Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 0 E a s t 1 s t S t r e e t , S u i t e 1 4 0 0 Los Ange les , Ca lifo rn ia 90012
213 7 8 8 4 8 4 2 O F F I C E A N D F A X
i n f o @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: July 7, 2026
To: Russell Brown, Senior Planner
City of Menifee - Community Development Department
Via: Email/PDF
From: Ryan Luckert, Senior Supervising Planner
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Subject: Review of Comments Received from Appeal of the Trumble and Watson MND Project – Final MND
This document provides a brief environmental review of the comments received to date regarding the appeal of the recently published Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Trumble and Watson project (“project” or “proposed project”) in the City of Menifee (City).
Introduction
As we understand it, the Final MND was approved by the Planning Commission for the City of Menifee on May 13, 2026, during the project’s entitlement hearing. The approval was subsequently appealed by several parties on May 20th and May 21st. As part of the appeal, several comments were concurrently submitted to the City for consideration in advance of the upcoming City Council appeal hearing.
This memorandum provides a review and evaluation of the comments submitted with the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, with the intent of assisting the City in its review and final determination.
Analysis of Appeal Comments
The following discussion addresses the comments submitted to the City along with the formal appeal filing. Comments not specifically discussed below are either outside the scope of the environmental analysis for the MND or were determined not to raise substantive environmental issues.
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance – May 20, 2026 (dated) This comment package focuses on several topics of discussion in order to justify its appeal of the development. Those issues are listed below consistent with the subheading of the document that accompanied the appeal.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson MND Project - Appeal Memo
The project Has Been Illegally Piecemealed in Violation of CEQA, and the City’s Responses Do Not Cure This Deficiency
The comment establishes that the project has been unlawfully segmented or piecemealed in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate the whole of the action when determining the scope of environmental review (CEQA Guidelines §15378). In this case, the project evaluated in the Final MND represents the complete and independent project proposed for approval, and no known related phases or actions have been deferred or excluded from environmental analysis, including the previous MNDs for the project site.
The project is a stand-alone warehouse development that:
• Has independent utility,
• Does not rely on any future phases or related projects to function, and • Is not part of a larger coordinated program or phased development plan that would require consolidated environmental review.
The environmental analysis in the Final MND considers all components of the project and evaluates both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative impacts, consistent with CEQA Guidelines.
The analysis also accounts for growth-inducing effects and regional development trends, as appropriate.
Therefore, the environmental document does not defer or omit analysis of impacts that should have been considered as part of a larger development project.
The Air Quality and Health Risk Analysis is Inadequate, and the City’s Responses Do Not Cure The Deficiency
The comment asserts that the air quality and health risk analysis prepared for the proposed project is inadequate. The Final MND includes a comprehensive air quality assessment prepared in accordance with applicable CEQA Guidelines and the most current methodologies recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Riverside County, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The analysis evaluates both project-specific and regional emissions associated with construction and operational activities of the proposed warehouse development.
The air quality analysis quantifies criteria pollutant emissions (e.g., NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO, VOCs) using accepted modeling tools and emission factors and compares those emissions to established SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds (LTS). In particular, the Final MND qualitatively considered toxic air contaminants (TACs) emissions LTS.
That said, a site-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was voluntarily conducted as part of the Final MND process to evaluate potential impacts associated with TACs, including diesel particulate matter, which is the primary concern for warehouse projects. The HRA utilizes SCAQMD-recommended modeling protocols, including the use of approved dispersion models, conservative exposure assumptions, and current OEHHA risk assessment guidance. The analysis evaluates both nearby residential and worker receptor exposure and compares the results to SCAQMD-recommended thresholds for cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and acute hazard index. The results of the HRA demonstrate that health risks associated with project-related emissions would be below applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance and therefore would not result in a significant impact.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson MND Project - Appeal Memo
Also, it should be noted that the LSTs are voluntary and the LST emissions are well below the look-up thresholds and the 100 lbs/day threshold for similar analysis concludes LTS for the proposed project without providing a dispersion modeling analysis.
The MND Fails to Analyze Environmental Justice Impacts as Required by SB1000, and The City’s Responses Dismiss This Obligation Without Legal Basis
The comment states that the Final MND fails to analyze environmental justice impacts as required by Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), and that the City has improperly dismissed this requirement.
SB 1000 requires that jurisdictions incorporate an Environmental Justice element or related goals, policies, and objectives into their General Plans to address the needs of disadvantaged communities.
CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s potential physical environmental impacts, including air quality, noise, traffic, hazards, and other resource areas. The Final MND for the project evaluates these issue areas using established CEQA thresholds and methodologies.
Overall, the project is consistent with the City of Menifee General Plan. CEQA Guidelines §15183 provides that projects consistent with the development density and intensity established by an adopted General Plan for which an EIR was certified generally do not require additional environmental review for impacts that were already analyzed in that program-level document, except as necessary to examine project-specific effects. The Final MND evaluates the project consistent with CEQA requirements and applicable regulatory guidance, including assessment of localized and cumulative impacts. The analysis does not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts that would disproportionately affect nearby populations, including any sensitive receptors.
The Project Description is Not Incomplete and Inadequate, and the City’s Responses Do Not Cure The Deficiency
The comment asserts that the Project Description mentioned in the Final MND is incomplete and inadequate under CEQA. CEQA requires that a project description provide a clear and accurate description of the whole of the action to allow for meaningful environmental review, as stated earlier.
The Final MND for the project includes a detailed description of the project’s location, size, proposed uses, operational characteristics, and required discretionary approvals.
The Project Description is sufficiently detailed to support the environmental analysis presented in the Final MND. It provides stable and finite parameters that form the basis for the technical analyses, including traffic, air quality, and noise. The environmental analysis evaluates the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the project as described and does not defer or omit any known components of the project. CEQA does not require a project description to include every design detail; rather, it must include enough information to permit an informed evaluation of environmental effects. The Final MND satisfies this requirement.
The VMT Analysis Is Legally Deficient, and the City’s Responses Do Not Cure The Deficiency The comment asserts that the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is legally deficient. The VMT analysis was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 and applicable State (OPR) and local guidance. It uses accepted methodologies and appropriate thresholds to evaluate project- generated travel, including employee and truck trips associated with warehouse uses.
The analysis in the Final MND demonstrates that the proposed project would not result in significant VMT impacts, or that such impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with applicable measures. The traffic report relies on reasonable assumptions and substantial evidence consistent with City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson MND Project - Appeal Memo
CEQA requirements. The comment does not identify specific errors in the methodology or analysis.
CEQA requires a good-faith, evidence-based evaluation and not realization.
The MND Fails to Address Housing Crisis Act Conflicts, and the City’s Responses Do Not Cure The Deficiency
The comment stresses that the Final MND fails to address potential conflicts with the Housing Crisis Act (HCA). The HCA governs limitations on the reduction of housing capacity and certain actions affecting housing development. It does not impose independent analytical requirements under CEQA for project- level environmental documents such as an MND.
The project evaluated in the Final MND is a warehouse development and does not propose the reduction or demolition of existing residential units, nor does it conflict with any applicable housing element policies regarding housing capacity. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning, which have been planned and evaluated at a programmatic level, including consideration of housing needs.
The MND Fails to Provide An Adequate General Plan and Regional Plan Consistency Analysis The comment asserts that the Final MND fails to provide an adequate analysis of consistency with the City’s General Plan and applicable regional plans. The Final MND includes an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, including applicable land use designations, development standards, and relevant goals and policies. The proposed project is consistent with the designated land use and zoning for the site and therefore aligns with the City’s planned development framework.
CEQA does not require an exhaustive policy-by-policy analysis; rather, it requires sufficient information to determine whether a project would conflict with adopted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Final MND satisfies this requirement by identifying and evaluating applicable policies relevant to environmental topics.
The Final MND’s Responses to Comments Are Systematically Inadequate Under CEQA Section 15088 The comment asserts that the Final MND’s responses to comments are systematically inadequate under CEQA Guidelines §15088. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines §15088 requires that a lead agency evaluate and respond to comments raising significant environmental issues. The responses must demonstrate that the agency considered the comments, but they are not required to provide exhaustive discussion or repetition of information already contained in the environmental document.
The Final MND included written responses to all comments received during the public review period that raised environmental issues. The responses appropriately clarify, supplement, or reference the analysis contained in the Final MND, consistent with CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires a good-faith, reasoned response, not agreement with the commenter or the preparation of new analysis where none is warranted. The Final MND satisfies this standard by addressing the substance of the comments and explaining why the conclusions of the environmental analysis remain valid.
Conclusion
In summary, Rincon did not find any specific evidence that would reverse the conclusions outlined in the Final MND prepared for this proposed project. Additionally, Rincon did not find any evidence that the document would be required to be recirculated or that an Environmental Impact Report would be required, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.