The closest public or public use airport to the project site is the Perris Valley Airport (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] location identifier [LID] L65), located approximately two miles northwest of the Project Site. The Project Site is not located within the noise contours of the airport (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2004). Therefore, workers in the Project vicinity would not be exposed to excessive aviation-related noise impacts and no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
102
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
As mentioned earlier, the Proposed Project would involve the construction of a warehouse. During operation, the Proposed Project would employ roughly 277 persons. However, these employed persons would likely be drawn from existing local workforce. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions estimated by SCAG for the City of Menifee. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth neither directly nor indirectly. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Project Site is a vacant, undeveloped lot, and no residences are present on the Project Site.
Construction of the Proposed Project would therefore not displace any housing or people. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
104
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical response services in the City of Menifee. Station No. 7 is located approximately 3.4 miles south of the proposed Project Site at 28349 Bradley Road. The Riverside County Fire Department in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves approximately 1.9 million residents over 7,200 square miles (Riverside County 2021). According to the Riverside County Fire Department Annual Report 2020, Station No. 7 responded to 6,585 service calls (Riverside County 2021). The Project would not have a significant impact on fire response times, because the Project is located within the existing service area of the Riverside County Fire Department.
Furthermore, the Project would be required to incorporate safety and security features, including fire sprinklers, alarm systems, and adequate access for emergency vehicles. Compliance with these requirements would lessen the demand for fire protection services at the Project Site, as compliance with these requirements can prevent fires from spreading and would help facilitate early responses and access to the site of the fire. No new or expanded fire protection facilities City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
106
would be required as a result of this Project. Impacts related to expansion of fire protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The City of Menifee Police Department employs 122 staff (Menifee 2024). The Menifee Police Department is located at 29714 Haun Road in Menifee, approximately 6.5 miles south of the proposed Project Site. No new or expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of this Project. The nature of the Proposed Project would not result in increased demand for police services as it is located within the existing service area. No new or expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of this Project. Impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The Proposed Project is located within the Romoland School District and Perris Union High School District. The nature of the Proposed Project would not generate additional demand on school facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Demand for park and recreational facilities typically result from residential development. The Proposed Project is the construction of a warehouse. The nature of the Proposed Project would not generate additional need for recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Demand for public services such as libraries or hospitals typically result from residential development. The Proposed Project involves the construction of a warehouse and related uses. The nature of the Proposed Project would not generate additional need for public service facilities.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107
NO IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
108
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
a. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Proposed Project does not include residential development that would create demand for park and recreational facilities. The Proposed Project involves the construction of a warehouse, which would likely employ the existing local workforce. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
110
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ ■ □ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■
A Traffic Study (Appendix H) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) screening (Appendix I) analysis were prepared in June of 2025, by Translutions, Inc., and incorporated by reference herein. The analysis below is partially based on the Traffic Study analysis and the CalEEMod results determined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Report (Appendix A).
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The City follows the City of Menifee Engineering Department LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (October 2020) for level of service analyses. The operational analysis includes a quantitative evaluation of the Project’s access and circulation operations. The study area, analysis scenarios, and analysis methodologies are based on the guidelines and on discussion with City staff. The approved scoping agreement, which is the basis of the Traffic Study, is included in Appendix A to the Traffic Study.
The information below is a short summary of the Traffic Study for the Proposed Project.
Construction
Construction of the Proposed Project would generate traffic for deliveries of equipment and materials to the Project Site as well as construction worker and vendor traffic. Construction-related vehicles would travel to and access the Project Site via Trumble Road. Construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the Project Site and are not expected to affect the performance of the City’s circulation system.
Construction traffic would be temporary, and the movement of construction equipment would be limited to the Project Site. Construction of the Proposed Project would not involve any vehicle or Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111
equipment staging on Antelope Road and the Project would not require any long-term lane closures on Antelope Road, as construction staging is not permitted in the public right-of-way. No public transit stops are located within the vicinity of the Project Site; thus, the Proposed Project would not impair public transit operations. In addition, Project construction and operation would not require temporary closures or alterations to the sidewalk or bike lanes on Menifee Road. Therefore, construction activities would not substantially interfere with the City’s circulation system.
Operation
Based on the trip generation and trip distribution of the Proposed Project, and based on discussion with City staff, the Traffic Report analyzes the following intersections and roadway segments for traffic operations:
Study Intersections
• Trumble Road / Watson Road
• Trumble Road / Driveway 1
• Trumble Road / Driveway 2
• Trumble Road / Illinois Avenue
• Trumble Road / Ethanac Road
• Trumble Road / SR-74
Roadway Segments
• Trumble Road from Watson Road to Driveway 1
• Trumble Road from Driveway 1 to Driveway 2
• Trumble Road from Driveway 2 to Illinois Avenue
• Trumble Road from Illinois Avenue to Ethanac Road
Existing Conditions
As shown in Traffic Report, an intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for existing conditions to determine current circulation system performance. As detailed in the Traffic Study, all existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels. Additionally, as shown in the Traffic Study, the study area roadway segments are currently operating at a satisfactory level of service.
Existing Plus Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Also, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service.
Opening Year Without Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours during the opening year. Also, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
112
Opening Year With Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Also, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service with Proposed Project conditions.
Opening Year Cumulative Without Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, and for the opening year cumulative without the Proposed Project, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the following intersection:
• Trumble Road and Ethanac Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours) The study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service.
Opening Year Cumulative with Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the below:
• Trumble Road and Ethanac Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours). This intersection also operates at an unsatisfactory level of service under opening year cumulative no Project conditions.
This intersection is shared by the Cities of Menifee and Perris. According to the City of Perris’ Guidelines “A cumulative impact is considered an indirect traffic impact when a study intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and the Project contributes 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour Project trips and causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.” Since the trips added by the Project at this intersection are more than 50 during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours and the delay added by the Project is more than 2 seconds, the impact at this intersection is considered to be an indirect impact.
Also, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service.
Horizon Year Without Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, and for the horizon year without the Proposed Project, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the following:
• Trumble Road and Ethanac Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours). • Watson Road and SR-74 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours).
The study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service.
Horizon Year With Project Conditions
According to the Traffic Study, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the exception of the below:
• Trumble Road and Ethanac Road (a.m. and p.m. peak hours). This intersection also operates at an unsatisfactory level of service under horizon year no Project conditions. This intersection is shared by the Cities of Menifee and Perris. According to the City of Perris’ Guidelines “A cumulative impact is considered an indirect traffic impact when a study Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113
intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service with the addition of cumulative/background traffic and the Project contributes 50 or more a.m. or p.m. peak hour Project trips and causes the intersection delay to increase by 2 seconds or more.” Since the trips added by the Project at this intersection are more than 50 during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours and the delay added by the Project is more than 2 seconds, the impact at this intersection is considered to be an indirect impact. The Project’s fair share is 2.71%. • Watson Road and SR-74 (a.m. and p.m. peak hours). This intersection also operates at an unsatisfactory level of service under horizon year no Project conditions. According to the City of Menifee’s Guidelines “If the Pre-Project condition is LOS E or F, and the Project adds 50 or more peak hour trips to the intersection or roadway segment, the impact would be considered a “cumulative” Project impact in which the Project would be required to contribute a fair share payment toward reducing the impact.” Since the trips added by the Project at this intersection are less than 50 during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the impact at this intersection is not considered to be a cumulative impact.
Also, the study area roadway segments are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level of service.
Mitigation Measures
Opening Year Cumulative Conditions Circulation Improvements Under opening year cumulative conditions, the following mitigation measure to intersection configuration is recommended to reduce potential impacts:
MM TRA-1 Intersection 5: Trumble Road and Ethanac Road
The Applicant shall pay its fair share obligation towards adding one eastbound through lane, one westbound through lane, one dedicated westbound right turn lane, one northbound left turn lane, one dedicated northbound right turn lane, and one dedicated southbound right turn lane. As stated earlier, since the trips added by the project at this intersection are more than 50 during the peak hours and the delay added by the Project is more than two seconds, the impact at this intersection is considered to be an indirect impact before implementation of the aforementioned through lanes.
In particular, the project’s fair share is 2.71%.
Horizon Year Conditions Circulation Improvements
Under opening year cumulative conditions, the following mitigation measure to intersection configuration is recommended to reduce potential impacts:
MM TRA-2 Intersection 6: Watson Road and Highway 74
The Applicant pay its fair share towards implementation of a traffic signal at the Watson Road and Highway 74 intersection. However, since the trips added by the Project at this intersection are less than 50 during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the impact at this intersection is not considered to be a cumulative impact. Nonetheless, in order to reduce impacts from the project to a less than significant level, the Project’s fair share cost towards development of that signal shall be 0.93%.
Significance After Mitigation
As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is forecast to generate 65 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 74 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 861 daily trips. Access to the Project will be provided via two City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
114
driveways on Trumble Road. Under existing and opening year (2026) conditions, all intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service. Under opening year cumulative (2026) conditions, the intersection of Trumble Road/Ethanac Road is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service under both without and with Project conditions. Under horizon year (2050) conditions, the intersections of Trumble Road/Ethanac Road and Watson Road/SR-74 are forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service under both without and with Project conditions. With the implementation of the circulation improvements identified as mitigation measures, all intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies appropriate criteria for evaluating transportation impacts. It states that land use projects with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact, and that projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. According to the Translutions VMT screening, the Proposed Project was evaluated using the WRCOG VMT screening tool and found to be located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1098. The Project’s baseline (2018) VMT per service population was calculated to be 32.96, which is below the County of Riverside General Plan buildout threshold of 33.6 VMT per service population. Therefore, the Project qualifies for screening under the Low VMT Area criterion. Although the Project exceeds the square footage threshold for the Project Type Screening (328,205 square feet versus the 63,000 square feet warehousing threshold), it still screens out of a full VMT analysis based on its location in a low VMT area. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s impacts to VMT compared to existing conditions and the impacts to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? Final Project Site plans would be subject to City review and approval which would ensure that Project driveway intersections and internal circulation are safe, with adequate sight distance, driveway widths and stop signs where necessary for entering and exiting the site. The final plans will also identify access routes to/from the Project Site and potential turning movement restrictions for City review and approval, as outlined in Appendix H. This would prevent any potential Project impacts caused by a design feature. The Proposed Project is the construction of a 328,205 square foot warehouse and would not create hazards due to incompatible uses and would be consistent with surrounding land uses. No new long-term (i.e., operational) driveways or roadway improvements are proposed under the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Proposed Project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access. As stated in the Traffic Study, Project Site access and circulation would provide adequate access, turning radius, and driveway width and spacing for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115
Fire Department’s requirements. Emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained during construction. No impact would occur regarding emergency access and no mitigation is required.
NO IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
116
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? □ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ ■ □ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Request for AB52 tribal consultation sent out 8/01/2022 to local tribes in the area (Pechanga Band of Indians, Agua Caliente, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, and Soboba). Pechanga officially requested tribal consultation for the project. The cultural report was sent to Pechanga and Soboba on 1/09/2025 along with the standard city cultural conditions of approval. The City met with Soboba on 1/28/2025 as part of ongoing quarterly meetings and Soboba agreed with implementing the agreed upon conditions of approval and had no further comments on the project. The City met with Pechanga on 5/15/2025 as a part of the ongoing quarterly meetings; the tribe agreed to implementing two conditions; 1) inadvertent finds and 2) discovery of human remains. Pechanga was previously on-site monitoring the filling of the pit and agreed to close out consultation on 5/16/2025 with the implementation of the aforementioned two conditions.
Nevertheless, there is a possibility of intact tribal cultural resources that exist at the depth of grading. Due to this uncertainty, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL2 have been incorporated (see Section 5, Cultural Resources, above) to address any previously undiscovered archaeological resources relating to TCRs encountered during Project implementation.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 ad 2 listed above in this MND are also applicable here.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
118
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119
EMWD provides water service to the City of Menifee, including the Proposed Project. EMWD has four sources of water supply: imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), local groundwater, and recycled water (EMWD 2021). In normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios presented by the 2020 EMWD Urban Water Management Plan, supply would meet demand under the normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios (EMWD 2021). EMWD is able to respond to supply shortages through implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). Based on the CalEEMod assumptions, the Proposed Project’s estimated water demand is approximately 76,448,185 gallons per year (234.77 acre feet per year [AFY]). According to the UWMP projections, 2045 water demand in the city is anticipated to be 251,500 AFY and 2045 supply is 251,500 AFY under normal year conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s water demand would represent less than 0.001 percent of the City’s anticipated water demand in 2045. Impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater generated at the Project Site would be collected at the Sun City Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and treated at the Perris Valley RWRF. The Proposed Project would generate minimal wastewater to be conveyed to the Perris Valley RWRF and would be well within the existing remaining treatment capacity of the Perris Valley RWRF.
The water and sewer system in Menifee is owned and operated by EMWD. Connections to local water and sewer mains associated with the Proposed Project would involve temporary and less than significant construction impacts that would occur in conjunction with other on-site improvements.
No additional improvements are needed to either sewer lines or treatment facilities to serve the Proposed Project. Standard connection fees would address any incremental impacts of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would be less than significant.
Electrical service to the Project Site is provided by SCE, which maintains substations and transmission lines throughout southern California, including the Valley Substation approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Project Site on Menifee Road. SCE provides natural gas service to the Project Site. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the Project would involve an increase in electricity and natural gas demand to serve the Project; however, this demand increase would not be a wasteful use of energy and is not anticipated to require additional electricity substations or natural gas storage/transmission facilities. Impacts with respect to new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) set a statewide goal for a 75 percent reduction in waste disposal by the year 2020 and established mandatory recycling for commercial businesses. The City is required to comply with this law and report their progress towards achieving the 75 percent reduction goal to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The City’s Public Works Department supplies residents, businesses, and institutions with waste carts for recyclables and green waste through their contract with the private waste hauler, Waste Management. The City of Menifee primarily utilizes three landfills: Badlands Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, and Lamb City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
120
Canyon Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2024). Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 82,300,000 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 7,800,000 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2059. El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 16,054 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 209,910,000 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 143,977,170 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in January 2051. Lamb Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day and a maximum capacity of 39,681,513 cubic yards. The remaining capacity is 19,242,950 cubic yards and it is scheduled to cease operation in April 2032.
According to CalEEMod (Appendix A), the Project would generate roughly 308 tons of solid waste per year (0.84 tons per day). The landfills serving the Project Site had a combined annual daily capacity of 26,054 tons per day and a combined maximum capacity of 331,891,513 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2025). The Project’s daily solid waste generation would account for less than 0.01 percent of the Project’s landfills’ daily maximum capacity. Thus, the Project’s solid waste generation would be minimal and would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.
The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and recycling, such as AB 341, through participation in existing City waste diversion programs.
Therefore, there would be a minimal increase in solid waste generation and there would be a less- than-significant impact to solid waste and waste facilities.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
122
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ ■ □
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ ■ □
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
A Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) is a mapped area that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high). While FHSZs do not predict when or where a wildfire will occur, they do identify areas where wildfire hazards could be more severe and therefore are of greater concern. FHSZs are meant to help limit wildfire damage to structures through planning, prevention, and mitigation activities/requirements that reduce risk. The FHSZs serve several purposes: they are used to designate areas where California’s wildland urban interface building codes apply to new buildings, they can be a factor in real estate disclosure, and they can help local governments consider fire hazard severity in the safety elements of their general plans.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123
According to the California FHSZ Viewer, the Project Site is not located in a VHFHSZ or state responsibility area (SRA) and the nearest VHFHSZ within an SRA is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Project Site (CALFIRE 2025). According to the Menifee General Plan’s Safety Element, the Project Site is not within a High Fire Hazard Area in a local responsibility area (LRA) (Menifee 2013c).
The Project involves the construction of a warehouse that would incrementally increase demand for fire protection services. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the Project Site is in a semi- urbanized area already served by the Riverside County Fire Department and would not have a significant impact on fire response times nor create a substantially greater need for additional fire protection services above current capacity.
As stated above, the nearest fire station is Station No. 7 located approximately 3.4 miles south of the Project Site and would provide emergency and evacuation services in the event of a fire.
Furthermore, all buildings would be constructed to meet the current building code fire safety requirements, including the 2022 CBC, the California Fire Code and the regulations pertaining to fire protection within Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 8.20. Construction of the Proposed Project would maintain emergency access to the site and on area roadways and would not include any components, such as roadway closures, which would interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation route. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to wildfires.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
As discussed under Response 20(a), the Project Site is not located in a VHFHSZ or within an SRA and the nearest VHFHSZ within an SRA is located approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site (CALFIRE 2025). The Project Site is not located within a local responsibility area (LRA) identified as Very High Fire Severity Zone but would comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code. The Project is also required to comply with Title 14 from the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
In particular, the Proposed Project would involve construction of a warehouse on a vacant, undeveloped site in a semi-urbanized area. The Proposed Project does not include any components that would exacerbate wildfire risk and risks to Project occupants would be mitigated through conformance with the California Fire Code, 2022 CBC, and California Health and Safety Code, which establish provisions for fire safety related to construction, maintenance and design of buildings, and land uses. The terrain of the Project Site is relatively flat as well, which minimizes the risk of post- fire slope instability, landslides, or significant erosion-related hazards.
Compliance with building and design regulations, which would be reviewed and approved during the Plan Check process, would reduce the wildfire risk impacts to a less-than-significant level.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
124
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? As mentioned above, according to the California FHSZ Viewer, the Project Site is not located in a VHFHSZ or SRA and the nearest VHFHSZ within an SRA is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Project Site (CALFIRE 2025). The Project Site is undeveloped but is within a semi-urbanized area served by existing infrastructure, including roads and utilities. As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the Project Site is in a semi-urbanized area already served by the Riverside County Fire Department and would not have a significant impact on fire response times nor create a substantially greater need for additional fire protection services above current capacity. The nearest fire station is Station No. 7 located approximately 3.4 miles south of the Project Site and would provide emergency and evacuation services in the event of a fire. The Project would be served by Trumble Road as the primary access road and the existing utilities in the Project area and would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure within FHSZs that may exacerbate fire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ □ ■ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The Project would not substantially impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section 1, Aesthetics, and would not result in excessive light or glare. The Project Site is located within an area of Menifee which includes industrial land to the north and east, commercial land to the west, and residential land to the south. Moreover, the Proposed Project may impact nesting birds. Compliance with state and local laws and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
126
Adverse impacts to historic, paleontological resources or human remains would be less than significant with compliance with state and local laws, and implementation of mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-1 would be implemented in the event any important archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during grading. This Project Site is not known to have any association with an important example of California’s history or prehistory. The environmental analysis provided in Section 3, Air Quality, concludes that impacts related to emissions of criteria pollutants and other air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Section 7, Geology and Soils, and Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, conclude that impacts related to GHG emissions, hydrology, and water quality would be less than significant.
Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items 1 thru 20, no evidence is presented that the Proposed Project would degrade the quality of the environment.
Impacts related to degradation of the environment and cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporation.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, CUL-1, GEO-1, and TRA-1 and TRA-2 are applicable.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As discussed throughout this IS-MND, implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. In all instances where the Project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce potential effects to less-than- significant levels.
Aesthetics
New development on the Project Site and in the surrounding area would change the existing character of the Project’s viewshed; however, all development in the immediate vicinity of the Project would be required to comply with the development regulations and design standards contained in the Menifee Municipal Code, which would ensure that minimum standards related to visual character and quality are met to preclude adverse aesthetic effects (e.g., size, scale, building materials, lighting). Accordingly, the Project’s aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact under this topic.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127
Air Quality
Based on SCAQMD guidance, any direct exceedance of a regional or localized threshold also is considered to be a cumulatively considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions below applicable regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively considerable. As discussed in the preceding analysis, the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional threshold for criteria pollutants during construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, Project-related construction and operation emissions are not cumulatively considerable.
Biological Resources
If the Proposed Project and other planned residential Projects in nearby neighborhoods are constructed during the bird nesting season, these projects could result in cumulative impacts to special status bird species and nesting birds within the vicinity of Project Site. However, all projects, including the Proposed Project, would be required to adhere to the provisions of the MBTA related to the protection of nesting birds. In addition, all projects would be required to comply with the biological resources policies and standards of the City’s Municipal Code which would minimize the potential for these projects to result in cumulative impacts to special status species, wetlands, wildlife movement, and biological resources protected by local policies and ordinances.
Furthermore, the Proposed Project was found to have less than significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities, riparian habitat, and adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and therefore would not combine with other projects to result in cumulative impacts to these resources.
Cultural Resources
Implementation of the Project has the potential to impact masked/buried archaeological resources on the Project Site and, therefore, would result in a significant cumulative impact in the event any of such resources were found on-site during construction. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require that if archaeological resources are discovered, work must stop, a qualified archaeologist must evaluate the find, and if significant, a data recovery plan must be implemented in coordination with a Native American representative, as appropriate. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL- 1, potential cumulative impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In addition, there is a remote potential for the recovery of human remains during ground-disturbing activities. With adherence to existing regulations, potential cumulative impacts would be reduced to less-than- significant levels.
Energy
The Project’s construction and operation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and would not obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. In addition, all cumulative projects would be required to comply with Title 24, which establishes standards for energy efficiency and “green” construction. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on energy.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
128
Geology and Soils
Potential effects related to geology and soils are inherently site-specific; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact under this topic. The Project would be designed to reduce the risk for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Furthermore, all development proposals would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that are in place to preclude adverse geology and soils effects, including effects related to strong seismic ground shaking, fault rupture, soil erosion, and hazardous soil conditions (e.g., liquefaction, expansive soils, landslides).
There is remote potential that paleontological resources are buried beneath the surface of the Project Site and could be impacted during construction. Other projects within region would similarly have the potential to impact unknown, subsurface paleontological resources during ground- disturbing activities. Therefore, the potential for development on the Project Site to impact subsurface paleontological resource deposits is a cumulatively considerable impact. However, application of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the Project’s cumulative impacts to less- than-significant levels.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global climate change (GCC) occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant GCC-related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The CEQA Guidelines also emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[f]). Accordingly, the analysis in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the GHG emissions related to the Project. As concluded under Responses 8(a) and 8(b), the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
There is potential that hazardous conditions beneath the surface of the Project Site could result in an impact during construction. Other projects within region could result in similar subsurface hazardous impacts during ground-disturbing activities due to past agricultural land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the potential for development on the Project Site to result in a potential hazardous impact is a cumulatively considerable impact. However, compliance with existing regulations would reduce the Project’s cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction and operation of the Project and other projects in the West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin would have the potential to result in a cumulative water quality impact, including erosion and sedimentation. However, in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, all development projects would be required to implement plans during construction and operation (e.g., SWPPP and WQMP) to minimize adverse effects to water quality, which would avoid a cumulatively considerable impact.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129
The Project and other projects in the West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in order to preclude flood hazards both on- and off- site. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would require on-site areas to be protected, at a minimum, from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and that proposed development would not expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. Accordingly, a cumulatively considerable effect related to flooding would not occur.
Land Use and Planning
The Project would not physically divide an established community, or conflict with applicable land use or planning documents; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use and planning.
Mineral Resources
The Project would have no impact on mineral resources. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact under this topic.
Noise
Overlapping construction activities associated with cumulative development projects in the nearby areas in conjunction with Proposed Project activities could result in cumulative noise impacts related to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels at the same noise-sensitive residences located throughout the area, especially during construction activities. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, the Proposed Project would not result in temporary noise levels in excess of the daytime construction noise threshold.
Population and Housing
The Project would not generate substantial population growth. Therefore, the Project would not implement a land use that generates unplanned new residents and would not require the construction of replacement housing. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to result in an adverse, cumulatively considerable environmental effect related to population and housing.
Public Services
All development projects in Menifee, including the Proposed Project, would require compliance with applicable policies and ordinances for fire prevention, protection, and safety. The Project would also incrementally increase demand for police protections services and would be required to pay the state-mandated school impact fees to offset the incremental increase in demand for new school facilities. Based on the foregoing, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to resident-serving public facilities such as schools, parks, libraries, and other public facilities or services.
Transportation
The Project would not conflict with any City policies addressing the circulation network and would not generate substantial VMT. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
130
nearby intersections. With these improvements, all intersection levels of service would be improved in the City and within the City of Perris, which has nearly cumulative developments. Nonetheless, the Project would not contribute to any cumulatively considerable adverse transportation effects, since improvements are proposed that all future projects would utilize.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known tribal cultural resources.
However, there is the remote potential that such resources are buried beneath the surface of the Project Site and could be impacted during construction. Other projects within the region would similarly have the potential to impact unknown, subsurface tribal cultural resources during ground- disturbing activities. Therefore, the potential for development on the Project Site to impact subsurface tribal cultural resources deposits is a cumulatively considerable impact. However, application of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the Project’s cumulative impacts to less- than-significant levels.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Project would require water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as solid waste disposal for building operation. Development of public utility infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers and jurisdictions with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation of infrastructure plans is intended to ensure that adequate public utility services and resources are available to serve both individual development projects and cumulative growth in the region. Each individual development project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility providers would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project and other developments. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to offset increased demand and assist in facility expansion and service improvements (at the time of need). Because of the utility planning and coordination activities described above, cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur.
Wildfire
The Project Site is not within an SRA or VHFHSZ according to CALFIRE and is not located within a High Fire Hazard Area according to the City of Menifee’s General Plan. However, in accordance with applicable State and local regulations, all development projects would be required to be constructed to meet the current building code fire safety requirements, including the 2022 CBC, the California Fire Code and to regulations pertaining to fire protection within Menifee Municipal Code Chapter
8.20 to minimize adverse effects to wildfire risk, which would avoid a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in adverse cumulative impacts associated with wildfire.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in analyses for air quality, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, the Proposed Project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse effects related to air quality, GHG emissions, hazardous materials, or noise.
Compliance with applicable rules and regulations would reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less-than-significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
132
This page intentionally left blank.
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133
References
Bibliography
Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed March 2025).
Menifee, City of. 2013a. City of Menifee General Plan EIR. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Environmental-Impact-Report. (Accessed March 2025). ______. 2013b. General Plan Community Design Element CD-2: Enhanced Landscape Corridors and Scenic Corridors. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1061/Exhibit_CD- 2_Corridors_HD0913?bidId= (accessed March 2025).
______. 2013c. City of Menifee General Plan. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/221/General-Plan. (Accessed March 2025).
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2025. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed March 2025).
Menifee, City of. 2013. General Plan Draft EIR. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1102/Ch-05-02-AG?bidId= (accessed March 2025).
Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf ______. 2023. Map of State and Federal Area Designation. Last modified: November 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations Menifee, City of. 2013. City of Menifee General Plan Circulation Element Traffic Study. January 21, 2013.
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1048/TrafficReport_HD0913?bidId= South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. _____. 2003. Final 2003 AQMP Appendix V. August 2003. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2003-air-quality-management- plan/2003-aqmp-appendix-v.pdf
______. 2009. Appendix C. Mass Rate LST Look Up Table. October 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
134
______. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 2017. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15 ______. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2022. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16 ______. 2023. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March 2023. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality- significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25
______. 2024. 2023 Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/historical-data-by-year/2023-air- quality-data-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2001. Employee Density Study Report.
Prepared by The Natelson Company. Los Angeles, CA. October 31, 2001. _____. 2020. Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. Adopted September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2024. Criteria Air Pollutants. Last Modified: July 30, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (December 2024).
Biological Resources
Menifee, City of. 2013. General Plan Draft EIR. Biological Resources. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1104/Ch-05-04-BIO?bidId= (accessed March 2025).
Cultural Resources
California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2025. California Historical Resources:
Riverside County. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/listedresources/ (accessed March 2025).
National Park Service. 2025. National Register of Historic Places. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm (accessed March 2025).
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2025 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project.
Energy
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/ California Energy Commission (CEC). California Energy Commission (CEC). 2024a “2022 Total System Electric Generation”. [webpage]. N.d. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/california-electricity-data/2022-total-system-electric- generation#:~:text=Total%20utility%2Dscale%20electric%20generation,from%2093%2C333 %20GWh%20in%202021. (accessed December 2024).
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135
_____. 2024b. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. [website]. N.d. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas- market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california (accessed December 2024). _____. 2024c. “Electricity Consumption by Entity”. [webpage]. N.d. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed December 2024). _____. 2024d. “Natural Gas Consumption by Entity”. [webpage]. N.d. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed December 2024). _____. 2024e. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. September 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 (accessed December 2024).
United States Energy Information Administration. 2024a. “Rankings: Total Energy Consumed per Capita, 2022 (million Btu). [website]. N.d. https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/ (accessed December 2024).
_____. 2024b. “California State Energy Profile”. [website]. N.d. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA (accessed December 2024).
Geology and Soils
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2025. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ (accessed March 2025).
California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-
36.pdf
Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.
Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006- 1217, scale 1:100,000.
Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1976. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
Paleobiology Database. 2024. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed December 2024)
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.
November 16, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf California Natural Resources Agency. 2019. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
136
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Menifee, City of. 2012. Safety Element S-7: Climate Adaptation. https://cityofmenifee.us/899/S-7- Climate-Adaptation-Resiliency
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. Connect SoCal (2024 - 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy).
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-final- complete-040424.pdf?1714175547
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD. 2008b. Attachment E – Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf
_____. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf (accessed October 2022).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597 ab693d008 (accessed March 2025).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025. Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Search (accessed March 2025).
California State Water Resources Board (SWRCB). 2025. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (Accessed March 2025).
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2025. Cortese List Data Resources. http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed March 2025).
Hydrology and Water Quality
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). 2021. Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.emwd.org/who-we-are/transparency-information/urban-water-management- plan. (Accessed March 2025).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2025. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd (accessed March 2025)
Menifee, City of. 2013a. City of Menifee General Plan EIR. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/262/Environmental-Impact-Report. (Accessed March 2025).
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 137
______. 2013b. General Plan Draft EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality. https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1109/Ch-05-09-HYD?bidId= (accessed March 2025).
______. 2013c. City of Menifee General Plan.
cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/20381/Complete-CIty-of-Menifee-General- Plan_060723?bidId=. (Accessed March 2025).
Mineral Resources
Menifee, City of. 2013. General Plan Draft EIR. Figure 5.11-1 Mineral Resource Zones. https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1111/Ch-05-11-MIN?bidId= (accessed March 2025).
Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf.
Crocker, Malcom J. (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471- 39599-7, Wiley-VCH. October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02).
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00. cfm (accessed October 2024).
______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed October 2024).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed October 2024).
Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. 1999.
Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
IR McIver. 2012. Ground vibration from road construction. May. NZ Transport Agency.
Menifee, City of. 2012. General Plan. January.
http://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/1063/2_Vision?bidId= ______. 2023. Menifee, CA Development Code. https://online.encodeplus.com/regs/menifee- ca/index.aspx
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://rcaluc.org/riverside-county-airport-land-use-compatibility-plan Translutions, Inc. 2025. Trumble Road and Watson Road Warehouse Traffic Study. May.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
138
Public Services
Menifee, City of. 2024. Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2023/2024. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/22187/2024-ACFR (accessed March 2025).
Riverside County Fire Department in Cooperation with CAL FIRE. 2021 Annual Report. https://www.rvcfire.org/pdf/administration/annual-
reports/AnnualReport_2020.pdf?v=8750 (accessed March 2025).
Transportation
Translutions The Transportation Solutions Company. 2025a. Trumble Road and Watson Road Warehouse Traffic Study.
________. 2025b. Trumble Road and Watson Road Warehouse VMT Screening Memorandum.
Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2025. Transported Solid Waste.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Statewide/TransportedSolid Waste (accessed March 2025).
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). 2021. Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.emwd.org/who-we-are/transparency-information/urban-water-management- plan. (Accessed March 2025).
Wildfire
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597 ab693d008 (accessed March 2025).
Menifee, City of. 2013. General Plan. Exhibit S-6: High Fire Hazard Areas. https://www.cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/14709/2_Safety_Exhibits_8-5_2021- 6---High-Fire-Hazard-Areas (accessed March 2025).
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 139
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Menifee. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, Project management, and quality control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Deanna Hansen, Vice President/Principal
Ryan Luckert, Senior Supervising Planner
Bill Vosti, Program Manager
Michael Huang, Planner
Lillie Colville, Planner
Data Sheets/appendices can be found on the City's website:
https://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents