Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project
Plot Plan PLN22-0190
Final 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
April 2026
EXHIBIT "C"
Table of Contents
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Content and Organization of the Final MND .................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Public Review and Responses to Comments .................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Organization of the Responses to Comments ................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Project Decision Process ................................................................................................. 1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 2-1
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................................................................... 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comment Letters
Appendix B Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C Queueing and Peak Hours Analysis
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1
1 Introduction
This Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final MND) has been prepared by the City of Menifee, as Lead Agency, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.). The purpose of this document is to present the results of the Lead Agency’s consideration of all comments received during the public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft MND), and to provide the final environmental determination for the Proposed Project.
CEQA requires public agencies to evaluate whether a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and to prepare an appropriate environmental document that discloses the level of potential environmental impacts. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the Proposed Project to determine whether any aspect of the Project, either individually or cumulatively, could result in significant environmental impacts. The IS determined that, although the Project could result in potentially significant environmental effects, all such effects would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, preparation of an MND, rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), is appropriate under CEQA.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15073, the Draft MND was circulated for public review for the required period. During this time, agencies, organizations, and members of the public were provided an opportunity to comment on the environmental analysis and the findings presented in the Draft MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15074(b), the Lead Agency is required to consider the Draft MND together with any comments received during the public review process prior to taking action on the project.
This Final MND includes:
• A summary and reproduction of all comments received on the Draft MND; • The Lead Agency’s responses to those comments, demonstrating good-faith consideration of all public input;
• The finalized mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) required by CEQA Guidelines §15074(d).
The Final MND, together with the Draft MND, technical studies, and all written comments, collectively comprise the administrative record that the Lead Agency’s decision-making body will rely upon in determining whether to adopt the Final MND and approve the Project.
1.1 Content and Organization of the Final MND
The Final MND (this document) summarizes the project information presented in the Draft MND and contains responses to comments on environmental issues received from agencies, organizations, and individuals who reviewed the Draft MND. The contents of the Draft MND, in addition to the following chapters, together constitute the Final MND as required by the CEQA Guidelines.
• Chapter 1 – Introduction. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Final MND and the environmental review process.
1-2
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
• Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments. During the public review period for the Draft MND, the City received 8 comment letters. This chapter contains summaries of these comment letters and the City’s responses to those comments that raise significant environmental points. A list of individuals, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft MND is provided within this section.
• Chapter 3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared in compliance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091(d) and 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
1.2 Public Review and Responses to Comments
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft MND was circulated for public review and comment to responsible agencies and interested parties as well as members of the public. Comment letters received on the Draft MND are provided in their entirety in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments.
Responses to each of the comments received are provided in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, of this document as part of the Final MND.
1.3 Organization of the Responses to Comments
Responses are not required for comments regarding the merits of the proposed project or regarding issues not related to the Project’s environmental impacts. Several of the comments on the Draft MND state the commenter’s preferences regarding the design or approval of the Proposed Project, potential economic impacts, or provide general statements concerning the content of the Draft MND. Detailed responses are not warranted or required by CEQA for comments that do not address environmental issues related to the proposed project. Such instances are noted in the responses.
The city will review all comments received, including those that do not warrant a response under CEQA, before considering certification of the Final MND or approval of the Proposed Project.
Each comment has been reproduced with individual comments bracketed and numbered according to the type of commenter (agency, organization, and individual) with responses following each comment.
1.4 Project Decision Process
This document and the Draft MND, as amended through responses to comments, together constitute the Final MND, which will be considered by the city prior to a decision on whether to approve the project. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), has been included as part of Chapter 3, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final MND and will be adopted by the city in conjunction with any project approval.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
This section of the Final MND contains the comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft MND, which started on October 8, 2025 and concluded on November 6, 2025. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared to address comments received on environmental issues during this review period.
2.1 Comments on the Draft MND
The City of Menifee received eight comment letters on the Draft MND. The commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received and the author of the comment letter.
Letter No. and Commenter
1 Anh Truong, PE, Senior Utilities Engineer, California Public Utilities Commission 2 Vashon Simien, Blum, Collins, & Ho, LLP
3 Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager, City of Perris
4 Harrison Beck, Staff Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity 5 Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR, South Coast Air Quality Management District
6 Janki Patel, Local Development Review – Division of Transportation Planning, California Department of Transportation
7 Steven Piepkorn, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance 8 Jackie Vega, Urban Regional Planner I, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters are numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter A1).
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Anh Truong, PE, Senior Utilities Engineer, California Public Utilities Commission DATE: October 27, 2025
Response 1.1
The commenter expresses appreciation for their inclusion in the environmental review process and provides a summary of the Proposed Project.
That said, this comment does not contain a substantive comment on the analysis or conclusions of the Draft MND. Accordingly, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 1.2
The commenter recommends that the city evaluate potential impacts associated with increased vehicular and pedestrian activity at the existing at-grade highway-rail crossing and should also consider additional improvements.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment and has recorded if for consideration. The Proposed Project would utilize the existing roadway network, including Watson Road, and no modifications to the existing rail crossing were identified as necessary to accommodate Project related traffic. As described in Section 17, Transportation, of the Draft MND, the analysis prepared for the Project evaluated potential traffic impacts associated with Project-generated trips and concluded that the Project would not result in significant transportation impacts. Improvements to the rail crossing or adjacent roadway infrastructure, if required, would be subject to review and approval by the city and other authorities, including the rail operator and applicable transportation authorities. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft MND, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to the existing rail crossing. Accordingly, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 1.3
This comment states that any crossing modifications would require authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) through a General Order Request. At this time, the Project does not propose any physical changes to the nearby existing rail crossing that would independently result in significant environmental impacts. Should any crossing modifications become necessary during final design or permitting, the CPUC will review any proposed modifications for safety compliance and ensure consistency with GO 88-B. The comment and recommended program have been acknowledged, but no changes to the Draft MND are necessary.
Response 1.4
This comment simply notes RCEB's appreciation for the chance to respond to the Draft MND. With that, no revision to the Draft MND is required.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Vashon Simien, Blum, Collins, & Ho, LLP
DATE: November 4, 2025
Response 2.1
The comment expresses appreciation for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft MND for the Proposed Project and requests to be added to the Project notification list for future environmental documents, public notices, and hearings.
The city acknowledges the comment and appreciates the participation of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance in the CEQA review process. The request to be added to the Project notification list has been noted, and the commenter will be included on the distribution list for future notices related to the Project in accordance with CEQA requirements. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
The attachment to this letter is also recognized and that letter supports the comments, below, and has been responded to, accoridngly, throughout the below detailed responses.
Response 2.2
The commenter provides a summary of the Proposed Project, including the size of the warehouse building, office space, loading docks, and parking provided on the Project Site.
The city acknowledges and has noted the comment for the record. The description generally reflects the information provided in the Draft MND regarding the proposed development, including building size, loading docks, and parking supply. The comment does not raise a specific concern or request revisions to the environmental analysis. Therefore, no changes to the Project Description or environmental analysis in the Draft MND are required.
Response 2.3
The commenter asserts that the Draft MND improperly segments or “piecemeals” the Proposed Project by separating site preparation activities and other nearby development Projects. As a result, the commenter contends that all related activities and developments should be evaluated as a single project under CEQA.
The city acknowledges the comment but disagrees that the environmental review improperly segments the Project. The Draft MND evaluates the Proposed Project, including construction and operational activities associated with full development of the Project Site. Prior grading permits and associated environmental review (previous MNDs) addressed specific grading activities (export and fill) and were evaluated independently in accordance with CEQA requirements applicable at the time of approval. The proposed warehouse development represents a separate discretionary project with its own scope of work, environmental analysis, and approvals, which were unknown at the time of preparation of the previous environmental documents for the site. CEQA requires analysis of reasonably predictable connected actions; however, the development projects referenced by the commenter are separate developments subject to their own environmental review processes. Additionally, the Draft MND also evaluates cumulative impacts consistent with City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
CEQA requirements, which considers the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Thus, the environmental analysis in the Draft MND appropriately evaluates the Proposed Project and does not improperly segment Project components. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are necessary.
Response 2.4
The commenter states that the Draft MND does not include sufficiently detailed or legible Project plans. The city disagrees with this assertion. The Draft MND includes a description of the Proposed Project and supporting technical documentation sufficient to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15124 and 15151.
CEQA requires that environmental documents contain sufficient detail to enable decision-makers and the public to understand the environmental consequences of a project; it does not require the inclusion of all engineering or construction-level design drawings. No revisions to the Draft MND are required in response to this comment.
Response 2.5
The commenter states that states that the Draft MND does not adequately include environmental justice issues in reviewing potential cumulative impacts from the Project. The comment cites several statistics indicating air pollution and socioeconomic conditions within the Project’s census tract.
The commenter also suggests that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software because it does not reflect the 2022 or 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The comment claims that this represents an inadequate analysis of energy impacts in compliance with Title 24.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees that the analysis is inadequate. With regard to environmental justice issues, the Draft MND evaluated operational emissions, including diesel particulate matter associated with truck traffic, using the CalEEMod modeling tool and applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds. The analysis concluded that Project-related emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds and would therefore result in less than significant impacts. The analysis of localized air quality impacts has been revised to incorporate the findings of the Project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared by Rincon Consultants (2026) and attached as Appendix B to this Final MND. Further discussion of health risk is included in responses
4.7 and 4.8, below.
The City of Menifee disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that CalEEMod is not the appropriate model for analyzing the Project’s energy impacts. The CalEEMod model is widely recognized by planning agencies and local jurisdictions as the recommended software for CEQA analysis. While the commenter lists examples of other modeling software, such examples are not relevant to the Project’s CEQA review process. Furthermore, the commenter misconstrues CalEEMod’s exclusion of 2022 and 2025 Title 24 Standards as a form of underreporting; however, these codes are more stringent than those utilized for energy and emissions estimates in the Draft MND. Regardless of the model used for CEQA analysis, the Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Standards at the time of environmental review. The Draft MND clearly states that the Project would adhere to the 2025 Title 24 Standards. Therefore, the Draft MND’s analysis represents a conservative quantification of energy use and provides sufficient evidence to support a less than significant conclusion.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response 2.6
The commenter states that the Project Site is located within the March Air Reserve Base (MARB)/Inland Port Airport Compatibility Zone D and asserts that the Draft MND does not discuss review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The City of Menifee recognizes the comment and has noted it for the record. The Proposed Project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable airport land use compatibility requirements, including review by RCALUC, as required. The RCALUC have reviewed the Project and submitted a comment letter during the public review period. The Project will also be subject to applicable FAA regulations related to building height and potential hazards to air navigation, if applicable. The Draft MND also evaluated potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts and determined that the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 2.7
The comment states that the Draft MND does not adequately analyze the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan Land Use Buildout Scenario or regional planning documents, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees that the analysis is inadequate. The Project Site is designated Economic Development Corridor - Northern Gateway (EDC-NG) in the City’s General Plan, which allows employment-generating industrial and business park uses. In addition to the Project Site being fully disturbed, the Project is consistent with the permitted uses and development standards for this designation. With that, the Proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with applicable General Plan policies and zoning regulations and does not require a General Plan amendment.
The Draft MND evaluated the Project’s potential environmental impacts and determined that the Project would not result in significant impacts related to land use or planning and is consistent with long range planning goals. Accordingly, the Draft MND provides an adequate evaluation of land use and planning considerations under CEQA, and no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions are needed.
Response 2.8
The commenter states that the Draft MND does not include a consistency analysis with all applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations intended to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 11, Land Use, the Draft MND evaluates the Proposed Project for consistency with the City’s General Plan land use designation and applicable development standards. Please refer to Response 2.7, above, for more information. The General Plan goals and policies referenced by the commenter provide policy direction for environmental protection, air quality improvement, and greenhouse gas reduction. The Draft MND evaluated the Project’s potential impacts related to air quality (Section 3), greenhouse gas emissions (Section 8), and climate considerations using accepted methodologies and thresholds. The analysis concluded that these impacts would be less than significant.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Based on the analysis presented in the Draft MND, the Project would not conflict with applicable General Plan policies related to environmental protection or climate considerations. Therefore, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 2.9
The comment states that the Project conflicts with provisions of the Housing Crisis Act (SB330/SB8) and may reduce residential development capacity under the City’s General Plan land use designation. The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees that the Draft MND insufficiently evaluates population and housing impacts. As mentioned in Response 2.7, above, the Project Site is designated for EDC-NG uses under the City’s General Plan, which allows for employment-generating commercial and industrial development. Please refer to Response 2.7 and
2.8 for additional information.
What’s more, the Draft MND also evaluated population and housing impacts in Section 14, Population and Housing, of the Draft MND and concluded that the Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. Project employment estimates are typical of warehouse operations and represent a small portion of the city’s projected employment growth.
Accordingly, the Draft MND provides an adequate evaluation of population and housing impacts under CEQA, and no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions are needed.
Response 2.10
The comment suggests that the impacts of the Draft MND are misrepresented and that the Project would create geometric hazards and emergency access issues. The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees that the Draft MND insufficiently evaluates VMT and related transportation impacts.
As stated in the Draft MND, and 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. As a result, 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), were found to be less than significant.
Additionally, Project site plans and potential geometric issues 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 of the Draft MND. This would prevent any potential Project impacts caused by a design feature. Finally, the Proposed Project is required to comply with Fire Department requirements for adequate access. As stated in the Traffic Study to the Draft MND, Project Site access and circulation would provide adequate access, turning radius, and driveway width and spacing for emergency vehicles, consistent with the Fire Department’s requirements.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Accordingly, the Draft MND provides an adequate evaluation of VMT and transportation impacts under CEQA, and preparation of an EIR is not required.
Response 2.11
The commenter states that the Draft MND does not adequately evaluate cumulative impacts or the Project’s relationship to General Plan buildout assumptions and regional growth forecasts. The city acknowledges the comment but disagrees with the assertion that the cumulative analysis is inadequate. The Draft MND evaluates the Proposed Project within the context of applicable planning documents, including the City’s General Plan and regional growth projections. The Project Site is designated for industrial and employment-generating uses under the City’s planning framework. The Project’s FAR and anticipated employment levels are within the range of industrial development anticipated under the city’s planning documents. Regional growth forecasts prepared by SCAG are intended as planning tools and do not establish project-level limits on employment or development. The Draft MND also considers cumulative impacts in Section 21 in accordance with CEQA requirements and concludes that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Accordingly, the Draft MND provides an adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts under CEQA, and preparation of an EIR is not required.
Response 2.12
The commenter states that the Draft MND is inadequate and requests that the city prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project. The commenter also requests to be added to the Project notification list for future environmental documents, notices, and public hearings.
The city acknowledges the comment but disagrees that preparation of an EIR is required. The Draft MND determined that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the identified mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations.
Therefore, preparation of an EIR is not required under CEQA.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Patricia Brenes, Planning Manager, City of Perris DATE: November 6, 2025
Response 3.1
The comment states a summary of the Proposed Project and expresses concern that the Draft MND does not adequately analyze potential traffic and transportation impacts. The commenter also encourages the city to consider development practices consistent with AB98 to reduce potential impacts to nearby communities.
The city acknowledges the City of Perris’ interest in the environmental review process and appreciates the comments provided. The Draft MND evaluated potential traffic and transportation impacts in Section 17, Transportation, of the Draft MND based on a traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project by Translutions. The analysis concluded that the Project would not result in significant transportation impacts and would comply with applicable city, regional, and state transportation standards. Overall, under existing and opening year conditions, all intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS. Under opening year cumulative 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 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. As discussed in the Draft MND, the implementation of the circulation improvements identified as mitigation measures, all intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service.
Specific comments regarding traffic analysis and recommended measures are addressed in the responses provided in the following sections of this document. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this introductory comment.
Response 3.2
The commenter mentions that the traffic study for the Project is required to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Project and realignment of Watson Road based on both the City of Menifee and the City of Perris LOA criteria.
The City of Menifee recognizes the comment and has noted it for the record. Per the Project description, the Project will not include high-cube fulfillment center uses as stated by the commenter. Also, it is the understanding of the Draft MND that both driveways can be used by cars and trucks when looking at Project trip distribution. To note, this was part of the scoping agreement sent to both the City of Menifee and the City of Perris. Additionally, upon testing, even if all trips are assigned to one driveway, the LOS under Horizon Year Conditions was found to be LOS B.
The commenter also states the Draft MND should also verity the list of cumulative projects with the City of Perris. It should be noted that the list of related projects were provided by the City of Perris, as noted in the Draft MND.
With regard to existing traffic volumes, the overall traffic volumes were collected by Counts Unlimited when Trumble Road and Highway 74 were open.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
The commenter also notes circulation improvements identified in the Draft MND and their fair share percentage. Fair shares are almost never based on Opening year volumes, especially for locations where the pre-Project LOS is unacceptable since it would violate Government Code 66000 and the requirements for Nexus and Rough Proportionality set by Nollan and Dolan. In addition, the widening of Ethanac Road is included in the TUMF. To note, fair share for Watson Road and SR-75 are based on the Horizon Year.
The comment goes on to ask for a formal access analysis, truck turning exhibit, and queueing analysis as part of the Project and this Final MND. A formal access analysis and turning radii will be presented as part of the plan check process during Project approval, if required by the city. These types of documents are not typically presented within the environmental clearance document.
However, a queueing analysis has been prepared and is attached as Appendix C to this Final MND, for informational purposes.
Finally, the commenter has asked that existing peak hour factors be used for all LOS calculation in both and existing and opening year scenarios. To comply with this request, the Project applicant has prepared a peak hour warrant analysis, which is attached as Appendix C to this Final MND.
It should be noted that final site design and operational details will continue to be evaluated through the city’s project review process to ensure consistency with applicable city requirements.
Thus, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 3.3
The commenter encourages the City of Menifee to apply development standards consistent with AB98, including landscape setbacks and buffering trees adjacent to nearby sensitive receptors.
The City of Menifee recognizes the comment and has noted it for the record. AB98 establishes development standards for certain warehouse Projects; however, the applicability and implementation of AB98 are governed by state law and the specific provisions of the statute. The Proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable state and local regulations in effect at the time of Project approval and building permit issuance. Additionally, the Draft MND evaluated potential impacts related to land use compatibility, noise, air quality, and other environmental topics, including the proximity of nearby residential uses. The additional measures recommended by the commenter have been noted for the record and will be taken into consideration during the review process. At this time, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 3.4
The commenter mentions that the Proposed Project does not comply with certain provisions of the City of Menifee’s Industrial Good Neighbor Policies related to setbacks from sensitive receptors, truck queuing, and separation of truck and passenger vehicle access. The city acknowledges the comment for the record. The Industrial Good Neighbor Policies are intended to provide design guidance for industrial development projects. The Proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with applicable city development standards and policies as part of the city’s discretionary review process. The Project incorporates setbacks, landscaping, and on-site circulation features designed to accommodate truck and passenger vehicle activity while minimizing potential conflicts and impacts to adjacent land uses, as noted by the commenter. The Project also includes on-site truck queuing areas to prevent trucks from staging on public streets. Please see Appendix C City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
for a detailed analysis of truck queueing, which has been provided as part of the Final MND from Translutions. Final site design and operational details will continue to be evaluated through the city’s project review process to ensure consistency with applicable city requirements. Thus, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 3.5
The City acknowledges the City of Perris's request to receive all future Project notices pursuant to CEQA and Title 7 of the California Government Code. The City of Perris will be added to the Project distribution list and will receive all subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearing notifications, and notices of determination associated with Plot Plan No. PLN22-0190.
The City of Menifee thanks the City of Perris for its thorough engagement in the environmental review process. The comments provided regarding traffic and transportation impacts, AB98 compliance, sensitive receptor buffers, and Industrial Good Neighbor Policy consistency have been carefully considered.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Harrison Beck, Staff Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity DATE: Unknown – Via Email
Response 4.1
This comment provides an introduction stating that the letter is submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and expresses concern that the Draft MND does not adequately analyze or mitigate the Project’s potential environmental impacts. The commenter requests that the city prepare an EIR for the Project.
The city acknowledges the commenter’s statement and appreciates the interest of the Center for Biological Diversity in the environmental review process. The comments regarding specific environmental issues raised in the letter are addressed in the responses provided throughout this document. As discussed in the Draft MND and supporting technical analyses, the City determined that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the identified mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations.
Response 4.2
The commenter states that the city must prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project based on the “fair argument” standard under CEQA and contends that the Project may result in significant impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and other environmental topics.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees with the assertion. The Draft MND prepared for the Project evaluated potential environmental impacts across all applicable resource areas, including air quality (Section 3), greenhouse gas emissions (Section 8), and noise (Section 13).
Based on the analysis presented in the Draft MND, the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the identified mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations. Accordingly, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are needed.
Response 4.3
The commenter states that the Draft MND inadequately analyzes the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions. The comment suggests that the Draft MND underestimates Project-related GHG emissions. The comment provides a summary of climate change impacts and legislation in the State of California, in addition to relevant case law pertaining to GHG analysis under CEQA. However, the comment serves to provide context to subsequent comments and does not raise any specific significant environmental issues with the Draft MND. Specific concerns are discussed in further detail in subsequent comments below.
Response 4.4
The commenter states that the Project’s GHG emissions are underestimated in the Draft MND, specifically with regard to transportation emissions. The comment indicates that the nearest major ports are approximately 80 miles from the Project site, and the Project’s warehouse use could City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
include truck travel to these ports. The comment suggests that trip length assumptions within the Draft MND should be supported by substantial evidence.
The comment also suggests that the Project’s Trip Generation Estimate Memorandum is unsubstantiated and that the Project’s trip generation rate is unverifiable with the information provided in the Draft MND. The commenter contends that the Project’s trip rate would be higher than what was analyzed, resulting in higher GHG emissions.
The comment also suggests that the Draft MND’s reference to CARB programs and policies pertaining to low-emission and zero-emission trucks places misplaced reliance on CARB regulations, thereby overestimating GHG reductions.
This comment has been acknowledged, and the analysis has been revised to utilize truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which recommends the use of a 14.2 mile trip length for class 4-7 trucks (LHDT1/2 and MHDT) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (HHDT). As such, a weighted average truck trip distance of 29.62 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix. Additionally, it should be noted that these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to port destinations, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter.
With regard to the Project’s estimated trip generation, the Draft MND clearly references the Trip Generation Estimate Memorandum prepared by Translutions (2025). The trip generation estimates contained therein served as the basis for transportation-related emissions analysis in the Draft MND. The information provided in the MND is fully verifiable with the contents of the Project- specific Trip Generation Estimate Memorandum, the contents of which were prepared in accordance with industrywide standard practices and guidelines. The commenter’s speculation that trips may exceed the reported values is not supportable because the Project could equally as likely generate fewer trips than estimated.
With regard to the Draft MND’s reference to CARB programs, the commenter incorrectly asserts that the analysis is reliant upon CARB programs pertaining to electric truck sales. While these CARB programs are acknowledged in the analysis, they are not utilized to support any form of quantitative analysis and are not determinant factors in arriving at a significance conclusion. Nonetheless, given that these programs are aimed at sales of new vehicles, it can be ascertained that future vehicle fleet mixes would include some form of electric vehicles as the enforcement and development of these programs continue.
Response 4.5
The commenter states that the Project should implement mitigation measures to reduce operational GHG emissions. The commenter cites several examples of solar and solar offsetting programs used as mitigation for other projects in the SCAQMD region.
As noted by the commenter, the Project would include a 150 kilowatt solar array, thereby offsetting a portion of the Project’s onsite energy demand. While the provided examples of mitigation measures for other projects are noted, there is no mechanism within CEQA that would require the Project to implement such measures for this Project.
As discussed in Section 6, Energy, of the Draft MND, the Project would be required to comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which 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, City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Additionally, the Project would be served by SCE, which is required to increase its share of renewable energy procurement pursuant to SB 100 requirements. The City of Menifee, as the lead agency, has not adopted any regulations or policies mandating the use of onsite solar to offset a project’s entire electrical demand.
Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation measures are not part of the original Project design, but instead are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original Project design (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4(a) and 15370.). As demonstrated in the Draft MND and subsequent revisions, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions. Therefore, additional mitigation is not required.
Response 4.6
The commenter provides a summary of warehouse uses and their capacity to generate air pollutant emissions. The commenter explains the types of pollutants emitted by warehouse uses and summarizes their health impacts on nearby communities.
Although the commenter introduces their concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft MND, this comment is ultimately a summary of details provided within the main body of their letter. More detailed responses to each of the overarching topics raised by the commenter are addressed throughout Responses 4.7 and 4.8.
Response 4.7
The commenter claims that the Draft MND does not disclose assumptions that were made to estimate trip lengths for Project-related truck activity. Additionally, the comment asserts that the Draft MND failed to adequately analyze localized health impacts related to air pollutant emissions.
With regard to trip length assumptions, the Draft MND’s air quality analysis clearly indicates that operational trip lengths are based on model defaults from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod trip lengths are based on regional data and land use types and are relied upon as standard practice when estimating Project emissions. Nonetheless, as discussed in Response 4.4, the analysis has been revised to conservatively utilize truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which recommends the use of a 14.2 mile trip length for class 4-7 trucks (LHDT1/2 and MHDT) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (HHDT).
Additionally, it should be noted that these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to port destinations, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter.
With regard to localized health impacts, an HRA was prepared by Rincon Consultants (2026) to quantify health impacts from both construction and operation of the Proposed Project. As shown therein, Project construction and operation would not exceed applicable health risk thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Given the results of this refined, quantitative analysis of health risk, it can be concluded that the Project would not result in significant health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Accordingly, this impact determination supports the City’s preparation of an MND, rather than an EIR.
Response 4.8
The commenter asserts that the Draft MND inadequately evaluates potential emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with Project-related truck traffic and contends that the analysis City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
improperly relies on guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook.
The reference to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook was provided for general land use compatibility guidance and not as a regulatory threshold of significance. As discussed in Response
4.7 above, an HRA was prepared by Rincon Consultants (2026) to quantify health impacts from both construction and operation of the Proposed Project. As shown therein, Project construction and operation would not exceed applicable health risk thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Given the results of this refined, quantitative analysis of health risk, it can be concluded that Toxic Air Contaminants emitted by the Project would not result in significant health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Response 4.9
The commenter asserts that the Project may result in significant air quality impacts and recommends preparation of an EIR and adoption of additional mitigation measures, including installation of on-site solar energy systems, requirements for electric vehicles and trucks, and off- site mitigation programs such as air filtration and community health programs.
The City of Menifee disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that mitigation must be imposed upon the Project to reduce air emissions. As discussed in responses 4.7 and 4.8 above, an HRA was prepared by Rincon Consultants (2026) to quantify health impacts from both construction and operation of the Proposed Project. As shown therein, Project construction and operation would not exceed applicable health risk thresholds established by the SCAQMD. The Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts and no mitigation is required pursuant to CEQA.
Response 4.10
The comment states that the Draft MND fails to adequately analyze Project-related noise impacts and contends that an EIR should be prepared.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees with the assertion. The Draft MND includes an analysis of potential construction and operational noise impacts based on established noise modeling methodologies and applicable City standards (Section 13 of the Draft MND). The analysis evaluated potential noise exposure at nearby sensitive receptors and determined that construction noise would be temporary and that operational noise levels would not exceed applicable thresholds. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft MND, Project-related noise impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable regulations and standards.
Therefore, preparation of an EIR is not required under CEQA, and no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are needed.
Response 4.11
The comment mentions that the Project could cause serious harm to people from excessive noise and that the Draft MND fails to acknowledge noise impacts to wildlife and biological resources. The commenter also asserts that the Draft MND does not adequately analyze these potential effects.
The Draft MND evaluated potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project using applicable City noise standards and commonly accepted noise analysis methodologies. Section 13, Noise, of the Draft MND determined that Project-related noise levels would not exceed applicable thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors and that construction noise City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be temporary in nature. With respect to biological resources, the Draft MND evaluated potential impacts to sensitive habitats and special-status species several times throughout the years. The Project Site is a previously disturbed area (gravel pit) within a developed setting. Due to the analysis in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Draft MND, operational noise levels associated with the Project are not expected to substantially affect wildlife or sensitive species.
What’s more, the studies cited by the commenter address general effects of environmental noise but do not demonstrate that the Project would result in noise levels that exceed applicable standards or cause significant impacts.
Accordingly, the conclusions of the Draft MND remain unchanged, and no revisions to the environmental analysis are required.
Response 4.12
The commenter asserts that the Draft MND’s use of a three (3) dBA increase as a significance threshold for traffic noise is unsupported and that the analysis does not adequately account for the proportion of truck traffic associated with Project operations.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment for the record. The traffic noise analysis in the Draft MND utilized a three (3) dBA increase as a conservative screening threshold to identify potential substantial increases in traffic noise levels. This approach is commonly used in environmental noise analyses and is consistent with guidance used by many agencies to identify perceptible changes in community noise environments. Further, this threshold is considered the minimum change in noise level perceptible to the average human ear (Crocker 2007). The analysis compared existing and Project traffic volumes to determine whether the Project would substantially increase traffic noise levels along nearby roadways. Accordingly, the Draft MND appropriately evaluated potential traffic noise impacts, and the analysis demonstrates that traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are needed.
Response 4.13
The commenter asserts that the Draft MND does not adequately evaluate construction-related noise impacts, including analysis at the nearest sensitive receptors, the use of a fixed construction noise threshold, and the reliance on 8-hour Leq noise levels rather than maximum noise levels.
The construction noise analysis in the Draft MND evaluated representative sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site using standard noise modeling methodologies and applicable city noise standards. As noted in Section 13, Noise, of the Draft MND, the nearest sensitive receptor is over 400-feet away in distance. The receptors analyzed in the Draft MND are representative of the nearest residential areas surrounding the Project Site, and the modeling approach provides a reasonable estimate of potential construction noise exposure. The analysis concluded that construction noise would be temporary in nature and would comply with applicable municipal code requirements governing construction hours and noise levels. As disclosed, construction activities would occur intermittently over the Project’s construction period and would not occur continuously at any specific location across the entire Project Site. The receptors analyzed in the Draft MND are representative of the nearest residential areas surrounding the Project Site, and the modeling approach provides a reasonable estimate of potential construction noise exposure. The use of equivalent noise levels is a commonly accepted methodology for evaluating construction noise under CEQA and is consistent with industry practice and local regulatory standards.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Accordingly, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 4.14
The commenter recommends that the City adopt additional mitigation measures to reduce potential noise impacts associated with Project construction and operation, including installation of acoustical barriers, restrictions on nighttime truck activity, truck routing measures, and the use of electric trucks. The City of Menifee acknowledges the commenter’s recommended measures but does not agree with implementation of these measures. The Draft MND evaluated potential construction and operational noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project and concluded that noise impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable City standards and existing regulations. Because no significant noise impacts were identified, additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the Draft MND are not required under CEQA. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft MND, the Project would not result in significant noise impacts, and no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions are required.
Response 4.15
The commenter asserts that the Draft MND does not adequately evaluate water supply availability for the Proposed Project and raises concerns regarding groundwater conditions and potential climate change impacts.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment. As discussed in the Draft MND, water service for the Project would be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD’s adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) evaluates water supplies and Projected demands under normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions and demonstrates that sufficient supplies are available to serve anticipated growth within its service area. Based on the CalEEMod assumptions in the Draft MND, 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. It should be noted that the Project’s estimated water demand represents a small portion of EMWD’s available supply and is consistent with regional growth Projections evaluated in the UWMP. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 4.16
The commenter urges the city to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project and references potential legal remedies to ensure compliance with CEQA. The commenter also requests that the city maintain and preserve all documents and communications related to the Project that may form part of the administrative record.
The city recognizes the comment and has noted it for the record. The city will continue to maintain Project-related documents in accordance with applicable CEQA requirements. The commenter’s request to be included on the Project notification list has been noted. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment and their previous comments in Responses 4.1 through 4.15.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR, South Coast Air Quality Management District
DATE: November 5, 2025
Response 5.1
The commenter provides a summary of the Proposed Project and surrounding context based on the Draft MND, including the Project location, site characteristics, proposed warehouse development, and construction schedule. The city acknowledges the commenter’s summary of the Project information. The description of the Project provided in the comment letter reflects the information presented in the Draft MND regarding the Project Site, proposed warehouse development, associated improvements, and construction timeline. The comment does not raise a specific concern or request revisions to the environmental analysis. Therefore, no changes to the Project description or environmental analysis in the Draft MND are required.
Response 5.2
The commenter indicates that the CalEEMod operational analysis prepared for the Project assumes an average trip length of approximately 16.4 miles per truck. The commenter states that given the Project’s distance from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the analysis likely underestimates mobile-source emissions by assuming a shorter average trip length that does not reflect potential truck travel to the aforementioned ports. The commenter recommends applying a more conservative assumption for vehicle trip lengths and trip rates.
The comment states that the truck trip length is not appropriate given the proposed Project’s distance from the Ports of Los Angles. This comment has been acknowledged, and the analysis has been revised to utilize truck trip distances based on guidance from SCAQMD’s Rule 2305 Second Staff Report, which recommends the use of a 14.2 mile trip length for class 4-7 trucks (LHDT1/2 and MHDT) and 39.9 miles for class 8 trucks (HHDT). As such, a weighted average truck trip distance of
29.62 miles was utilized based on the assumed fleet mix. Additionally, it should be noted that these trip lengths are based on averages, and not all Project truck trips would be to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many truck trips taking the form of local deliveries and other trips that would be significantly shorter.
Response 5.3
The commenter states that the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology is only applicable for Projects smaller than five acres. The commenter indicates that the use of such methodology is inappropriate for the Project because the Project site size is 17 acres. The commenter states that the use of LST methodology may underestimate localized air quality impacts, and recommends that the Lead Agency conduct site-specific dispersion modeling to accurately assess localized impacts from construction and operational phases of the Project.
According to the SCAQMD’s LST methodology, the use of LSTs is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local public agencies as a lead agency pursuant to CEQA. The City acknowledges the record. The City has accepted SCAQMD’s recommendation to conduct air dispersion modeling in a City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
refined HRA, as indicated in responses 4.7 and 4.8, above. No revisions to the impact conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 5.4
The commenter states that the Project description in the Draft MND does not specify whether the Project would include cold storage. The commenter notes that cold storage warehouses typically utilize trucks with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), which result in higher emissions than unrefrigerated trucks.
The City of Menifee confirmed that the Project would not include allocated warehouse land for cold storage. Therefore, this comment does not require revisions to the air quality analysis. No revisions to the impact conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 5.5
The commenter states that SCAQMD staff have identified a freight railroad adjacent to the Project site. The commenter indicates that the Draft MND should indicate whether transportation by railroad would be utilized for the Project.
The City of Menifee confirms that the Project would not utilize the nearby freight railroads. No revisions to the impact conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 5.6
The commenter states that the Draft MND fails to adequately evaluate potential health risk impacts associated with increased emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) from operation of the Project.
The commenter states that these emissions should be evaluated quantitatively using a Project- specific HRA.
The City acknowledges the comment for the record. As indicated in responses 4.7, 4.8, and 5.3 above, an HRA was prepared by Rincon Consultants (2026) to quantify health impacts from both construction and operation of the Proposed Project. As shown therein, Project construction and operation would not exceed applicable health risk thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Given the results of this refined, quantitative analysis of health risk, it can be concluded that the Project would not result in significant health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. No revisions to the impact conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 5.7
The commenter states that in the event of significant adverse air quality impacts from the Project, feasible mitigation measures should be implemented. The commenter lists several recommended measures pertaining to mobile sources, area sources, and localized risk considerations.
The City acknowledges the comment for the record. However, given the findings of the Draft MND and the subsequent HRA prepared for the Project, air quality impacts would be less than significant and would not necessitate the imposition of mitigation measures.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response 5.8
The commenter requests clarification regarding whether an emergency standby diesel generator would be installed as part of Project operations and recommends that associated emissions be included in the operational air quality and GHG analyses if applicable.
The City of Menifee confirms that the Proposed Project may include portable generators for construction purposes only and included this within its construction related air quality and noise impacts. A generator is not proposed as part of Project operations. No revisions to the impact conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 5.9
The commenter notes that certain stationary or portable equipment associated with the Proposed Project (e.g., emergency generators, fire pumps, or boilers) may require permits from the SCAQMD and recommends that the CEQA document discuss applicable SCAQMD rules and the agency’s potential role as a Responsible Agency.
The city acknowledges that if the Project includes equipment subject to SCAQMD permitting requirements, the Project applicant would be required to obtain the appropriate permits and comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, as applicable. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would occur during Project permitting and operation.
The commenter’s recommendations are noted; however, the environmental analysis presented in the Draft MND adequately evaluates the Project’s potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
Therefore, no revisions to the impact conclusions are required.
Response 5.10
The commenter recommends that the city revise the CEQA analysis to address the comments provided and ensure that sufficient information is included in the Final CEQA document. The commenter also notes the City of Menifee’s responsibilities under CEQA to consider comments received during the public review process and to provide written responses prior to adoption of the Final MND.
The city acknowledges the comment for the record. Consistent with the requirements of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Menifee has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period and has prepared written responses included in this Final MND. Public agencies that submitted comments will be notified of any scheduled public hearings in accordance with CEQA requirements. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 6
COMMENTER: Janki Patel, Local Development Review – Division of Transportation Planning, California Department of Transportation
DATE: November 6, 2025
Response 6.1
The commenter provides a summary of the Proposed Project and notes that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review Branch has reviewed the Draft MND. The commenter also notes that improvements near the SR-74 and Watson Road intersection may require signalization and that the Project would be required to obtain a Caltrans Encroachment Permit.
The City of Menifee acknowledges Caltrans’ review and appreciates the summary and preliminary comments provided. The Project applicant will be required to coordinate with Caltrans regarding any improvements within the State right-of-way and to obtain all necessary permits, including a Caltrans Encroachment Permit, prior to construction of any improvements that may affect State transportation facilities.
The Draft MND evaluated potential transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Project and determined that the Project would not result in significant transportation impacts. Any roadway or intersection improvements required by Caltrans would be addressed through the encroachment permit process and final engineering design. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 6.2
The commenter recommends that the city include a condition of approval requiring installation of a traffic signal at the SR-74 and Watson Road intersection to address potential increases in traffic associated with the Project.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment and appreciates Caltrans’ review of the Project.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project evaluated traffic conditions at the SR-74 and Watson Road intersection and identified potential improvements that may be required to maintain acceptable operating conditions and safety. Any improvements within the State right-of-way, including signalization, would be subject to review and approval by Caltrans through the encroachment permit process.
The Project applicant will be required to coordinate with Caltrans and obtain all necessary approvals prior to construction of improvements affecting State facilities. Implementation of any required improvements would be addressed during final engineering design and permitting. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required because of this comment.
Response 6.3
The commenter provides recommendations related to the Traffic Impact Analysis, including installation of a traffic signal at the SR-74 and Watson Road intersection, use of the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide for VMT screening, evaluation of ramp intersections at I-215 and Ethanac Road, and inclusion of a queuing analysis.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comments and appreciates Caltrans’ review of the Project. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared and attached as an Appendix to the Draft MND for the Proposed Project that evaluated Project-generated traffic and potential impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The analysis determined that the Project would not result in significant transportation impacts. The traffic signal at Watson Road and SR-74 is not required under opening year conditions. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C and signal warrants are not met under opening year conditions. As the city is the lead agency for the Proposed Project, the VMT screening evaluation has been conducted using the city's Guidelines. As detailed in the Draft MND, the Project falls within a low VMT area. Also, the Proposed Project is anticipated to add less than 50 trips to the I-215/Ethanac Road ramps. Therefore, the evaluation of the ramps are not required based on the guidelines.
In addition, a queueing analysis has been prepared to respond to this comment and others and is attached as Appendix C to this Final MND. Nonetheless, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 6.4
The commenter notes that any Project-related work affecting Caltrans facilities must comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. The commenter also states that any work within Caltrans right-of-way would require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit.
The city acknowledges the comment and appreciates Caltrans’ review. The Project will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including ADA accessibility requirements. Bicycle and pedestrian access would be maintained in accordance with applicable traffic control and construction standards during Project construction. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 6.5
The commenter thanks the city for the opportunity to review the Draft MND and provides contact information for the Caltrans Local Development Review Branch for future coordination. The city acknowledges the comment and appreciates Caltrans’ participation in the environmental review process. The contact information provided by the commenter has been noted for future coordination and Project notifications. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 7
COMMENTER: Steven Piepkorn, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance DATE: Unknown
Response 7.1
The commenter summarizes prior comments submitted by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA), including a comment letter dated November 4, 2025, and technical review comments prepared by Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). The commenter asserts that the Draft MND contains deficiencies related to air quality analysis, cumulative impacts, Project description, and alleged Project segmentation.
The city acknowledges the commenter’s concerns and has reviewed the referenced comment letter and technical materials. The issues raised regarding air quality analysis, Project description, cumulative impacts, and Project segmentation are addressed in the responses to comments contained in this Final MND. As discussed in the Draft MND and supporting technical analyses, the Project’s potential environmental impacts were evaluated using accepted methodologies and applicable regulatory thresholds. Accordingly, the city finds that the Draft MND provides an adequate environmental analysis under CEQA. This comment does not necessitate any changes to the environmental analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft MND.
Response 7.2
The commenter provides a summary of environmental burden and vulnerability in the Project region. The commenter argues that the Draft MND insufficiently analyzed the Project’s cumulative impacts with regard to localized air pollutant emissions.
The Draft MND analysis of cumulative air quality impacts is based on the SCAQMD’s established guidelines from their CEQA Air Quality Handbook and the White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. According to these recommendations, individual projects under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in non-attainment if the project exceeds SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds. As shown in Draft MND Section 3, Air Quality, specifically under Impact AQ-2, the construction and operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional thresholds. Additionally, as discussed in responses 4.7 and 4.8 and shown in the HRA prepared for the Project, construction and operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD health risk thresholds for cancer and chronic risk. While the SCAQMD is in the process of reviewing and updating cumulative thresholds, there are no current numeric or qualitative cumulative thresholds adopted for use within the SCAQMD’s jurisdictional area.
Response 7.3
The commenter asserts that the Project has been improperly “piecemealed” into separate environmental documents for site preparation and building construction and contends that the city should have evaluated these activities as a single Project.
The City of Menifee acknowledges the comment but disagrees that the environmental review improperly segments the Project. Please see Response 2.3, above, for more information. No City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 7.4
The commenter asserts that the Proposed Project contributes to a broader pattern of environmental injustice related to the concentration of warehouse and logistics facilities in the region and states that the Draft MND does not adequately analyze cumulative impacts associated with industrial development.
The city acknowledges the commenters’ concerns regarding environmental justice and cumulative development patterns in the region. The Draft MND evaluated the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, using accepted methodologies and applicable regulatory thresholds. The analysis determined that Project-related impacts would be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations.
The Draft MND also includes a cumulative impact analysis that considers the effects of other past, present, and reasonably near future Projects in the surrounding area, consistent with CEQA requirements. Accordingly, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required.
Response 7.5
The commenter asserts that the Project contributes to a pattern of warehouse development in the region that may disproportionately affect nearby communities and contends that the Draft MND does not adequately evaluate cumulative impacts associated with multiple warehouse facilities.
The city acknowledges the commenter’s concerns regarding regional warehouse development and environmental justice considerations. The Draft MND evaluates the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, using accepted methodologies and applicable regulatory thresholds established by agencies such as the SCAQMD. The analysis concluded that the Project’s construction and operational emissions and other environmental effects would be less than significant. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the Draft MND also evaluates cumulative impacts by considering the incremental contribution of the Project together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Projects in the surrounding area. The analysis determined that the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Added, these statements do not demonstrate that the Proposed Project would result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, no revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 7.6
The commenter asserts that the MND underestimates potential health risks and references a technical review prepared by SWAPE, alleging that the air quality analysis uses outdated assumptions and underestimates emissions.
The city acknowledges the comment and has reviewed the referenced technical materials. The air quality and health risk analyses in the Draft MND and Final MND, respectively, were prepared using City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
the CalEEMod model and methodologies consistent with SCAQMD guidance. The analysis evaluated construction and operational emissions and compared them to applicable significance thresholds.
The results demonstrate that Project-related emissions and health risks would remain below applicable thresholds. Issues related to grading activities and Project segmentation are addressed in other responses within this Final MND. Accordingly, the environmental analysis is adequate under CEQA, and no revisions to the conclusions are required.
Response 7.7
The commenter recommends that the Planning Commission reject the Draft MND and require preparation of an EIR. The city acknowledges the comment but disagrees that preparation of an EIR is required. The Draft MND evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with the Project using accepted methodologies and applicable regulatory thresholds. The analysis determined that Project-related impacts would be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulations. No revisions to the environmental analysis or conclusions in the Draft MND are required as a result of this comment.
Response 7.8
The commenter asserts that the Draft MND is flawed and requests that the city prepare and circulate a full EIR for the Proposed Project.
The city acknowledges these concerns. However, the Draft MND determined that potential environmental impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
The environmental analysis was conducted in accordance with the CEQA, applicable guidelines, and accepted technical methodologies. The comment has been noted for the record, and no changes to the Draft MND are required in response to this comment.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 8
COMMENTER: Jackie Vega, Urban Regional Planner I, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
DATE: August 3, 2022
Response 8.1
The commenter states that the Project Site is located within Zone D of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Influence Area and indicates that review by the Airport Land Use Commission is not required because the city has adopted and is consistent with the March Air Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The commenter also notes that no legislative action appears to be proposed as part of the Project.
The City acknowledges this comment and appreciates the clarification. The Project Site is located within Zone D of the March AIA, and the City of Menifee is an ALUCP-consistent jurisdiction authorized to conduct compatibility reviews for Projects within this zone. No legislative actions are proposed as part of the Project. This comment is informational in nature and does not require revisions to the Draft MND.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project Responses to Comments on the Draft MND
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This section of the Final MND contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project City of Menifee
Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 April 2026
Section 3 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
Impact – Biological Resources
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:
o Limiting grading to the minimum area necessary for construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project
o Limiting vegetation disturbance/removal to the maximum extent practicable
o Implementing fiber rolls and sandbags around drainage areas and the site perimeter
o Stockpiling and disposing of demolition debris, concrete, and soil properly o Installation of a stabilized construction entrance/exit and stabilization of disturbed areas
o Proper protections for fueling and maintenance of equipment and vehicles o Managing waste, aggressively controlling litter, and implementing sediment controls
o 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 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 Prior to issuance of grading or
building permits submittal of plans
with measure on plans, collection of
acknowledgement by owner and
notice to contractors; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
o Toxic materials and garbage shall be removed from the work site and safely stored or disposed of at the end of each workday.
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.
Prior to issuance of grading or
building permits submittal of plans
with measure on plans, collection of
acknowledgement by owner and
notice to contractors; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
BIO-3: Pre-Construction Nesting Birds Survey
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 Prior to project approval: verify that
the applicant has conducted surveys
and searches of databases and
records and as needed, identified
methods to avoid impacts to
significant paleontological resources;
measures on plans.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
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.
Impact – Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Human Remains
If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 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 Section 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 Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
During grading/construction: field as
needed, field verify that work is
halted to assess possible resources
and avoidance buffers are
demarcated and enforced; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
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 During grading/construction: field as
needed, field verify that work is
halted to assess possible resources
and avoidance buffers are
demarcated and enforced; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
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 the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non-Disclosure of Reburial Condition. e) 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.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the Proposed 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. The Qualified Professional Prior to project approval: verify that
the applicant has conducted surveys
and searches of databases and
records and as needed, identified
methods to avoid impacts to
significant paleontological resources;
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
Paleontologist shall obtain a written repository agreement for the curation of any fossils discovered during paleontological monitoring prior to the beginning of ground disturbance.
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 (e.g., grading, trenching, drilling) within previously undisturbed sediments. 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. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations. Such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Menifee.
Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material. For vertebrate fossils, the test is usually the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, as multiple five - gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment.
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) measures on plans.
City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
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. In these cases, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help remove the jacket to a safe location.
• 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.
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, scientific significance and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report shall be submitted to the City of Menifee and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution.
Impact – Transportation
TRA-1: Intersection 5: Trumble Road and Ethanac Road Prior to issuance of grading or Applicant for City of Menifee, City of Menifee
Trumble and Watson Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring Phase and
Monitoring Actions1
Implementing
Party
Enforcement
and Monitoring
Entity
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%. building permits submittal of plans
with measure on plans, collection of
acknowledgement by owner and
notice to contractors; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
individual
project
Community
Development
Department
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%.
Prior to issuance of grading or
building permits submittal of plans
with measure on plans, collection of
acknowledgement by owner and
notice to contractors; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
Impact – Tribal Cultural Resources (See Cultural Resources) CUL 1 through CUL-2 Prior to issuance of grading or
building permits submittal of plans
with measure on plans, collection of
acknowledgement by owner and
notice to contractors; subject to
inspection by CDD; enforcement of
violations available through MMC at
City discretion.
Applicant for
individual
project
City of Menifee,
Community
Development
Department
MITIGATION MONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM
Trumble and Watson Warehouse Project City of Menifee
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 March 2026
This page intentionally left blank.